Quomodo efficienter mactare tempum?

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus
Judaeos vero alteram agno mactando & comedendo impendisse.
"the Jews specifically being devoted through a lamb by sacrificing & eating another"
'[Therefore it seems that Christ devoted the first evening], but the Jews devoted the second [evening] to sacrificing and eating the lamb...'
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus
Sure:
2.: Out of the prescribed laws:
a.Within the space of one day. That the Jews then in their own time - "ausu" "Paschatos" (Easter people?) - may have delayed the feast on the Sabbath [...]
Paschatos looks to be the genitive, in Greek form, of Pascha 'the Passover' (translating Pascha as 'Easter' here is anachronistic), so Paschatos festum = 'the Passover Seder'. Proprio ausu seems to mean 'on their own initiative'.
 

scrabulista

Consul
Staff member
Moved to incorrect Latin...
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Oh, when I saw the title I thought someone had actually created a thread to ask what it meant (or rather what it was supposed to mean).
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus
If you wish to see with what grammar I have used for what I had written my signature, it is here. Where it says at 7.9: "Infinitive: Infinitives were widely used, replacing a number of classical constructions. ", and beyond, the book goes on to explain some of the more common different infinitive uses.
OK, but I don't see any infinitive constructions among the examples there that are equivalent to the construction you used in your sentence. But maybe I'm just overlooking it: can you point it out to me?
As for the use of this infinitive, it is a Graecism, on page 155 of this book, which in some pages before explained how it is used as a vulgarism that existed in vulgar Latin which in turn became what the book describes as "romance" (I suppose the conglomeration of the descendants of Latin); some extra examples of different infinitive uses through Graecisms in christian & Classical Latin are on page 132 & page 133.
But the infinitive you used in your sentence isn't a Graecism, Andrew.
Indeed, in the book "Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide", it describes that the use of the infinitive with an accusative or passive is a Graecism and that it is also a "vulgarism", and states that it is "neglect of restrictive norms of the literary dialect".
I don't have access to the book, so I have to ask what exactly you mean by 'use of the infinitive with an accusative or passive'. That's not a very precise description.
 
Anyhow; I wrote the signature as a romance translation into Latin, I did not give a name to the "ante-renaissance version of Latin" as it certainly was not Medieval; I meant vulgar/popular Latin due to how it was used, and ante-renaissance being before the time that the classical Latin was revitalized. I did not name the Latin in the beginning for this reason, as I know that most people on this site despise anything but the utmost purity.

I for one enjoy more seeing the route the language itself took through it's evolution from synthetic to analytic, and how it's dialects(as in "romance") were formed and differed in such peculiar ways, as well as how they are similiar.

As for the Medieval book, I read through it before, as a guide to some of the ways that the literary language changed between late and medieval, and I had read what I had believed fit medieval grammar. If it does not; it does not change what I was attempting to accomplish through my usage.

For personal use in a signature, it was perfectly fine for me, as through "romance" usage, the grammar fit. For that reason it was for me of the popular variety, because that type of Latin is the one that is spoken today. As for correctness in this sense, the word's meaning can go only so far. For, it was correct in my opinion, as a means of what a popular usage could be;

as for Aurifex ' statement in his last paragraph of his scolding of myself:
If you like playing around with words (I think you do) there are plenty of games fora in which you are welcome to do just that.
I do love playing with words; it's one of my favorite pass times. Especially with Latin, as I speak most of it's descendants, as well as interpreting/translating into and from them as my career. I enjoy the Antique Classical language, as well as every step in between modern day variations. This website is the metaphorical holy grail for Classical Latin learning and discussion, and it's the reason I am a member. I leave all the other types of Latin for my own personal use off-site. That being said, the games on this site are for something that I do not care.

As for telling me that I am the one playing games, as if I am some sort of child;
But no more games at others' expense on the translation fora, please, or you'll rapidly exhaust people's patience.
For one, I did not ask for my signature to translated and what a classical form would be; it was instead thrown to me. I told the translator that I appreciated their work, but that it was not "Classical Latin" and that it was correct, because for me, it was following the rules of "romance".
Again, as to not mention the word "popular" or "vulgar", I left it at as that. For some reason or another all of these other members decided to metaphorically "jump onto the bandwagon" for a topic that was definitely not worth this much attention.

By the way, "Playing around" would be myself coming to a thread, or creating one, and writing a sentence in a nonsensical form, and telling everyone that it was correct. This was not the case. Translation came to me, without being sought nor asked.

