By Abcormal, in 'English to Latin Translation', Oct 11, 2019.
It makes sense to elide 'de' because it was elided in classical Latin already.
Do we know that it was always elided, even in prose?
Even if so, it was written in full back then and it apparently sometimes still was in OF. In addition to the passage already quoted by Abcormal: https://www.google.be/search?hl=en&...-qQKHVDWAukQvgUIKCgB&biw=1138&bih=545&dpr=1.2
The same elision rules that apply for the scansion of poetry also apply for scanning prose.
I thought that was a matter of some controversy.
I haven't heard of any controversy in that regard. Where did you read that?
I don't exactly remember. Just in some forum conversations, I think.
I'd like to add that Wiktionary, in both the English and French pages for "d'", state that the elision (at least in text) is optional, so that "de aler" and "d'aler" are both valid forms.
However, there is evidence of elision in speech (or at least in prose) in the ninth-century Oaths of Strasbourg: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/gallica/Chronologie/09siecle/Serments/ser_text.html
Hmm ... ok ... the wiki article on Cicero's clausulae takes elisions for granted ... it also elides de in one example there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausula_(rhetoric)
Which are? Please elaborate.
Well, to put it in a simple formula:
if vowel 1 (+m) meets (h+) vowel 2, vowel 1 gets elided.
e.g. frustra esse = frustr'esse
vocem audire = voc'audire
tecta habere = tect'(h)abere
monstrum horret = monstr'(h)orret
es and est are exceptions. There, the e gets elided:
bos formosa est = bos fromosa'st
templum es = templum's
Oh! The Song of Roland's ambdui vus en taisez. Yes, that would be a better choice.
I am surprised I didn't know about all these unelided de prepositions. The more you know.
I know, right? I'll use "de Engleterre", it seems more "authentic" that way, if you will. Oh, and the "Leis de Willelme" was actually written in the 12th century, sorry for the typo ^^;
Sorry for getting back to this so late, but I suppose I won't confuse the OP by this at least.
So, in a word to word translation, you're, of course, absolutely correct that it translates this and that way, but I would argue that from the point of phraseology/lexicology the Latin strongly preferred the phrase "King of [People-of-the-nation_gen-pl]" where modern languages say "King of [Country]". From that point, it would be more correct to translate "King of [Country]" or "King of [Country_adjective]" as "King of [People-of-the-nation_gen-pl]". Of the top of my head: Persārum Rēx and Rēx Persārum - very frequent (more than few examples), while all other mutations (Rex Persiae, Rex Persicus are virtually if not absolutely non-exstant...)
So, just as a lexicological note...
I know that the Ancients thought more in terms of peoples and had less of a concept of nations and national borders.
I'd say it's a different matter when translating modern concepts, though. Abcormal has already said that the attested term for that time was rex Anglorum (which also made sense), so there seems to be no debate.
I would be a bit more reluctant to chose the name of the people rather than the country when it comes to more modern emperors ... for example, I wouldn't call the last German emperor 'emperor of the Germans', and I wouldn't call the last Austrian emperor 'emperor of the Austrians' ... I would call the Belgian king 'king of the Belgians', though ... mainly because that's his title
I see, well those are interesting questions Maybe we should research how those mentioned were really titled in their age (let's say 18th century)
Our Latin forum is a community for discussion of all topics relating to Latin language, ancient and medieval world.
Separate names with a comma.