This is the beginning, my friends, let us celebrate with arousing ladies

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

"This is the beginning, my friends, let us celebrate with arousing ladies and well-hung gents in grand feasts. What? The Ivernians don't approve? So be it. Let them hate, so long as they love."

"In Hythnia, men will wail at your feet while boys draw concealed swords from beneath their clothes. In Hythnia, what appears is precisely what is made to appear."


("Hoc est initium, amicos meum, nunc est celebrandum per titīllatum dominæ et domini virilis in dapes grandum. Quid? Iverniæ(Ivernii) non gustāre? Fiat. Oderint dum amorant."

"In Hythniæ, viri ulularūm votros pedes sur et pueri ensis gladii sub sus vestarii. In Hythniæ, quid est demonstrandum esse ipsum factum.")

 

[Callaina]

What is this for?

 

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

A book I've written.

 

[Callaina]

"This is the beginning, my friends, let us celebrate with arousing ladies and well-hung gents in grand feasts.

Hoc, amici, initium est. Grandibus conviviis una iucundis* cum puellis virilissimisque dominis comissemur.

(Dapibus is also a possibility, rather than conviviis.)

*I've taken "arousing" in a general sense: i.e. "delightful/pleasing". If you mean specifically "sexually arousing", we'll need a different word (I'm not actually sure what term the Romans used for this).

What? The Ivernians don't approve? So be it. Let them hate, so long as they love."

Quid? Non approbant Ivernii**? Ita sit. Oderint, dum ament.


**An invented Latinization of "Ivernians".

I'll do the rest in the next reply.

 

[Callaina]

"In Hythnia, men will wail at your feet while boys draw concealed swords from beneath their clothes. In Hythnia, what appears is precisely what is made to appear."

Hythniae viris ad pedes tuos ululantibus pueri celatos gladios ex vestimentis stringant. Hythniae videtur prorsus quod videri coactum est.



Wait around for others' opinions, please (particularly on that last one).

 

[Callaina]

Tagging Pacifica and Dantius in particular (since they're both online ).

 

[Pacifica]

Hoc, amici, initium est. Grandibus conviviis una iucundis* cum puellis virilissimisque dominis comissemur.

Grandibus: this means "(very) big, huge", but I think "grand" here means something more like "magnificent". Magnificis might be a better fit.

"Ladies" and "gents" would be better as feminis and viris, I think.

Virilissimis could mean "very manly" in a number of ways, not necessarily to do with the size of one's genitals. What about bene mentulatis?

*I've taken "arousing" in a general sense: i.e. "delightful/pleasing". If you mean specifically "sexually arousing", we'll need a different word (I'm not actually sure what term the Romans used for this).

I do think it's more likely to be meant as "sexually arousing". However, I'm not sure how to express that idea concisely.

Ita sit.

I think sit alone or esto would be more usual.

tuos

Or vestros. We don't know. AdvocatusDiaboli, is the "In Hythnia" bit addressed to one person or several?

stringant

Stringent.

videtur prorsus quod videri coactum est.

... id prorsus videtur... would be clearer. It would possibly also be better to replace videtur and videri with cernitur and cerni.

I'm on the fence about that use of the verb cogo. Is this really about forcing/compelling things to appear (as if the things were reluctant to appear in the first place), or is it rather about making things appear/causing things to appear in a more neutral way, like choosing that such or such thing should appear?

 

[Pacifica]

Actually, in that last bit, ipsum instead of prorsus could remove some ambiguity as well (because prorsus could be taken to go with the verb).

 

[Callaina]

Grandibus: this means "(very) big, huge", but I think "grand" here means something more like "magnificent". Magnificis might be a better fit.

"Ladies" and "gents" would be better as feminis and viris, I think.

Virilissimis could mean "very manly" in a number of ways, not necessarily to do with the size of one's genitals. What about bene mentulatis?

Yes, that's much better (particularly the last ).

Stringent.

I took the "your feet" to be a general sort of "you" and therefore requiring the subjunctive (I don't think "will" is meant quite as future here ("When you go to Hynthia, such-and-such will happen") but rather as a general statement ("In Hynthia, such-and-such happens to whoever is there")).

I'm on the fence about that use of the verb cogo. Is this really about forcing/compelling things to appear (as if the things were reluctant to appear in the first place), or is it rather about making things appear/causing things to appear in a more neutral way, like choosing that such or such thing should appear?

Yeah, it's ambiguous to say the least (also, whether it means more "what things appear are exactly those things that are made to appear", or "how things appear (i.e. how events/circumstances appear in general) are exactly how they are made to appear".)

 

[Pacifica]

I took the "your feet" to be a general sort of "you" and therefore requiring the subjunctive

It would require the subjunctive only if the general "you" were the subject.

(I don't think "will" is meant quite as future here ("When you go to Hynthia, such-and-such will happen") but rather as a general statement ("In Hynthia, such-and-such happens to whoever is there")).

Yes, that's possible. We can't be sure without knowing the context, though. AdvocatusDiaboli should tell us more. If you're right, the present indicative is probably the best fit (or, alternatively, a construction with solere), and it might be better to remove tuos altogether.

Yeah, it's ambiguous to say the least (also, whether it means more "what things appear are exactly those things that are made to appear", or "how things appear (i.e. how events/circumstances appear in general) are exactly how they are made to appear".)

I guess we need some clarification from the OP here too.

 

[Callaina]

It would require the subjunctive only if the general "you" were the subject.

Why is that? Not doubting you, it just seems illogical.

 

[Pacifica]

I don't know.

 

[Pacifica]

To be honest, a potential subjunctive may be possible there, but somehow neither the subjunctive nor the indicative feel quite ideal with a general tuos in this sentence. If it's general, I think the most idiomatic way to put it is without a possessive (and with an indicative verb).

 

[Pacifica]

As for the "arousing ladies" in the sense of "sexually arousing", I really can't think of any equivalent Latin adjective. I'm afraid we may have to resort to a relative clause and say something like feminis quae pruriginem incitent.

 

[Callaina]

If it's general, I think the most idiomatic way to put it is without a possessive

Though that makes it a bit ambiguous: are the men wailing at their own feet, or someone else?

 

[Pacifica]

Though that makes it a bit ambiguous: are the men wailing at their own feet, or someone else?

I don't think it's quite possible to take it as their own feet, because what would that mean?

 

[Callaina]

It would be possible in English (just like, say, a baby can wail at its mother). But perhaps ad can't quite be used that way in Latin?

 

[Pacifica]

Ah, you meant "wail at" in that sense! Ad can be used that way in Latin (though maybe not as commonly as in English) but it's rather unlikely with feet...

 

[Callaina]

Yes, not likely, but then we're describing a foreign country with strange, even bizarre customs, so...

 

[Pacifica]

I think that, even under these circumstances, it's a very, very far-fetched interpretation, given how common a phrase ad pedes is with the local meaning of "at (one's) feet". Now if you must include a possessive, I suppose you can say cuiusque.