harrius potter et philosophi lapis

Post by cillian
I got my copy today, haven't read much of it yet but I'm liking what
I've read so far! Is anyone else planning on getting it?

I've got my copy on order. According to Amazon, it was supposed to arrive a
couple of weeks ago. I wrote Amazon about it and they said it wasn't out
yet. I wrote the publisher, Bloomsbury, about it and they said it wouldn't
be out before July 7. But you got yours today? (Green-eyed monster raises
its head!) There's no telling when it will get here <G>, but I'm looking
forward to it.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Johannes Patruus

2003-07-01 07:11:19 UTC

Post by Fritz Rathmann

Post by cillian
I got my copy today, haven't read much of it yet but I'm liking what
I've read so far! Is anyone else planning on getting it?

Blackwell's (UK) claim to have it "in stock (immediate despatch)".
http://tinyurl.com/fphr

Johannes

Radek

2003-07-01 14:34:50 UTC

Post by cillian
I got my copy today, haven't read much of it yet but I'm liking what
I've read so far! Is anyone else planning on getting it?

I am waiting for someone to tell me, whether it's real Latin, or just
a children's reader with simplified word order and English style
sentences. Any opinions welcome.

Radek

Isaac Hummel

2003-07-01 15:06:20 UTC

Post by Radek
I am waiting for someone to tell me, whether it's real Latin, or just
a children's reader with simplified word order and English style
sentences. Any opinions welcome.
Radek

I have not read the book, so I don't really know what kind of Latin it
is, but I think it is a safe bet that it isn't Cicero. I think it
probably has a limited vocabulary and somewhat simplified grammar, so
that someone who is not a Latin grad student or even a major would be
able to read it. Think of the target audience.

As to whether it uses English or Latin-style word order, some other
reader will have to enlighten us. All I can say is that I think it would
be lame if it used English verb-in-middle-of-sentence word-order.

-Isaac Hummel

zbihniew

2003-07-05 15:46:17 UTC

a fragment from amazon.co.uk:

Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis; Caput Primum; Puer qui Vixit; 'Dominus
et Domina Dursley, qui vivebant in aedibus Gestationis Ligustrorum numero
quattor signatis..

Edward Casey

2003-07-05 16:18:56 UTC

Post by zbihniew
Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis; Caput Primum; Puer qui Vixit; 'Dominus
et Domina Dursley, qui vivebant in aedibus Gestationis Ligustrorum numero
quattor signatis..

Peter Needham (also translated "Ursus nomine Paddington") seems to have
adopted Klaus' idiosyncratic capitalization scheme. Shame, shame,
everybody knows your name! But maybe I shouldn't carp since I have yet to
deign to cast an otiose eye on the writings of Miss Rowling.

Eduardus

Radek

2003-07-07 08:41:43 UTC

Post by zbihniew
Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis; Caput Primum; Puer qui Vixit; 'Dominus
et Domina Dursley, qui vivebant in aedibus Gestationis Ligustrorum numero
quattor signatis..

Hmmm... more and more doubts. As we discussed recently, when the
conspirators were dead, Cicero announced the fact with a single word:
"vixerunt". So "puer qui vixit" probably means "the boy who has died",
while the translator clearly meant to say "the boy who survived".

Radek

NealGlnnn

2003-07-08 00:41:25 UTC

Radek wrote in

Post by Radek
As we discussed recently, when the
"vixerunt". So "puer qui vixit" probably means "the boy who has died",
while the translator clearly meant to say "the boy who survived".

I wonder if perhaps you are placing too much emphasis on the perfect of "vivo"
meaning "died," as opposed to "lived." In my (admittedly not exhaustive)
reading, I've read that Cicero employed "vixerunt" more in the way of a clever
circumlocution or euphemism, to avoid the blunt --or worse, inflammatory --
"they're dead:"

"The executions were carried out by strangling by the public executioner; it
was now evening, and Cicero, to leave no doubt of their fate among Catiline's
supporters, solemnly and euphemistically announced that their lives were ended:
'Vixerunt.' "
(R.E Smith, _Cicero the Statesman_ , Cambridge Univ Press 1966, pg. 124)

L&S does note the euphemistic sense of "vixit," but it also notes, right on
point, the meaning ("especially in secondary tenses"), "to survive, be still
alive:"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.00
59%3Aentry%3D%2351239

Whether "vixit" is the best translation in the case of our hero Harrius, I
couldn't say. But I think it's -- convoluted -- to hold that "vixit" usually
means "he died." Usually, it means "he lived."

