I think Si quid dubitas, age should also work ("when in doubt, act/do something"), but I'm a bit unsure whether it would be idiomatic -- @Pacifica, what do you think?In that case I think you could say:
Si quid dubitas, surge = If in doubt, rise up.
But a Latin proverb exists (from Publilius Syrus) that seems to convey something very similar:
In rebus dubiis plurimi est audacia = "In doubtful matters, daring is the most valuable thing."
Of course. With the primary motivation of expanding both my Latin vocubulary (knowing the meanings of given words) and working vocabulary (determining groups of words to fulfill given meanings) in a fun and interesting way, I have been issuing possible translations in this particular forum with the hope of having both the semantics and the grammar of them criticized by folks, like yourself, who have a greater facility in Latin than me. Most of my attempts have been faulty, but I have had a couple of successes. In formulating the translations, I have found both Wiktionary (especially using the Wiktionary thesaurus and translation drop downs under the entry for each English lemma, which divides translations into the varying senses of the English word) in concert with Merriam Webster online (particularly for the finding of English "near synonyms" and "near antonyms"), and the usual Latin-English/English-Latin dictionary to be useful tools. Though a bit tedious, these can be made, acting in concert, to fulfill the role of a Latin Thesaurus which observes the varying word senses, as does the Roget's collegiate.Might one inquire what did you use to find that word, and how did you decide on it?
The reason I ask is that anyone who checks this word in, say Lewis&Short or the PHI corpus, will see that it's a hapax, an adventurous invention by Ennius that occurs nowhere else, something between embiggen and enlargify and found in a gloss in a corrupt passage. And I remember reading similar words from you earlier, so I figure your translation-formulating process must be lacking the most important part, the "was it really used (like that)" part, the "does it work" part of manufacture, one which obviously becomes even more critical when the word in question has been found by synonym-surfing the wiktionary translations tool, introducing not one but two levels of error. What are your usual dictionaries?May I ask your opinion of my suggested use of augificare in this way?
Though I have plenty of grammars (Wheelock's, A&G, Latin Made Simple by Doug Julius, a couple of odd volumes of the Cambridge Latin course, and several other older grammars which I picked up in my "candy store", a giant used bookshop which fills three floors of an old victorian house), the lack of a good print dictionary has been a bit of an issue for me. Of course, I can access the L&S dictionary online, through either the Perseus project directly, or through Wiktionary indirectly. It is a good dictionary, and gives usage examples from the corpus, but not all the hyperlinks work on Perseus, and L&S can be in some ways, dated (particularly in its...um...prudishness?). In print, I have a hardcover copy of Cassell's Standard, which is meh...okay, I guess, and also the Chambers Murray dictionary by Smith and Lockwood (in paperback used from the candy store), which is only Latin-English and has no English-Latin entries. Also, I have Barron's ubiquitous "501 Latin Verbs" for conjugations. In addition to the hyperlinks in L&S online, to find words used in context, I can use PHI texts, using the "word search" tool, but I often have difficulties with that in restricting a search to only the word I am seeking (if, for instance, I wanted to find examples of the usage of verb ire in the first person singular active indicative, and so entered eo, I would have results returned including the first person singular active indicative of every stative verb in the book, plus other additional terms...basically anything containing -eo- as an interfix). I have not yet sprung for a copy of the Oxford Latin Dict. Being relatively poor, I tend to look for books in used condition, and I have considered the OLD a bit too pricey to spend the money on new from the publisher. Additionally, I have a few odd volumes of the Loeb Classics series, and a couple of quite old interlinear translations. Well, that's it in a nutshell...What are your usual dictionaries?
Use # to indicate the beginning and/or end of a word.if, for instance, I wanted to find examples of the usage of verb ire in the first person singular active indicative, and so entered eo, I would have results returned including the first person singular active indicative of every stative verb in the book, plus other additional terms...basically anything containing -eo- as an interfix
I realize that I did not answer that. I was looking for a Latin verb that, as I have indicated, gave a sense of "to increase in intensity", but (shocked that there seems to have been no intensificare) I couldn't find anything for that in Latin, so I expanded my search to include in the sense: "to increase in magnitude". None of the words I knew, magnificare, amplificare, et.al., seemed to include the specific sense I needed. I looked at augere, and it seemed not quite right, but so doing led me to augificare, and I thought I would try to get some feedback on that....and how did you decide on it?
If one wanted to search for, say, aetas and all terms derived therefrom, including all declined and (most) conjugated forms, one could possibly enter #aet in the search box?Use # to indicate the beginning and/or end of a word.
For instance, if you want examples of words that start with eo (but may have more letters after it), type #eo in the search bar.
If you want words that end with eo, type eo#.
And if you want eo alone, type #eo#.
Thanks, @Anbrutal Russicus, I was not aware of the Smith and Hall dictionary; it's good to know, and may prove quite useful....everyone needs to be able to use Smith & Hall in conjunction with Lewis & Short on Latinitium in order to come up with correct word usage; admittedly for that one needs to learn to read L&S, which is far from trivial given how fubar it is by modern standards.
By the way, what's the exact wiktionary page that gave you augificare as a translation?