Latin Exercises

[Pacifica]

I almost asked earlier (before R. Seltza posted about the request) but changed my mind.

 

[Bitmap]

Dunno, maybe more usual, but in somnum labi isn't unattested.

PHI Latin Texts - Word Search

latin.packhum.org

PHI Latin Texts - Word Search

latin.packhum.org

Yeah, that too should be fine.

 

[Bitmap]

I didn't understand what he meant by not being able to translate it in the neutrum, either. caelum IS neuter.

 

[Bitmap]

One could ask the OP what they meant by 'by the lord'. I am not volunteering to do it, in case anyone should think this.

I called it child language because it seemed to replace a passive construction with an active, intransitive verb while retaining the structure of the passive.

In other words, I thought it meant "the child is put to sleep by the lord."

 

[Pacifica]

Maybe he meant "as spoken by a person of unspecified gender" (which will be easy since the sentence contains no first-person reference) or maybe he wanted the child's gender to be unspecified.

 

[Pacifica]

In other words, I thought it meant "the child is put to sleep by the lord."

That doesn't seem too unlikely but let's wait for his answer to my questions.

 

[Pacifica]

Oh, I forgot to address Seltza's "child" issue. If we don't mean an infant but an older child, puer is the first option that comes to mind.

 

[Bitmap]

Maybe he meant "as spoken by a person of unspecified gender" (which will be easy since the sentence contains no first-person reference) or maybe he wanted the child's gender to be unspecified.

I don't see how you can conceal the gender of a word in Latin considering that very word carries its gender in itself.
I suppose he was looking for a nomen commune for "child"?! But there doesn't seem to be one for a single child in Latin.

 

[R. Seltza]

Hey @Bitmap, there's a new thread in the English-Latin section called "When all is blood, blood is all". When I first saw this, I immediately thought that the translation would be quando omnes est sanguis, sanguis est omnes.

This is a very literal translation & it seems kinda wordy to me. Is there a more concise & idiomatic way of wording this?

 

[Bitmap]

Hey @Bitmap, there's a new thread in the English-Latin section called "When all is blood, blood is all". When I first saw this, I immediately thought that the translation would be quando omnes est sanguis, sanguis est omnes.

quando means 'when' as a question word ('When will we leave?', 'When were you born', 'He told me when the fleet would arrive'); however, in this sentence, you need 'when' as a conjunction (closer to the meaning 'if') ... so you have to use cum.
'Everything' is usually rendered as the neuter plural omnia (omnes would be understood as 'everybody').
Since omnia is plural and the verb acts in accordance with the subject, you have to use a plural verb when 'all' (omnia) is the subject:
cum omnia sunt sanguis, sanguis est omnia.

This is a very literal translation & it seems kinda wordy to me. Is there a more concise & idiomatic way of wording this?

I don't know ... the whole phrase is rather meaningless to me. It's true that it might sound rather puzzling to a Roman while an English speaker apparently accepts such hollow statements without too much complaint.
I could say something more normal-sounding if I could make sense of the English statement ...

 

[Bitmap]

Maybe this?!
omnia cum ad sanguinem spectarint/pertinuerint, sanguis omnia consumet.
'When all things come down to blood, blood will consume all things.'

better yet might be omnia cum ad sanguinem spectarint/pertinuerint, sanguine consumentur, but that would change the diathesis.

 

[Bitmap]

Callahan is trying to provide help

 

[Callaina]

I don't know ... the whole phrase is rather meaningless to me.

To me as well. Arguably it means more in Latin than in English, though, because of the distinction between singular and plural.

 

[R. Seltza]

Hey guys,

For a while, I've been wondering about something.

The translated meanings for 1st person singular active jussive subjunctive conjugations would be (using the verb "to love"):
Present - May I love
Imperfect - ???
Perfect - ???
Pluperfect - ???

And Passive:
Present - May I be loved
Imperfect - ???
Perfect - ???
Pluperfect - ???

What would the question marks be?
Also, why is there no Future or Future Perfect for subjunctives?