Best regards.

Radek

2003-07-08 14:43:06 UTC

Post by NealGlnnn
Radek wrote in

Post by Radek
As we discussed recently, when the
"vixerunt". So "puer qui vixit" probably means "the boy who has died",
while the translator clearly meant to say "the boy who survived".

I wonder if perhaps you are placing too much emphasis on the perfect of "vivo"
meaning "died," as opposed to "lived." In my (admittedly not exhaustive)
reading, I've read that Cicero employed "vixerunt" more in the way of a clever
circumlocution or euphemism, to avoid the blunt --or worse, inflammatory --
"they're dead:"
"The executions were carried out by strangling by the public executioner; it
was now evening, and Cicero, to leave no doubt of their fate among Catiline's
'Vixerunt.' "
(R.E Smith, _Cicero the Statesman_ , Cambridge Univ Press 1966, pg. 124)
L&S does note the euphemistic sense of "vixit," but it also notes, right on
point, the meaning ("especially in secondary tenses"), "to survive, be still
alive:"
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.00
59%3Aentry%3D%2351239
Whether "vixit" is the best translation in the case of our hero Harrius, I
couldn't say. But I think it's -- convoluted -- to hold that "vixit" usually
means "he died." Usually, it means "he lived."
Best regards.

Verbs of state and their perfect tenses are a subject I might never
fully grasp. Thanks for pointing out Cicero's "vixerunt" was an
euphemism rather than a standard phrase; it makes Latin a little more
sensible language.

Still, none of the examples in Lewis+Short or in my dictionary uses a
perfective form of vivere to express survival.
It seems to me now the primary usage of vixit is to say someone "lived
a good/bad/long/whatever kind of life/period of life", while
the primary usage of imperfective tenses is to say someone is alive,
possibly inferring he has survived.
If it it possible to say something like "bellum vixit", then I feel we
are primarily saying he had to indure the hardships of war, but we are
also suggesting he survived them. But I still think "vixit" on its own
is not suitable to express this meaning. Why, "vixit" on its own may
have had no reasonable meaning at all, until it was adopted as an
euphemism by the likes of Cicero.

One way or other, "puer qui vixit" is ambiguous at best. I would
suggest "puer superstes" instead.

Radek

Edward Casey

2003-07-08 16:06:13 UTC

Post by NealGlnnn
Radek wrote in

Post by Radek
As we discussed recently, when the
"vixerunt". So "puer qui vixit" probably means "the boy who has died",
while the translator clearly meant to say "the boy who survived".

inflammatory --

Post by NealGlnnn
"they're dead:"
"The executions were carried out by strangling by the public

executioner; it

Post by NealGlnnn
was now evening, and Cicero, to leave no doubt of their fate among Catiline's
'Vixerunt.' "
(R.E Smith, _Cicero the Statesman_ , Cambridge Univ Press 1966, pg. 124)
L&S does note the euphemistic sense of "vixit," but it also notes, right on
point, the meaning ("especially in secondary tenses"), "to survive, be still
alive:"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.00

Post by NealGlnnn
59%3Aentry%3D%2351239
Whether "vixit" is the best translation in the case of our hero Harrius, I
couldn't say. But I think it's -- convoluted -- to hold that "vixit" usually
means "he died." Usually, it means "he lived."
Best regards.

There are least two, although subjunctive, in L & S under B.1:"divinat
enim, quae futura fuerint, si Philippus vixisset"... "Quid Philippus, si
vixisset, facturus fuerit."

Eduardus

Edwin Menes

2003-07-08 17:56:49 UTC

Cf. Horace 1.26 (IIRC): Vixi puellis nuper idoneus / et militavi non
sine gloria . . . I doubt Horace meant that he died in battle.

One cannot object that the speaker is obviously alive. It's poetry.
Dead people sometimes talk--Cf. Aeneid, Book 6; Propertius 4.7.

Radek

2003-07-09 06:48:07 UTC

Post by Radek
Still, none of the examples in Lewis+Short or in my dictionary uses a
perfective form of vivere to express survival.

