"You cannot all be the King of England" into Medieval Latin

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
It makes sense to elide 'de' because it was elided in classical Latin already.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I thought that was a matter of some controversy.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I haven't heard of any controversy in that regard. Where did you read that?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I don't exactly remember. Just in some forum conversations, I think.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Well, to put it in a simple formula:

if vowel 1 (+m) meets (h+) vowel 2, vowel 1 gets elided.

e.g. frustra esse = frustr'esse
vocem audire = voc'audire
tecta habere = tect'(h)abere
monstrum horret = monstr'(h)orret

es and est are exceptions. There, the e gets elided:

bos formosa est = bos fromosa'st
templum es = templum's
 

Ser

鳥王
Thanks :) As for the eliding, I found the phrase "Cez sunt les leis e les custumes que li reis Will. grantad al pople de Engleterre" in the "leis Willelme," which was written in the 11th century, so I decided that it might be a fine choice. I guess I can chalk it up to scribal differences, so I'll use "d'Engleterre" to be safe.
And as for the "ambdui vos ne dites veir" part, I'm considering saying "ambdui vos en taisez", a quote from the Song of Roland, instead, because I discussed it with someone else and they said that might be more forceful and authoritative.
Oh! The Song of Roland's ambdui vus en taisez. Yes, that would be a better choice.

I am surprised I didn't know about all these unelided de prepositions. The more you know. :)
 

Abcormal

New Member
Oh! The Song of Roland's ambdui vus en taisez. Yes, that would be a better choice.

I am surprised I didn't know about all these unelided de prepositions. The more you know. :)
:) I know, right? I'll use "de Engleterre", it seems more "authentic" that way, if you will. Oh, and the "Leis de Willelme" was actually written in the 12th century, sorry for the typo ^^;
 

Godmy

A Monkey
Sorry for getting back to this so late, but I suppose I won't confuse the OP by this at least.
It's grammatically right, but it literally means 'king of the English'. 'king of England' would be rex Angliae.
So, in a word to word translation, you're, of course, absolutely correct that it translates this and that way, but I would argue that from the point of phraseology/lexicology the Latin strongly preferred the phrase "King of [People-of-the-nation_gen-pl]" where modern languages say "King of [Country]". From that point, it would be more correct to translate "King of [Country]" or "King of [Country_adjective]" as "King of [People-of-the-nation_gen-pl]". Of the top of my head: Persārum Rēx and Rēx Persārum - very frequent (more than few examples), while all other mutations (Rex Persiae, Rex Persicus are virtually if not absolutely non-exstant...)

So, just as a lexicological note...
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I know that the Ancients thought more in terms of peoples and had less of a concept of nations and national borders.

I'd say it's a different matter when translating modern concepts, though. Abcormal has already said that the attested term for that time was rex Anglorum (which also made sense), so there seems to be no debate.
I would be a bit more reluctant to chose the name of the people rather than the country when it comes to more modern emperors ... for example, I wouldn't call the last German emperor 'emperor of the Germans', and I wouldn't call the last Austrian emperor 'emperor of the Austrians' ... I would call the Belgian king 'king of the Belgians', though ... mainly because that's his title :p
 
Top