in pluribus natum est praedicari

[itaque]

A Latin translation of Aristotle (De Interpretatione) has him saying:

dico autem universale quod in pluribus natum est praedicari, singulare vero quod non

In my estimation, this should be translated as

But I call "universal" that which has arisen [natum est] in many to be made known [pradicari], but "singular" that which is not.

How, then, has this translator arrived at the following?

now I call 'universal' that which is naturally predicated of many, but 'singular' that which is not

Is "natum est praedicari" an idiom for "naturally predicated"?

 

[Pacifica]

The Latin there is a little confusing. It's easy to mistake natum est as going with in pluribus, and thus to read quod in pluribus natum est as "that which was born in many". But based on the context I'd say natum est probably goes with praedicari and natum est praedicari means literally "was born to be predicated", i.e. is (naturally) meant to be predicated. Or else it could be impersonal: "that which it was born to be predicated of many", i.e. "that for which it is natural to be predicated of many" (which doesn't make that much of a difference to the essential meaning). I haven't got time right now to look for the Greek original, but it would be interesting to do so. I suspect the odd Latin wording here is a Graecism, due to literal translation.

 

[Godmy]

Hi, @itaque!

Dīcō ūniversāle praedicārī = I say that "universal" is called...
quod in plūribus nātum est = ... that which is natural for many (lit. "which is born in many")

_____________________

I see we double posted with @Pacifica

 

[Pacifica]

Or, actually, natum could be a typo for datum... which would make the Latin more normal.

 

[Godmy]

goes with praedicari and natum est praedicari means literally "born to be predicated", i.e. meant to be predicated.

I thought about some infinitive of purpose as well, then it seemed to me that the AcI one would expect after "dīcō" would be un[der]used...

 

[Pacifica]

The use of dico with just an object and a predicate (and no inf.) is pretty common. X dico Y = "I call X Y" or "by X I mean Y".

 

[Pacifica]

Or, actually, natum could be a typo for datum... which would make the Latin more normal.

I only find it with natum on Google.

 

[Godmy]

Yes, I don't say that if inf. of purpose if somehow utilized, the rest doesn't work...

I haven't got time right now to look for the Greek original,

That could be a good idea! I may try to do so.

 

[Godmy]

I only find it with natum on Google.

Me as well!

 

[Pacifica]

I'd guess that the original probably has πέφυκε (literally natum est), see: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=fu/w

"2.c. inf. to be by nature disposed to do so and so"

The OLD gives a couple of similar uses of natum est with the inf. in poetry (poets often used the inf. in a Greek way like that). It was just probably somewhat unfortunate to use that construction here, because it causes confusion with dico being there too, so that the reader could take the whole thing as an acc.-and-inf. dependent on dico.

 

[Godmy]

I just found it out (in Thesaurus Linguae Graecae) too and after some consultation with Greek dictationaries (my Greek is considerably weaker ; P) I too think your take on it quite literally as it stood as an infinitive of purpose, albeit rare in Latin, is probably right, it being quite a literal translation of the Greek.

πέφυκε κατηγορεῖσθαι

 

[Godmy]

orig.

λέγω δέ κατόλου μὲν ὃ ἐπὶ πλειόνων πέφυκε κατηγορεῖσθαι, καθ' ἕκαστον δὲ ὃ μή​

transl.

dico autem universale quod in pluribus natum est praedicari, singulare vero quod non, ​

 

[itaque]

Thanks all! So I guess there are a few ways to translate this.

It wasn't clear to me from the above discussion: is the following also an okay way to translate the line?

Dīcō ūniversāle praedicārī = I say that "universal" is called...
quod in plūribus nātum est = ... that which is natural for many (lit. "which is born in many")

If not, why not?

 

[Godmy]

If not, why not?

Grammatically, it is a viable interpretation albeit counting with a little bit loose word order than otherwise expected and the meaning stays about the same as you would expect from the translation. But from the Greek original (=and also from the word order), it's apparent it was indeed a direct (even grammatically) translation from the Greek, therefore, dīcō doesn't accept Accūsātīvus cum Īnfīnītīvō construction, as I suggested, but, as Pacifica suggested, only a direct object "ūniversāle" ("I say [it being] universal -> I call [that] universal) and ūniversāle is then expanded upon by a relative clause with "quod" ... and praedicārī is used there as a rare (rather reworded from Greek where it wasn't rare) infinitive of purpose (Latin otherwise normally doesn't have that, except for supines which are kind of pseudoinfinitives and cannot be used just anywhere), and that binds itself to / expands upon "nātum est" (born to be called...) -> "that which is born in many to-be-proclaimed [so]" -> that which is naturally proclaimed for many

 

[Godmy]

By the way, if you feel you found some help here, you may look at the link I provide below as well, because it seems the forum is, unfortunately, struggling to survive till the next month... :-/ And while we've always provided help for free (and will do), we may not be able to do so any more if the forum is shut down in the next month due to financial reasons

THREAD: latind-hosting-fees-donations-needed