Obscure Entity
- Thread starter broken
- Start date
This is what I came up with:
Entitas Obscuras (Dark Entity)
Metallum Concitatricium (Metal which stimulates/excites)
Cupidus (Passionate One)
Aestus, Cupiditas, Libido (Passion, in order Agitation, Enthusiasm, Desire)
Sancta Ira (Saint Anger, which is more like Saintly Wrath)
Qui non ignoscitur est (He who is not forgiven)
Any corrections would be great, particularly in the second translation. I got for stimulating Concitatricis, but obviously I tried to match it up considering gender, number and case. Is Concitatricium possible?
Entitas Obscuras (Dark Entity)
Metallum Concitatricium (Metal which stimulates/excites)
Cupidus (Passionate One)
Aestus, Cupiditas, Libido (Passion, in order Agitation, Enthusiasm, Desire)
Sancta Ira (Saint Anger, which is more like Saintly Wrath)
Qui non ignoscitur est (He who is not forgiven)
Any corrections would be great, particularly in the second translation. I got for stimulating Concitatricis, but obviously I tried to match it up considering gender, number and case. Is Concitatricium possible?
Entitas Obscura; -tas is a third declension nominative singular feminine ending.
Cupido (Both the word "Cupid" and the generalized word for desire) is more accurate than Cupiditas.
And the last one is either Qui non ignoscitur (he who is not [being] forgiven) Qui non ignoscitus (est) (he who has not been forgiven) or simply Non Ignoscitus (The Unforgiven One)
Concitatricis is a 3rd declension adjective, which simply stays the same when going to a nominative or accusative singular neuter noun.
Cupido (Both the word "Cupid" and the generalized word for desire) is more accurate than Cupiditas.
And the last one is either Qui non ignoscitur (he who is not [being] forgiven) Qui non ignoscitus (est) (he who has not been forgiven) or simply Non Ignoscitus (The Unforgiven One)
Concitatricis is a 3rd declension adjective, which simply stays the same when going to a nominative or accusative singular neuter noun.
1. Well, Iynx has goofed again. I was at work when I posted entium obscurum, without access to a good dictionary. I remembered various formulations of Occam's Razor along the lines of
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (or sine necessitate)
and assumed that entia must be the nominative plural of a noun entium (it couldn't be the plural of ens, because the plural of ens, entis should be enta-- it shouldn't be an i-stem). Could ens be a participle? Nah, not of sum, at least.
But it appears there is no such word as entium
.
I have exhausted my resources. Of what word is entia the plural? Is ens an i-stem after all?
2. I also cannot find entitas attested anywhere---?
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (or sine necessitate)
and assumed that entia must be the nominative plural of a noun entium (it couldn't be the plural of ens, because the plural of ens, entis should be enta-- it shouldn't be an i-stem). Could ens be a participle? Nah, not of sum, at least.
But it appears there is no such word as entium
.I have exhausted my resources. Of what word is entia the plural? Is ens an i-stem after all?
2. I also cannot find entitas attested anywhere---?
Thank you guys for the replies!
So what is the right translation for obscure entity? Entium obscurum or Entitas Obscuras or Entitas Obscura?
Concitatricium or Concitatricis?
Sorry if I'm bothering you guys again. I'm really confused. I wish I could be good as you someday.
So what is the right translation for obscure entity? Entium obscurum or Entitas Obscuras or Entitas Obscura?
Concitatricium or Concitatricis?
Sorry if I'm bothering you guys again. I'm really confused. I wish I could be good as you someday.
And why couldn't entitas be the -tas form (I don't know if this is what it's actually called, but you know what I mean) of ens?
Wait...that wouldn't make any sense. Ens and entitas are effectively the same (since ens is used almost as a gerund, as I said before).
Wait...that wouldn't make any sense. Ens and entitas are effectively the same (since ens is used almost as a gerund, as I said before).
Thank you qmf, that helped.
Multiple texts that I respect very highly have unhelpful dashes where one might expect to find pariciples of sum; but I find this in Allen-&-Greenough (Section 170):
"The present participle [of sum] which would regularly be sons, appears in the adjective insons, innocent, and in a modified form in absens, praesens. The simple form is sometimes found in late or philosophical Latin as a participle or abstract noun, in the forms ens, being; entia, 'things which are'."