 

[Callaina]

You don't normally order people to do stuff in the past, unless you've come up with a time machine, so as far as I know there are no jussives for the past (except for negative commands, which are formed using ne + the perfect subjunctive; now, whether that still counts as a jussive, I don't know.)

As for the future, I was told that the future is seen as sufficiently uncertain that it doesn't need a subjunctive mood; it's already "subjunctive" enough on its own, as it were.

 

[Pacifica]

You don't normally order people to do stuff in the past, unless you've come up with a time machine, so as far as I know there are no jussives for the past (except for negative commands, which are formed using ne + the perfect subjunctive; now, whether that still counts as a jussive, I don't know.)

I don't know if it's officially called that, but there is something that is at least similar to an imperfect jussive subjunctive. You can say e.g. hoc faceres meaning "You should have done this".

 

[Bitmap]

I don't know if it's officially called that, but there is something that is at least similar to an imperfect jussive subjunctive. You can say e.g. hoc faceres meaning "You should have done this".

It is also called jussive, and it also exists in the pluperfect (though both are rare):
Male etiam Curio, cum causam Transpadanorum aequam esse dicebat, semper autem addebat "vincat utilitas". Potius doceret non esse aequam. (Cic. off. 3,88) [imperfect]
Cum tibi senatus ex aerario pecuniam prompsisset et singulos tibi denarios adnumerasset quos tu pro singulis modiis aratoribus solveres, quid facere debuisti? Si quod L. Piso ille Frugi, qui legem de pecuniis repetundis primus tulit, cum emisses quanti esset, quod superaret pecuniae rettulisses; si ut ambitiosi homines aut benigni, cum pluris senatus aestimasset quam quanti esset annona, ex senatus aestimatione, non ex annonae ratione solvisses; sin, ut plerique faciunt, in quo erat aliqui quaestus, sed is honestus atque concessus, frumentum, quoniam vilius erat, ne emisses, sumpsisses id nummorum quod tibi senatus cellae nomine concesserat. (Cic. Verr. II 3,195) [pluperfect]

I suppose you can also file the subjunctive in ut-clauses under jussive subjunctive (dixit ut amarem/amarer ~ He said I should love / should be loved).

There is no jussive in the perfect tense, only its little brother, the prohibitive: ne amaveris! = Don't love. The perfect tense does not really have a temporal meaning here, though; it marks a punctual aspect (like the Greek aorist in 'Kyrie eleison', 'Lord have mercy', for example).

 

[Pacifica]

It is also called jussive, and it also exists in the pluperfect (though both are rare):

I wasn't under the impression that the imperfect version was rare. But I guess "rare" is a subjective term.

There is no jussive in the perfect tense

There is, but mostly in kind of special uses like when it's used in argumentation to convey an idea much like "even if we assume that's true..." (e.g. if an advocate says occiderit sane hominem: nonne quare occiderit considerandum est? "Let him have killed a man (i.e. even assuming he has killed a man): shouldn't we consider why he killed him?" — this looks technically jussive but is used in a derivative way that's not really a command).

Apart from that, true and totally regular perfect jussive subjunctives would be rare, but, though I don't have any actual example in mind, I can see how they could occur in some specific situations; e.g. "Let that have been done with when I return" = confectum sit cum revertar.

 

[Pacifica]

I also mentioned the videri(n)t construction at first, but it's actually hard to tell whether that's perfect subjunctive or future perfect. While "Let him/them see (for himself/themselves)" is the first translation that comes to my mind, "He/they shall see (for himself/themselves)" makes sense too.

 

[Callaina]

There is, but mostly in kind of special uses like when it's used in argumentation to convey an idea much like "even if we assume that's true..." (e.g. if an advocate says occiderit sane hominem: nonne quare occiderit considerandum est? "Let him have killed a man (i.e. even assuming he has killed a man): shouldn't we consider why he killed him?" — this looks technically jussive but is used in a derivative way that's not really a command).

Wouldn't that rather be classified as concessive?