I did not expect that I would have had to go through an elaborate explanation for all of this, nor that my signature would become a topic of discussion. The next time, if there even is one, I will be more direct in the beginning with what my intentions are and why I did something in a certain fashion, so that everyone's future "pain-in-the-rear" can be averted.

p.s. as for mactare tempus within medieval Latin: as I had read a medieval passage with these words, I thought it had the same meaning as romance, but seeing the correct translation of the more recent usage, it may have been that I mistranslated that as well.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
AndrewEarthrise, just imagine that someone you'd met who was learning English had made a T-shirt that read in big letters, "HOW EASILY SLAYING TIME? STUDYING ENGLISH LANGUAGE", and proudly wore it wherever they went. Wouldn't you (as gently and diplomatically as possible) point out to them that they might want to fix a couple things there?

And, hopefully, if they really cared about improving their English, they'd thank you for pointing out the issue or at least take the criticism calmly, not respond with a huffy tirade that this was actually correct, because their T-shirt was written in Chaucerian English or some such thing. ;)
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
For one, I did not ask for my signature to translated
This is a forum of Latinists. If you don't want your signature translated (or, well, "translated", as well as incorrect Latin can be) write it in Swahili.
 
Wouldn't you (as gently and diplomatically as possible) point out to them that they might want to fix a couple things there?
because their T-shirt was written in Chaucerian English or some such thing.
Please try reading the section below: Did you read the word "appreciated" or the reason I gave as to why I called it "correct"?

one, I did not ask for my signature to translated and what a classical form would be; it was instead thrown to me. I told the translator that I appreciated their work, but that it was not "Classical Latin" and that it was correct; because for me, it was following the rules of "romance".
I did write it for it to be in the manner of this type of language, and for my purposes it was correct. I have a good learned knowledge over what line there is between Classical Latin and what are other constructions. I did not at any point make a claim that it was in fact Classical Latin.

they'd thank you for pointing out the issue or at least take the criticism calmly, not respond with a huffy tirade that this was actually correct,
Please, give me a reason why you call it a huffy tirade. I have great respect for Pacifica; I did not deny that her criticisms were valid, but I gave that they did not fit what type of Latin I had written. Again, it is my fault for not giving my intentions. They are incorrect when held up to the light of "Classical Latin"

That given I thought that the sentences I had written were quite "harmless", with no character attacking, I had not bashed her criticism, nor did I think that it could be viewed as not responding "calmly";

Could someone explain to me why or how they could be interpreted as "huffy", or "not calm"?:

I had not elected to write my signature in Classical Latin; however, your input is appreciated.
No, it is correct; but it is not Classical
It is an Ante-Renaissance version.
This is a forum of Latinists. If you don't want your signature translated (or, well, "translated", as well as incorrect Latin can be) write it in Swahili.
Also, I said I did not ask for it to be translated, but I did welcome the translation and Pacifica 's grammar for what it would be in Classical Latin. I like the members here, and their opinions are all valid, Imber Ranae, Etaoin Shrdlu, Godmy, and others are among the people who I praise, and who all have given me much insight into Classical Latin.

By how you are writing to me, you seem to be "vexed". Please explain to me what is causing you to have this type of attitude to me; if you want we can discuss it within a private message. I do not wish for our relationship to be inamicable.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Now, to be honest, the interrogative + infinitive construction must have arisen at some point, since it exists in the Romance languages (in French at any rate). Now, when exactly, and whether it was still in Latin proper (when Latin was still a spoken language and would still have used the forms Andrew used in his former signature), I don't know.
 

Godmy

A Monkey
The interrogative + infinitive is also seen in Slavic languages, but then again: it's just no excuse for its usage in Latin. It's only a hypothesis to be tested, i.e.: "This construction is quite likely in other European languages, so is it right also in Latin? Let's find out." And after doing the research (it's usually done for us in advance by the grammar books) we find out that the construction is uncommon or non-existent or not even attested in various kinds of Latin (unless it is something else that only appears like a question). So... that's the end of the story.

In the living languages one usually consults the native speakers (you can consult a grammar book, but with the today's technology it becomes easier and easier to make the research more directly), in Latin we ask the native speakers too - by using the corpus of Roman literature. (Or rarely corpus of Latin non-Roman literature, if that is the kind of Latin we really want to emulate: but then we must be careful that what we do is really a good emulation, not just our excuse to write whatever we want).
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
Now, to be honest, the interrogative + infinitive construction must have arisen at some point, since it exists in the Romance languages (in French at any rate). Now, when exactly, and whether it was still in Latin proper (when Latin was still a spoken language and would still have used the forms Andrew used in his former signature), I don't know.
Well, until AndrewEarthrise actually finds an example in a text somewhere (a text that is still recognizably Latin) I think it's safe to say that this usage is incorrect.