If we take it to be a present participle, that of course explains the -ia in the neuter plural, and the -e in the ablative singular, as in Aquinas' De Ente et Essentia.
Sorry to be confusing, Broken. Let me try to explain:
1. I knew there was a word, ens, which means "being", in the abstract; for one thing it occurs in the title of a work by Thomas Aquinas.
2. I knew there was a word, entia, a plural noun, meaning "entities"; for one thing it occurs in a number of formulations of a philosophical and scientific principal called Occam's Razor.
3. I did not know that these were singular and plural versions of the same word; in fact I "knew" they weren't, since the nominative plural of a neuter noun ens, entis ought not, by the rules, to be entia, but enta.
4. If, however, ens were a present active participle (rather than a noun), its neuter nominative plural would indeed be entia. And despite the fact that multiple authorities say in effect that sum has no present active participle, qmf and Allen-&-Greenough both tell us that in fact it does, and that it's ens!
5. So ens and entia are singular and plural of the same word. Entia, the plural, means "entities". The singular, ens, usually means "being" or "existence" in the abstract. Can it mean "entity" ? According to Lewis-&-Short (a respected dictionary) it can; in fact they define it as "thing".
Therefore, in my opinion, "obscure entity" might best be given as
Ens obscurum.
I would like to thank you, Broken, for raising this question, and you, qmf, for helping to answer it; I learned a great deal from a "simple" two-word translation.
Multiple texts that I respect very highly have unhelpful dashes where one might expect to find pariciples of sum; but I find this in Allen-&-Greenough (Section 170):
"The present participle [of sum] which would regularly be sons, appears in the adjective insons, innocent, and in a modified form in absens, praesens. The simple form is sometimes found in late or philosophical Latin as a participle or abstract noun, in the forms ens, being; entia, 'things which are'."
If we take it to be a present participle, that of course explains the -ia in the neuter plural, and the -e in the ablative singular, as in Aquinas' De Ente et Essentia.
Sorry to be confusing, Broken. Let me try to explain:
1. I knew there was a word, ens, which means "being", in the abstract; for one thing it occurs in the title of a work by Thomas Aquinas.
2. I knew there was a word, entia, a plural noun, meaning "entities"; for one thing it occurs in a number of formulations of a philosophical and scientific principal called Occam's Razor.
3. I did not know that these were singular and plural versions of the same word; in fact I "knew" they weren't, since the nominative plural of a neuter noun ens, entis ought not, by the rules, to be entia, but enta.
4. If, however, ens were a present active participle (rather than a noun), its neuter nominative plural would indeed be entia. And despite the fact that multiple authorities say in effect that sum has no present active participle, qmf and Allen-&-Greenough both tell us that in fact it does, and that it's ens!
5. So ens and entia are singular and plural of the same word. Entia, the plural, means "entities". The singular, ens, usually means "being" or "existence" in the abstract. Can it mean "entity" ? According to Lewis-&-Short (a respected dictionary) it can; in fact they define it as "thing".
Therefore, in my opinion, "obscure entity" might best be given as
Ens obscurum.
I would like to thank you, Broken, for raising this question, and you, qmf, for helping to answer it; I learned a great deal from a "simple" two-word translation.
And the question about concitatrix is interesting too.
Why not use the present participle of concito, that is concitans?
That would give us metallum concitans, "stimulating metal".
Concitatrix can be a feminine noun ("she who stimulates") or an adjcective; both usages are rare. I believe that as an adjective, the word is of one ending, which would make our nominative singular metallum concitatrix; I think I like the participle, concitans, better.
Why not use the present participle of concito, that is concitans?
That would give us metallum concitans, "stimulating metal".
Concitatrix can be a feminine noun ("she who stimulates") or an adjcective; both usages are rare. I believe that as an adjective, the word is of one ending, which would make our nominative singular metallum concitatrix; I think I like the participle, concitans, better.
With the x included I now see that the word Andy was proposing (which, for some reason, didn't look right to me at first, even though I didn't know it) does not in fact exist, and that the present participle of concito is the most proper.