There are least two, although subjunctive, in L & S under B.1:"divinat
enim, quae futura fuerint, si Philippus vixisset"... "Quid Philippus, si
vixisset, facturus fuerit."
Eduardus

Yeah, but this is just grammatical use of "vixisset" to express
imperfective irreal condition in the past. As in "if he had been still
living". I should have said indicative perfectum to avoid confusion.

Radek

Edward Casey

2003-07-09 12:43:16 UTC

Post by Radek
Still, none of the examples in Lewis+Short or in my dictionary uses a
perfective form of vivere to express survival.

There are least two, although subjunctive, in L & S under B.1:"divinat
enim, quae futura fuerint, si Philippus vixisset"... "Quid Philippus, si
vixisset, facturus fuerit."
Eduardus

If a perfect form is expressing an imperfective, isn't that an
"ungrammatical" use? The problem is that it may not be possible to
segregate the meanings "live" and "survive." How could one do so in the
sentence "Aufidius vixit ad summam senectutem"? How is "if he had been
still living" different from "if he had survived [to that point]?" Maybe
Mr. Needham should have written "Puer qui supervixit" but more likely, he
knows something we don't.

Eduardus

Eduardus

Radek

2003-07-10 14:57:13 UTC

Post by Radek
Still, none of the examples in Lewis+Short or in my dictionary uses

Post by Radek
perfective form of vivere to express survival.

There are least two, although subjunctive, in L & S under B.1:"divinat
enim, quae futura fuerint, si Philippus vixisset"... "Quid Philippus,

Post by Edward Casey
vixisset, facturus fuerit."
Eduardus

If a perfect form is expressing an imperfective, isn't that an
"ungrammatical" use?

Of course not. If you want to express an irreal condition in the past,
the only tool you have is coniunctivus plusquamperfecti, and you have
to use it for both perfective and imperfective actions. Or if you say
"ne cantaveris", you are once again using coniunctivus perfecti to
stop something from happening regardless of aspect. Sometimes aspect
is indistinguishable, at other times context helps you find out.
Perfectly grammatical.

Post by Edward Casey
The problem is that it may not be possible to
segregate the meanings "live" and "survive." How could one do so in the
sentence "Aufidius vixit ad summam senectutem"?

It may often be indistinguishable, but it is not with Harry Potter,
who survived a murder attempt.

Post by Edward Casey
How is "if he had been
still living" different from "if he had survived [to that point]?"

Whether Philippus can do something depends on whether he is or isn't a
living person; it's of secondary importance what he had survived and
what had been happening up to that point. That's why context strongly
suggests "Philippus si vixisset" is imperfective in the sense "if he
had been still alive and likely to remain so, he would have done ...
whatever". But even if you disagree and insist "if he had survived" is
just as likely, we still don't have an example of vixisset in a
perfective sense: we only have it in a sentence with undetermined
aspect.

Post by Edward Casey
Maybe
Mr. Needham should have written "Puer qui supervixit" but more likely, he
knows something we don't.
Eduardus

I am sure he knows a number of things we don't, but I still think this
one slipped him. If for no other reason, I find it unlikely Cicero
would have used a phrase that gave a possibility of misenterpretation.

The positive result of this discussion is that I finally made up my
mind to buy the book.

Radek

Ed Cryer

2003-07-10 18:53:30 UTC

Post by Radek
I am sure he knows a number of things we don't, but I still think this
one slipped him. If for no other reason, I find it unlikely Cicero
would have used a phrase that gave a possibility of misenterpretation.
The positive result of this discussion is that I finally made up my
mind to buy the book.
Radek

I think J K Rowling used "the boy who lived" with contexts of meaning that I
can't figure out how to convey in a single classical Latin word. She could
have said "lived on" or "survived", but by just "lived" it implies that
Harry "lived" in a perhaps "more alive" way than others. He was after all a
magician growing up among Muggles.

You've convinced me with the Cicero usage that "vixit" doesn't do, but I
can't settle on "incolumis" or "salvus" or even "vivus" to do the job. Nor
"superstes", although the "super" prefix has possibilities.
How about "Puer qui vicit et vixit"?

