Locus carminum vel aliorum Latine vertendorum

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

“Echum” accusativus verbi “echo” est (credo). Verbum originis graecae est, sed hoc scis.




Ita est.
Let it snow : I hope that that it might snow: ningat ( ?)
Let me win [the battle]: I hope that I might win: vincam
Sed “let me wash your hair”: non est “I hope that I might wash your hair”: non spes est! Loquitur amicae suae. Non dicit “lavem” sed “sine me crines tuos lavem”. Sed ut dixi, fortius est. Igitur “lavabo”.

!!!Ut opinor!!!!
"Lavabo" est futurum tempus, "I will wash", nil aliud... "Let me", inquam, plerumque subiunctivo redditur, aut "sine me". Subiunctivus non solum significat "I hope that...", sensus (et diversitas sensuum) subtilior est, et nonnumquam similis huius "let".
Hoc non intellego. Dicisne cum subiunctivo solo sententiam esse parilem sententiae quae cum infinitivo accusativo utitur? An te improprie intellexi...?
Hoc Anglicum "let..." geminum sensum habet. Aliquando "let" dicis cum aliquem rogare vis ut aliquid fieri sinat; tum Latine imperativo verbi "sinendi" vel "permittendi" vel similis uteris; dices "sine me/illum/illos hoc facere", "sine (ut) hoc faciam/faciat", "permitte me/illum... hoc facere". Alias autem cum "let" dicis, quamvis forma imperativus sit, eo dicendo non revera aliquem rogas ut aliquid sinat. Cum "let it snow" cui dicis, num revera ei iubes "allow it to snow"? Non credo! Vis ut ningat, neque alicui imperas ut nix cadere sinat. Tum non "sine ningere" dices, nam Latine ridiculum sit; sed subiunctivo uteris "ningat".
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Sic, istud nunc intellego, sed hoc* non est parile huic**.

*Ningat

**Spero ningere

Modo putabam eum dicere duas sententias esse parilis...
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Sic, istud nunc intellego, sed hoc* non est parile huic**.

*Ningat

**Spero ningere

Modo putabam eum dicere duas sententias esse parilis...
Oh! Istud est quid dicere velles! Consentio: non omnino idem significant. :)

Ignosce, non bene intellexeram quid rogavisses. Credebam te non intellegere cur "let it snow" non accusativo cum infinitivo redderetur ut "sine ningere" sed subiunctivo modo.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Ignota es! :)
 

limetrees

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Let there be light = fiat lux = hortativus/jussus
Let me win = vincam = hortativus (ad me ipsum)
Let us adore him = adoremus = hortativus (ad nos ipsos)
May you be happy = Spes = sis felix
That I may (some day) wash your hair = spes = crines tuos lavem

Let you wash my hair = hortativus/jussus = laves crines meos OK (aut "lava crines meos!" Imperativus)
sed
Let me wash your hair non est hortativus/jussus/spes
Permissum petit => allow me to wash your hair

Let me take car of your car; let us do the work for you = allow me / allow us

"Lavabo" fututum tempus simplex esse scio, sed optionem:pirate-plank: habeo "sine me eos lavem" aut "lavabo". "Lavabo" non reddit accurate "let me wash" sed ...:innocent:

(Let me take care of your car/do the work etc.: haec quoque forsitan futuro reddere possumus???)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Ignota es! :)
:D Istud significat "you are unknown..." sed intellego te dicere velle "you are forgiven": verbum de verbo dici non potest, nam "to forgive someone" "alicui ignoscere" dicitur, non "aliquem ignoscere"; ergo dicere debuisti "tibi ignosco" vel "tibi ignotum est". Gratias. :)
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

:D Istud significat "you are unknown..." sed intellego te dicere velle "you are forgiven": verbum de verbo dici non potest, nam "to forgive someone" "alicui ignoscere" dicitur, non "aliquem ignoscere"; ergo dicere debuisti "tibi ignosco" vel "tibi ignotum est". Gratias. :)
Oopsies. Libenter!

"Lavabo" fututum tempus simplex esse scio, sed optionem:pirate-plank: habeo "sine me eos lavem" aut "lavabo".
"Sine" et subiunctivo numquam una vidi, idem enim bis dicasne? Forsan dici "sine crines lavere" potest, sed nescio...
 

limetrees

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

"Sine" et subiunctivo numquam una vidi, idem enim bis dicasne? Forsan dici "sine crines lavere" potest, sed nescio...

Non omnino intelligo. “Sine + subjunctivum” numquam vidisti?
Secundum glossarium meum: Sine sciam: let me know; sine veniat, let him come.
Et “sine + accusativus + infintivus”. Nos Translapinas gentes oleam et vitem serere non sinimus.

Par fuerat fors « Sine eos lavem » (sine verbo “me” – ambiguitatem verbi "sine" ignoscas (subjunctivus optativus! Ignoscas mihi!)) .
Aut "sine me eos lavare".

De quaestione de membro “sine+accusativus+subjunctivus”, forse dici potest, sed credo me sententia in glossario « sine me expurgem » ("permit me to excuse myself") confusum fuisse.