In fact, one example really isn't enough because writers/copyists make mistakes, after all, even in their own language. Two or three would be ideal.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I think we all agree that it isn't correct in any recognized/known-for-certain form of Latin.

One can make hypotheses as to what may have happened in forms of Latin we have almost no traces of, like late vulgar Latin, but, due to the scarcity of evidence, those will remain hypotheses, and it will be difficult for the result of one's attempts to write in this sort of language to be something really consistent with the reality of the language back then. For example, I would bet there are good chances that by the time such a construction as quomodo + inf. had taken root, classical adverbs in -ter, like efficienter, had already fallen out of use and been replaced with adverbs in -mente. Though this also is only a hypothesis!

As a result, the criterion for what's correct Latin and what's not will usually be either classical Latin or forms close enough to classical Latin, because those are the only ones that are attested largely enough for one to have a complete enough idea of the language and what's correct and what's not. That's the reason.

Now, if Andrew Earthrise is interested in trying to reconstruct some form of late vulgar Latin, it's his right. But he'll need to study rather in-depth stuff for his reconstructed language to be plausible enough (though it's unlikely to ever be exactly what it really was). He can't blame us for judging his former signature by the standards of classical, or other widely attested forms of, Latin, because, as I said, those are the only forms we can really know, and, besides, his signature at first sight looked more like a failed attempt at classical Latin than anything else.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Now, if Andrew Earthrise is interested in trying to reconstruct some form of late vulgar Latin, it's his right. But he'll need to study rather in-depth stuff for his reconstructed language to be plausible enough
I mean, using classical Latin vocabulary with just a late vulgar construction (attested or not) here and there, won't do. It will produce some sort of hybrid imaginary language unlikely to be like any form of Latin that really existed, and so I think it can only be called incorrect.
 
I understand; for vulgar latin is taken with a grain of salt; it's other name would be "colloquial latin". As for incorrect, when I wrote it, I was not using it in the effect that would be something actually taken as fact of being what someone said, as no one can know these things. I do not claim to know such things. All I was that I used romance grammar, into a sentence for a colloquial usage of Latin; I said it was correct because it fit the construction I made.

Such as a construction on wikipedia for vulgar latin: "Marcus da libru a patre.", that may or may not have been said, and for classical latin it is definitely incorrect. As for a representation of what Latin changed into through popular usage, it works.

Like I said, "correct" in this sense does not hold as much weight as it would be for a more strict version of Latin.

He can't blame us for judging his former signature by the standards of classical, or other widely attested forms of, Latin, because, as I said, those are the only forms we can really know, and, besides, his signature at first sight looked more like a failed attempt at classical Latin than anything else.

I do not blame you Pacifica, I did not mind your comment at all. :)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Ok. I think we'd better all stop wrangling about this whole stuff now. :)
 

Imperfacundus

Reprobatissimus
We can reconstruct possible words in VL, even grammatical features, but not expressions like matar el tiempo.

Which, in any case, didn't exist in Spanish until quite recently.
 
We can reconstruct possible words in VL, even grammatical features, but not expressions like matar el tiempo.
Which, in any case, didn't exist in Spanish until quite recently.

Most likely it hadn't existed farther back; After having translated the earlier passage for Etaoin Shrdlu, I understood that I most likely mis-translated the passage in the medieval prose book.
I wonder how recent it is, because it appears within that constructions in Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, and Italian, as well as in French as "tuer le temps", so it had to exist at some point in development. Especially in Italian, there is a more common verb "uccidere", but the phrase is set with "amazzare".

AndrewEarthrise"HOW EASILY SLAYING TIME? STUDYING ENGLISH LANGUAGE"

Also back to this; I think a better analogy would be of how a Zionist named Mendele Mocher Sfarim reconstructed the Hebrew Language that died 2000 years before, having changed the grammar to fit more with contemporary European Languages instead of that of biblical/classical Hebrew, and added vocabulary from Medieval and Rabbinic Hebrew sources, making the language more fluid.

That being said, he angered many purists, but in the ended he succeeded in making Hebrew a widely known language.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
Also back to this; I think a better analogy would be of how a Zionist named Mendele Mocher Sfarim reconstructed the Hebrew Language that died 2000 years before, having changed the grammar to fit more with contemporary European Languages instead of that of biblical/classical Hebrew, and added vocabulary from Medieval and Rabbinic Hebrew sources, making the language more fluid.
Well, if you want to turn Latin into something it's not and which robs it of its most beautiful features (its complexity and syntactical logic), that's your choice, I guess. I just don't really see the point, as any number of Romance languages have already done the job for you. ;)
 
Top