Ed

Edward Casey

2003-07-11 06:06:15 UTC

Post by Ed Cryer

I haven't read any of Rowling's stuff but if she has ambitions of
producing Kunstprosa here then Needham's is still closer than any of the
alternatives yet suggested here. In "dum vivimus, vivamus" the second verb
means "really live."

Post by Ed Cryer
You've convinced me with the Cicero usage that "vixit" doesn't do, but I
can't settle on "incolumis" or "salvus" or even "vivus" to do the job. Nor
"superstes", although the "super" prefix has possibilities.
How about "Puer qui vicit et vixit"?
Ed

I can't find the passage now but someone suggested, if I remember aright,
that this euphemism (vixerunt) was coined by Cicero. As a point of
information, vixit pro mortuus est, fuit, abiit ad plures, ei humanitus
accidit was used long before by Plautus: "Vixisse nimio satius est iam,
quam vivere" and "Unum vidi mortuum efferi foras; modo eum vixisse
aiebant."

Eduardus

Edwin Menes

2003-07-11 22:25:09 UTC

The Plautine examples illustrate, I think, the effect of context. I
wouldn't translate the perfect of 'vivo' in either case as 'be dead',
even though the connotation comes to that. In the first instance,
English might make the same rhetorical temporal opposition--'It would be
much better to have lived than to live.' In the second, I would start
with the literal meaning--'They kept saying that he had been alive just
a while ago.' Context also applies to the situation in which Cicero
said 'Vixerunt'--a crowd expecting an announcement.

In another context, viz. tombstones, 'vixit' is usually accompanied by
an expression of the number of years. The context here prevents the
verb from being understood as '(s)he is dead'.

I suppose we'll have to wait until the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae gets to
the Vs to get this settled. For the moment, I'm not comfortable turning
connotations into denotations.

Ed Cryer

2003-07-12 13:19:27 UTC

Post by Edwin Menes
The Plautine examples illustrate, I think, the effect of context. I
wouldn't translate the perfect of 'vivo' in either case as 'be dead',
even though the connotation comes to that. In the first instance,
English might make the same rhetorical temporal opposition--'It would be
much better to have lived than to live.' In the second, I would start
with the literal meaning--'They kept saying that he had been alive just
a while ago.' Context also applies to the situation in which Cicero
said 'Vixerunt'--a crowd expecting an announcement.
In another context, viz. tombstones, 'vixit' is usually accompanied by
an expression of the number of years. The context here prevents the
verb from being understood as '(s)he is dead'.

I'm having trouble with your last paragraph. You say there's a tombstone
with "vixit xx annos" and the context prevents an understanding of "(s)he is
dead". What other implications am I to draw? In some kind of half-life
between life and death?

Here's a few sentences from Anthony Everitt's "Cicero a turbulent life".
Lentulus was lowered inside and strangled with a noose. The Praetors went to
collect the other four prisoners and they too were led down to the Tullianum
and executed in their turn.
For the time being, few people knew what was going on. Cicero decided not to
make any announcement at this stage, for he noticed groups of people
standing here and there in the Forum who had played minor roles in the
conspiracy. They were waiting for nightfall when they hoped to make a rescue
bid. Once the executions were over, though, there was no further need for
silence. The Consul walked into the Forum and shouted in a loud voice: 'They
have lived' (a periphrasis that avoided a direct and unlucky mention of
death).

Now Cicero had a very healthy sense of humour and he loved puns and
word-play of all kinds. He became famous for 'bons mots'. But in the above
situation he knew he was acting unconstitutionally by executing without
trial, and that he'd be straddled with lots of 'invidia'. I can't believe
that in a situation like that he would have been punning on a double meaning
of 'vixerunt'. There's no suggestion that anybody in the crowd turned and
said "What? Are they dead or not?" They all took it as meaning "life over".

I accept that this counts as connotation rather than denotation. As a
further exercise it occurred to me that the Roman historians are full of
battle scenes, often with numbers killed and surviving afterwards. So I
looked in Caesar, Livy and Sallust to see what words they used. If I could
have found something like "occiderunt ad numerum xxx; vixerunt fere xxx" I
would have conceded. But I found "Interfecti sunt" and "occiderunt" but
never a "vixerunt" or "vivi". They used "incolumes" and "salvi". No
"supervixerunt" either.