Vale.



 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Hm. Ita, cum subiunctinvo "sine" numquam vidi, sed ob rationes quas dixisti puto scribi posse... Gratias tibi ago.
 

limetrees

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Ecce poema Ezra Pound Latine conversum, sed poema ut id reminiscor ego, et non ut est in veritate, ut inveni cum exemplar transcribabile in rete petebam.

1. Ut est Anglice in veritate
And the days are not full enough
And the nights are not full enough
And life slips by like a field mouse
Not shaking the grass

2. Et poema Anglice ut id recordatus sum

And the days are not long enough
And the nights are not long enough
And life slips by like a field mouse
Barely shaking the grass

3. Et poema recordatum Latine conversum
Satis lungi non sunt dies,
satis longae non sunt noctes,
et vita furtim praetermeat instar muris agrestis
herbam vix tremefacientis.

4. Sed quaestio est (mihi saltem) an participio ita uti possim : subtantivum suum “muris” sequitur et “herbam” objectivum suum est, sed possumne eo ita utor ?
(Perhaps the link in Latin between participle and noun makes impossible the break between mouse and shaking which the English has.)

5. Alternatio: “Vita furtim praetermeat instar muris agrestis qui herbam vix tremefacit”

Replies in English also gladly accepted.

Gratias vobis.

Limetrees
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Ecce poema Ezra Pound Latine conversum, sed poema ut id reminiscor ego, et non ut est in veritate, ut inveni cum exemplar transcribabile in rete petebam quaesissem.
4. Sed quaestio est (mihi saltem) an participio ita uti possim : eius (hic id pono tantum ad ambiguitatem vitandam, ne videatur adiectivum huius "muris" esse cum pronomen sit pro "participio") subtantivum suum (adiectivo reciproco ("reflexive") hic uti non oportet, nam hoc "participio", cuius "substantivum" est, subiectum sententiae non est) “muris” sequitur et “herbam” objectivum suum illius est, sed possumne eo ita uti ?
(Perhaps the link in Latin between participle and noun makes impossible the break between mouse and shaking which the English has.)
Potes! There's nothing wrong with such a use of the participle. :)
5. Alternatio: “Vita furtim praetermeat instar muris agrestis qui herbam vix tremefacit”
Rectum quoque est quidem, sed versionem cum participio malo. Elegantior est, mea sententia.
 

limetrees

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Carissima (in veritate!) Pacis Puellae.
Gratias tibi, ut semper, quamvis fatendum sit explicationem tuam tantum difficilius intelectam esse. Nonnumquam opinor grammaticam in lingua vulgata explicare excutereque melius fuisse.


Ad questionem usus participiorum: lego hodie New Latin Syntax de Woodcock, et participua latina videntur saepe adverbiales esse; igitur comma anglicum “fieldmouse – barely shaking” participuo latino recte reddere possum.


(Quomodo nomine anglice indeclinabile redditur possessio?: “New Latin Syntax ab Woodcock scriptus”? )



 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Carissima (in veritate!) Pacis Puellae.
Gratias tibi, ut semper, quamvis fatendum sit explicationem tuam tantum difficilius intelectam difficiliorem intellectu esse. Nonnumquam opinor grammaticam in lingua vulgata explicare excutereque melius fuisse.
Agreed. I did most of it in Latin because we're in "speak Latin", but well, it's true that it's easier both to explain and to understand explanations in English. So, what I meant here:

4. Sed quaestio est (mihi saltem) an participio ita uti possim : eius (hic id pono tantum ad ambiguitatem vitandam, ne videatur adiectivum huius "muris" esse cum pronomen sit pro "participio") subtantivum suum (adiectivo reciproco ("reflexive") hic uti non oportet, nam hoc "participio", cuius "substantivum" est, subiectum sententiae non est) “muris...

Substantivum suum: you shouldn't use the reflexive suum there, because the "owner" of the substantive, that is participio in the previous sentence, is not the subject of the the sentence substantivum suum "muris" sequitur.

The reflexive possessive adjectives suus, a, um and the reflexive pronouns se, sibi are used, first, when directly referring to the subject of the clause they are in:

Puer cani suo aquam dat = the boy gives water to his (own) dog; the reflexive is used because the owner of the dog, puer, is the subject of the sentence. If it was "his dog" not as the boy's dog, but someone else's dog, you wouldn't say suo, but the genitive of a demonstrative, like eius or illius: puer cum amico loquitur et cani eius aquam dat = the boy is talking with his friend and gives water to his (= the friend's) dog.

Puer ad puteum it ut aquam hauriat, nam canis eius sitit = the boy goes to the well to draw water, for his dog is thirsty: here you don't use the reflexive, because the owner of the dog, puer, is not the subject of the clause canis eius sitit, it's canis.

However there are cases where the reflexive is used while not referring directly to the subject of the very clause it is in, but to the subject of the clause on which it depends; those cases are when the clause depends on indirect speech, verbs of saying, ordering, wishing, saying, feeling, and purpose clauses.

Puer cani suo aquam dari vult = the boy wants water to be given to his dog: puer is not the subject of the clause (acc-inf) in which suo is (the subject is aquam), but it is that of the verb on which that clause depends, vult.

