Idioms

AoM

nulli numeri
hoc habet (Aen. 12.296)

L&S says it's gladiatorial terminology for a wounded fighter (i.e., "he's hit").

Though I guess it's more of a colloquialism.
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
buxo pallidiora Ovid Met IV: 134-5
paler than boxwood
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I'm not sure that's an idiom.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I'm also not sure what's so funny.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
You're infuriating.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
:D
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
I'm not sure that's an idiom.
The note in one of the books I have (Henry T Riley 1889) said that it went on to become an idiom. It does say some other things though that I am not convinced about.
 

meisenimverbis

Civis Illustris
The only one that comes to mind (always) is "lupus in fabula", I'm sure someone must have brought it already (sorry, I haven't read the 18 pages...). For some reason I like this one.
 

AoM

nulli numeri
longe gentium (Fam. 12.22)

"at the end of the world"
 

meisenimverbis

Civis Illustris
cum isto gemino obtūtu (aspexi)
I saw [sth] with my own eyes
Metamorphoses (Apuleius), I, 4

Funny that in Portuguese, we have a saying "este é irmão deste" (this one is the brother of this other one), concerning the eyes, but the meaning is different, it means "I'm very aware of what is going on", in a sense that whatever is going on is not enough to deceive the person who says the saying.

Anyway, I guess it's expected to treat eyes as brothers, specially twins, in the case of the Latin idiom used by Apuleius...
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
The cum there seemed odd, but Apuleius sometimes uses odd constructions, so I checked, and he seems to be innocent here:


No cum, other than the one in the previous word porticum, that is.

Moreover, I'd be wary of calling this phrase an idiom. What makes you think it's an idiom rather than an original phrase coined ad hoc by Apuleius (who, besides, is better known for idiosyncratic than for idiomatic writing)? It sounds a tad too poetic to be likely to be an idiom.
 

meisenimverbis

Civis Illustris
My bad! It was on the page before! Thanks, I'll fix that by editing.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I would say that the corresponding idiomatic expression to Apuleius's more original phrase is oculis meis / meis oculis vidi (or similar verb). This occurs in a few authors (including Apuleius!).
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
Here is an expression from Plautus which I found to be somewhat idiomatic. Amphitruo, 2.1.1 (Amphytryon to Sosia): age ī tū secundum, meaning, in order of descending translational equivalence: "Do thou walk after/following (me)!", "Come, do follow after me!", or most colloquially "Come, follow me!" You wouldn't believe how long it took me to decipher the meaning of this little phrase! It is for this reason, though, that I find reading drama to particularly helpful in learning possible modes of expression...
 
hoc habet (Aen. 12.296)

L&S says it's gladiatorial terminology for a wounded fighter (i.e., "he's hit").

Though I guess it's more of a colloquialism.
I don't think that's quite right: hóc(c) habet with a stressed and deictic hoc is equvialent to hóc est = perāctum est, something like "that's it, that'll do it" in the same one-place construction as bene (sē) habet, male habet (= bene/male est). Just hábet on the other hand, either means "he's had it", as in Russian получи́(л) "have at you!", or it refers to the woman who's caught the man - thus a Loeb. I think Donatus confuses the two when he comments on Terence's line.
 
That's wrong and AoM is actually right with his explanation.
Some elaboration on why Servius is wrong and L&S (it's their explanation) is right will be appreciated. To my mind, the deictic hoc in hoc habet makes that interpretation impossible. In fact, going by the English you'd expect "he has this" to equal "he's winning". Compare against "he's had it" with an obligatory, non-referential dummy pronoun that leaves it to imagination what exactly he's had.
 
Because the passage you linked to confirmed exactly what AoM was saying.
It also confirms what I'm saying right after that, so that doesn't do much to decide which is wrong and which is not. This edition of Servius' commentary says in the preface that Donatus served as one of his main sources, so that could explain the "vulnere" thing in both. My contention was that "perāctum est", as here and here, is the primary meaning of hoc habet, and "mortuus est" is tranferred from this. I'm not so sure about the opposite transfer, unless you mean that these are two separate and unrelated expressions. I can see how the hoc can refer to the latest or the following mortal blow. It can even be that "perāctum est" interpretation is spurious. In that case the two Plautine examples should be interpreted differently - here a Loeb introduces person switch. In any case, I seem to be giving the elaborations that I wanted to receive.
 
Last edited:

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I seem to be giving the elaborations that I wanted to receive.
I'm sure you do, but I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. hoc habet was a colloquial term used among spectators in the arena when somebody was hit, and your reference even confirmed that. The connotation "it's over" when somebody has received a lethal wound is rather obvious, but that's all both AoM and your source were saying.
 
Top