Ed (who is not 100% convinced (language usage is and always has been
problematic) but is still looking for a counter-example)

Edwin Menes

2003-07-12 21:24:09 UTC

On tombstones, 'vixit xx annos' simply means '(S)he lived for twenty
years'. The accusative makes clear that it is an expression of extent.
The simple past is like the summative use of the aorist in Greek--it
expresses the fact of the action without worrying about its aspect. My
point was that it can't mean '(S)he is dead for twenty years.'

Tacitus' avoidance of the verb 'morior' is well known, though I couldn't
tell you whether I first read it in Furneaux's commentary or in Syme's
majus opus or elsewhere. I vaguely remember something like 18 or 20
euphemisms or circumlocutions. If you could not locate an instance of
'vixit' in this sense, that might in itself be significant.

Puns are not necessarily intended for humor in antiquity. Word play
(paronomasia) was an acceptable rhetorical figure. In Aeschylus'
Agamemnon, third choral ode (IIRC), the puns on Helen's name are
decidedly grim. In Tacitus' Annals, the account of Tiberius' reign
begins 'Primum facinus novi principatus . . .' 'Facinus' means 'deed'
primarily, and a reader can appreciate Tacitus' skill in implying that
the deed was a crime.

I do not accept that Cicero was acting unconstitutionally. The Roman
constution was like the British one--the sum total of its laws and
practices. The Senate had empowered the consul by passing the Senatus
Consultum Ultimum--let the consul do whatever is needed to preserve the
commonwealth. It may well have violated the mos maiorum, but Cicero had
a usable mandate. (Yes, like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and as
capable of misuse.) Sallust had no especial love for the man, but did
not say that he acted illegally, as he might have since Cicero had been
dead at least half a dozen years when Sallust wrote. Besides, twenty
years after Sulla, who knows what the mos maiorum meant any more?
Cicero was obviously softening the news by his choice of words, but I
still think that 'Vixerunt' means primarily 'They were alive' and that
the implication was left hanging in the air.

Edward Casey

2003-07-13 00:05:48 UTC

Post by Edwin Menes
On tombstones, 'vixit xx annos' simply means '(S)he lived for twenty
years'. The accusative makes clear that it is an expression of extent.
The simple past is like the summative use of the aorist in Greek--it
expresses the fact of the action without worrying about its aspect. My
point was that it can't mean '(S)he is dead for twenty years.'

I think Ed was being half-facetious. I.e., he knew that.

Post by Edwin Menes
Tacitus' avoidance of the verb 'morior' is well known, though I couldn't
tell you whether I first read it in Furneaux's commentary or in Syme's
majus opus or elsewhere. I vaguely remember something like 18 or 20
euphemisms or circumlocutions. If you could not locate an instance of
'vixit' in this sense, that might in itself be significant.
Puns are not necessarily intended for humor in antiquity. Word play
(paronomasia) was an acceptable rhetorical figure. In Aeschylus'
Agamemnon, third choral ode (IIRC), the puns on Helen's name are
decidedly grim. In Tacitus' Annals, the account of Tiberius' reign
begins 'Primum facinus novi principatus . . .' 'Facinus' means 'deed'
primarily, and a reader can appreciate Tacitus' skill in implying that
the deed was a crime.

I too have trouble with the word "morior" in the first person but the
difficulty is not stylistic but existential. There is another phenomenon
something like a pun that I, and I assume, other tyros have difficulty
with in reading Latin, viz. the ambiguity of language that is an artifact
of its being written (silent). E.g. I first read the snippet from Tacitus
as if "novî" were "nôvî. I guess that's why it's called "legere," hunt and
pick.

Post by Edwin Menes
I do not accept that Cicero was acting unconstitutionally. The Roman
constution was like the British one--the sum total of its laws and
practices. The Senate had empowered the consul by passing the Senatus
Consultum Ultimum--let the consul do whatever is needed to preserve the
commonwealth. It may well have violated the mos maiorum, but Cicero had
a usable mandate. (Yes, like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and as
capable of misuse.) Sallust had no especial love for the man, but did
not say that he acted illegally, as he might have since Cicero had been
dead at least half a dozen years when Sallust wrote. Besides, twenty
years after Sulla, who knows what the mos maiorum meant any more?
Cicero was obviously softening the news by his choice of words, but I
still think that 'Vixerunt' means primarily 'They were alive' and that
the implication was left hanging in the air.