Puer canem suum sitire ait = the boy says his dog is thirsty: same thing here, puer is not the subject of the clause suum is in, but it's that of the verb on which that acc-inf clause depends, ait.

Puer aquam haurit ut canis suus bibat = the boy draws water so that his dog may drink: puer is not the subject of the clause canis suus bibat, but this clause is a purpose clause depending on the clause in which puer is subject.

On the whole, the reflexive is used without referring directly to the subject of the clause it is in when this clause depends on a verb which in some way introduces something coming from the thought of the subject; if it's something they say, order, feel, aim at...

There can be some exceptions, but these are the principal rules.

In your sentence, there's nothing of all that: that's why the demonstrative in genitive was needed and not the reflexive possessive. :)

When correcting your sentence, I didn't just replace suum by eius while leaving it at the same place, but I put it before substantivum, to avoid amibiguity, because seeing that the next word muris was a genitive, eius could have been interpreted as going with it, and a change of word order hinted more to the right interpretation that eius was a pronoun representing participio, and not an adjective in agreement with muris.
(Quomodo nomine anglice indeclinabile redditur possessio?: “New Latin Syntax ab Woodcock scriptus”? )
Mmm, yes. De Woodcock can do too, I think, it just has a late Latin flavour. But scriptum, unless you say liber.
 

limetrees

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Substantivum suum: you shouldn't use the reflexive suum there, because the "owner" of the substantive, that is participio in the previous sentence, is not the subject of the the sentence substantivum suum "muris" sequitur.

But it is the subject of it: it’s understood.

... an participio ita uti possim : [participium (i.e. tremefacientis)] subtantivum suum “muris” sequitur et “herbam” objectivum suum est.
i.e ... if I can use a participle this way: it [the participle] agrees with its substantive, muris, and “herbam" is its object.
In this last clause “herbam” is the subject of the clause, but I think it would be clear that the reference is still to “participium”


Or how are you understanding it? Am I completely confusing the issue?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Oh, sorry then, it's me who misunderstood. I thought substantivum was the subject. I was not attentive enough, probably.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Haec est una pars carminis quod puerulis saepe canitur...

Anglice:

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine
You make me happy, when skies are gray
You'll never know, dear, how much I love you
Please don't take my sunshine away

The other night, dear, as I lay sleeping
I dreamt I held you in my arms
When I awoke, dear, I was mistaken
And I held my head and cried.

Latine (modum quo carmen versi):

Tu mea lux es, mea sola lux
Me laetum facis, cum caeli cineracei sunt
Numquam scies, cara, quantum te amem
Quaeso noli a me lucem rapere

Alia nocte, cara, cum dormiens cubarem
Somniabam me in brachiis te tenere
Ubi experrectus, cara, falsus eram
Et meum caput tenui flevique.

-----------
Quaeso ulla menda mihi demonstra.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Altera (?) nox
It should be an ablative of time. Maybe alia rather than altera, because there have been more than two nights.
Ubi surrexi (?)
Surgere is to get up rather than to awake. Ubi experrectus (sum). You can leave sum implied, because it would fit the rythm better without it.
frustrum fui
There's no adjective frustrus, I think... Even if there were one it should have been in masc. nom. I'd say falsus eram.

For some reason, caelum is neuter in singular, but generally masculine in plural.

There rest, good!!
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

It should be an ablative of time. Maybe alia rather than altera, because there have been more than two nights.
:brickwall2: I realized this seconds after I posted...

Surgere is to get up rather than to awake. Ubi experrectus (sum). You can leave sum implied, because it would fit the rythm better without it.
Thanks!

There's no adjective frustrus, I think... Even if there were one it should have been in masc. nom. I'd say falsus eram.
Whoops. I must have been thinking of frustra or something. Dunno.

For some reason, caelum is neuter in singular, but generally masculine in plural.
Didn't know this. ;)


Thanks for the corrections as always! :)
 

Kosmokrator

Active Member

Praepetibus pinnis sublime per aera vectus
Vulpius excelsos scandit adusque polos
Aethera caeruleum rapidis super evolat alis
et conclave petit, quam colit ille, deae
Innumerae coram sese properanter euntem
Qua patet usque polus pone sequuntur aves
 

limetrees

Civis Illustris

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Carmen ab Nina Simone famosum factum, sed hic bene cantatum, ut opinor.
id Latine redidi pro exercitatione grammatica!



Nullam domum habeo, nullos calceos, nullam pecuniam, nullam urbanitatem, nullos liberos, nullum odorem, nullam potionem, neminem patrem, nullam animi culturam, nullos amicos, nullam eruditionem, nullum amorem, nullum nomen, neminem deum habeo.

Sed aliquid est quod habeo, aliquid :
habeo capillum, caput, cerebrum, aures, oculos, nasum, os, risum, linguam, mentum, collum, mammas, cor, animam, tergum, genitalia, bracchia, manus, digitos, femora, pedes digitosque, jecur, sanguinem.
Habeo vitam, musicam, chorum, amicos.
 
Top