I think of Catiline as a kind of Julius Caesar manqué but he was still far
more dangerous to the republic than Ho Chi Minh was to the U.S. It's
strange for an American to hear of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution linked in
any way to "Salus populi suprema lex esto." LBJ's administration's
fabrications were of a piece with similar ones before the Spanish American
war (Remember the Maine!) In the Gulf of Tonkin a destroyer's propeller
seemed (to a sonarman) to be attacking the ship. This was chalked up to
torpedo boat attacks and duly reported. We might say that LBJ's preemptive
action prevented the U.S. from becoming a province of Vietnam but this is
not the case since there are now large Vietnamese (especially Hmong)
neighborhoods in many American cities. Of course these are dwarfed by the
Hispanic ones that had a 70 year head start (from 1898 not 1492).
As far as the mos maiorum goes, if they (or we) don't know what they mean
any more then it seems to me that the game is up and there is no way to
choose between Cicero and Catiline, much less Catiline and Caesar.

Edwin Menes

2003-07-13 23:57:31 UTC

I don't know how far I want to get in theorizing about language. I've
always gone about it empirically and pragmatically rather than
theoretically. I take a written grammar, e.g., to be a codification of
the rules already present in a language and expect it to be unable to
account for every phenomenon, but there is a large core which covers
most phenomena and which a native speaker unconsciously uses to judge
correctness of speech.

Similarly, the meaning of a word is the sum of its meanings in all
contexts, all of which constitute a semantic field. But at the center
is a meaning or two or three which serve most contexts. These are
denotations, the meanings that show up in a dictionary. At the edges
are metaphoric, metonymic, and synecdochic meanings, which also often
find their way into a dictionary. But outside the semantic field
strictly speaking, there are the implications of the use of a particular
word. That's what I mean by connotation.

For example, the word 'head' has a rather wide field--body part, chief
of an organization, ship's water closet, to name a few. The word
'noggin' is an exact synonym for the body part, but its use is folksy
and colloquial, sometimes proverbial, becoming obsolescent--all part of
the connotation. Or to take another example, realtors in the US do not
sell houses, they sell homes. To most people, 'home' connotes family,
warmth, safety, and other pleasant emotions. The realtor draws on the
connotations in order to sell bricks and mortar.

The categories are fluid, however, Languages change. Semantic shift is
common. (The word 'cheek' once meant the body part we now call 'jaw',
for an odd example.) Connotations change. Metaphoric uses move to the
center. Denotations go into storage until they are needed for a gloss..

Even worse from a prescriptive grammarians point of view, every speaker
of a language differs slightly from other speakers. Groups of speakers
differ from other groups of speakers both geographically and socially.
Conversation differs from careful speech. Informal writing differs from
formal writing. When one writes a grammar or a dictionary, exactly what
is one describing?

When this is applied to languages for which we have only a partial
written record, the problem is compounded because we are robbed even
more of context. In the end, I suppose we're left with prudential
judgments. I hope I haven't added to the confusion.

Edward Casey

2003-07-11 06:58:16 UTC

Post by Radek
Still, none of the examples in Lewis+Short or in my dictionary uses

Post by Radek
perfective form of vivere to express survival.

There are least two, although subjunctive, in L & S under B.1:"divinat
enim, quae futura fuerint, si Philippus vixisset"... "Quid Philippus,

Post by Edward Casey
vixisset, facturus fuerit."
Eduardus

If a perfect form is expressing an imperfective, isn't that an
"ungrammatical" use?

I may have been cavilling by calling it ungrammatical but it may not have
been necessary for you to call it grammatical in the first place. Just
because the English "if he would have lived" and "if he would have been
living" are both translated by "si vixisset," doesn't mean that there is
an implied notion of durative or continuative or imperfective aspect
contained in the Latin verb, except as modified by context. Even "ne
cantaveris" as opposed to "ne cecineris" expresses a frequenative aspect
so that the latter is "not a peep out of you" but the former is "don't sit
there singing all day." Whether an action in itself can be perfective or
imperfective is not clear to me but maybe "to die" is perfective. Usually
the semantics can distort any of these categories, especially aspect,
since it is a catch-all term to express anything about a verb except core
denotation that can't be described by tense or mood or person or number.
"Si tacuissem, philosophus mansissem" is another example. Is it "If I
hadn't blurted out that one word I would still be considered a
philosopher" or "If I had kept quiet all day they would have still thought
me a wise man when we parted"? Certainly "maneo" is permansive aspect.
If your only point was that "si vivam" is "if I could live" (and I might)
and "si viverem" is "if I were living" (but I'm not) and "si vixissem" is
"if I had lived" (but I didn't) then we agree totally.

Post by Edward Casey
The problem is that it may not be possible to
segregate the meanings "live" and "survive." How could one do so in the
sentence "Aufidius vixit ad summam senectutem"?

It may often be indistinguishable, but it is not with Harry Potter,
who survived a murder attempt.

I saw the movie versions but they went into short term memory. :)

Post by Edward Casey
How is "if he had been
still living" different from "if he had survived [to that point]?"

But that "... and likely to remain so..." is interpretation, not grammar.
You could also image a scenario whereby "if the arrow hadn't hit him"
(i.e. if he had lived, punctual aspect if there ever was one) he would
have had waffles in the morning (or whatever).

Post by Edward Casey
Maybe
Mr. Needham should have written "Puer qui supervixit" but more likely, he
knows something we don't.
Eduardus

I am sure he knows a number of things we don't, but I still think this
one slipped him. If for no other reason, I find it unlikely Cicero
would have used a phrase that gave a possibility of misenterpretation.
The positive result of this discussion is that I finally made up my
mind to buy the book.

I will certainly get the Latin version anyway if I can find a used copy
anywhere. I can steal the English version from my nieces.

Eduardus

Radek

2003-07-11 10:35:18 UTC

Post by Edward Casey
"Si tacuissem, philosophus mansissem" is another example.

I appreciate your consideration in saying "tacuissem" rather than
"tacuisses" :-)

Post by Edward Casey
I saw the movie versions but they went into short term memory. :)

It's just another children's movie full of special effects. It only
captured the bare bones of the story, but it missed out on everything
that makes the book worth reading.

Enough of this subject. I'm off for vacation.

Radek

Njean1943

2003-07-09 13:52:46 UTC

Post by NealGlnnn

Post by NealGlnnn
reading, I've read that Cicero employed "vixerunt" more in the way of a

clever

Post by NealGlnnn
circumlocution or euphemism, to avoid the blunt --or worse, inflammatory --
"they're dead:"

I've also read the same. As I understand it, this was said after the execution
of the Catalinian (sp?) conspirators - Roman citizens executed without a trial.
Cicero was Senior Consul at the time. I'm not sure if the forbidden words
coming from a Consul were "They're dead." or possibly "They've been killed."

Jean

Radek

2003-07-09 13:21:56 UTC

Post by Isaac Hummel

Post by Radek
I am waiting for someone to tell me, whether it's real Latin, or just
a children's reader with simplified word order and English style
sentences. Any opinions welcome.
Radek

I have not read the book, so I don't really know what kind of Latin it
is, but I think it is a safe bet that it isn't Cicero. I think it
probably has a limited vocabulary and somewhat simplified grammar, so
that someone who is not a Latin grad student or even a major would be
able to read it. Think of the target audience.
As to whether it uses English or Latin-style word order, some other
reader will have to enlighten us. All I can say is that I think it would
be lame if it used English verb-in-middle-of-sentence word-order.
-Isaac Hummel

I've finally found an expert opinion, only it comes from the
Bloomsbury homepage, so it's not quite independent:

The huge task of translating into Latin (most translations are done
from Latin) has been undertaken by Peter Needham, who taught Latin at
Eton for over 30 years.
James Morwood, of Oxford University, has said of the translation,
'The translation is great stuff. It is accurate and fluent, but it is
much more than that. It has been carried off with wit, inventiveness,
sensitivity and panache. I find it impossible to think of its being
better done.'

Radek

Radek

2003-07-30 09:30:07 UTC

My copy has arrived (together with the Latin Sexual Vocabulary, so I
should be able to understand it all). As far as I can judge this, the
language is (or is intended to be) real Latin that could be expected
in a children's book for native speakers. It avoids worm sentences and
obscure words, but does not simplify or anglicize grammar. You still
have indirect discourse with all the infinitives, subjunctives and
"se", you have gerundives turned gerunds, all kinds of case meanings,
and complex sentences. All in all, I am pleased with the book. I think
it a good way to learn the common everyday expressions you don't come
across in classical quotes. Here's a sample.

Dominus et Domina Dursley, qui vivebant in aedibus Gestationis
Ligustrorum numero quattuor signatis, non sine superbia dicebant se
ratione ordinaria vivendi uti neque se paenitere illius rationis. in
toto orbe terrarum vix credas quemquam esse minus deditum rebus novis
et arcanis, quod ineptias tales omnino spernebant.

Dominus Dursley praeerat societati nomine Grunnings, quae terebras
fecit. vir erat amplus et corpulentus nullo fere collo, maximo tamen
mystace. Domina Dursley erat macra et flava et prope alterum tantum
colli habebat quam alii homines, quod magno ei usui fuit quod tantum
tempus consumebat in collo super saepes hortorum porrigendo, finitimos
inspiciens. Durslei filium parvum nomine Dudley habebant nec usquam,
eorum sententia, erat puer splendidior.

Durslei omnia habebant quae volebant, sed rem quandam occultam
tenebant, et maxime timebant ne quis hoc secretum cognosceret.
putabant enim id fore intolerabile si quis de Potteris certior fieret.
Domina Potter erat soror Dominae Dursley, sed aliquot iam annos altera
cum altera non convenerat; re vera Domina Dursley simulabat se non
habere sororem, quod soror et coniunx eius, vir nefarius, erant
omnibus modis dissimiles Dursleis. Durslei horrescebant rati quid
dicturi essent finitimi is in viam suam advenirent Potteri. Durslei
sciebant Potteros quoque filium parvum habere, sed eum ne viderant
quidem. hic puer erat alia causa cur Potteros arcerent; nolebant enim
filium suum Dudleum puero tali familiarem esse.

ubi Dominus et Domina Dursley experrecti sunt illo die Martis obscuro
et tenebroso quo incipit narratio nostra, caelum nubilum externum
haudquaquam ominabatur res novas et arcanas mox ubique eventuras esse.
Dominus Dursley bombiebat dum fasciam hebetissimi coloris eligebat
idoneam ad negotia gerenda et Domina Dursley animo contento garriebat
dum Dudleum ululantem cogebat in sellam altam ascendere quasi cum eo
luctaretur.

nemo eorum animadvertit strigem magnam fulvi coloris praeter fenestram
volitantem.

octava hora et dimidia, Dominus Dursley chartarum thacam sumpsit,
basium brevissimum in genam Dominae Dursley impegit et conatus osculo
valedicere Dudleo rem male gessit, quod Dudley nunc tumultuabatur et
cerealia sua in parietes iaciebat. 'furcifer parvulus,' cachinnavit
Dominus Dursley domo egressus. in autocinetum ascendit et retro vectus
est e gestatione numeri quattuor.

Radek

Larry Elmore

2003-08-09 23:35:54 UTC

Post by Radek
My copy has arrived (together with the Latin Sexual Vocabulary, so I
should be able to understand it all). As far as I can judge this, the
language is (or is intended to be) real Latin that could be expected
in a children's book for native speakers. It avoids worm sentences and
obscure words, but does not simplify or anglicize grammar. You still
have indirect discourse with all the infinitives, subjunctives and
"se", you have gerundives turned gerunds, all kinds of case meanings,
and complex sentences. All in all, I am pleased with the book. I think
it a good way to learn the common everyday expressions you don't come
across in classical quotes. Here's a sample.

It looks promising. I've got a question, though. On the cover, the front
of the steam locomotive has the words 'hamaxostichus rapidus
hogvartensis" across it. I'm only partway through the 2nd section of
Jones & Sidwell's "Learning Latin" and there's a couple of things that
puzzle me. Since it's not in my Latin-English dictionary, I've found
'hamaxostichus' on the Internet, but little more info than that it means
'train,' which I already guessed. What's the derivation of this word? Is
it a compound? Also, is 'hogvartensis' a third-declension genitive, as I
suspect, or something else? What would be the nominative singular form?

Thanks,
Larry

Ed Cryer

2003-08-10 11:05:53 UTC