Discussion:
Splitting a Latin phrase at the right word
(too old to reply)
e***@yahoo.com
2005-10-19 16:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi Scholars!

I'm working on an art project using a phrase I liked from Seneca's
writing (which I read in English). The phase will be stamped into an
iron gate frame, part about the lock and part below. Not knowing even
the Latin sentence structure I don't know where to split it and I hope
to beg some help here. I have had no luck finding a working translator
on line.

Here is the phrase:
Mors non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est

Which is translated in the book I read to something like, death is not
the first to come but the final. Meaning death is a process we live
with for our entire life... So I would logically split it into two
parts thus

death is not the first to come/ but the final


Any help is greatly appreciated!

Ed
Ed Cryer
2005-10-19 16:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Hi Scholars!
I'm working on an art project using a phrase I liked from Seneca's
writing (which I read in English). The phase will be stamped into an
iron gate frame, part about the lock and part below. Not knowing even
the Latin sentence structure I don't know where to split it and I hope
to beg some help here. I have had no luck finding a working translator
on line.
Mors non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est
Which is translated in the book I read to something like, death is not
the first to come but the final. Meaning death is a process we live
with for our entire life... So I would logically split it into two
parts thus
death is not the first to come/ but the final
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Ed
Well, the logical split is at the "but" (sed), thus;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima mors est

But, because of other syntactical considerations in the Latin, I'd prefer
something even more split up, like this;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima
mors est

Ed
Ed Cryer
2005-10-19 16:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Oh, I forgot to mention that it's a hexameter in Latin.

Ed
Grant Hicks
2005-10-19 17:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Hi Scholars!
I'm working on an art project using a phrase I liked from Seneca's
writing (which I read in English). The phase will be stamped into an
iron gate frame, part about the lock and part below. Not knowing even
the Latin sentence structure I don't know where to split it and I hope
to beg some help here. I have had no luck finding a working translator
on line.
Mors non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est
Which is translated in the book I read to something like, death is not
the first to come but the final. Meaning death is a process we live
with for our entire life... So I would logically split it into two
parts thus
death is not the first to come/ but the final
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Ed
Well, the logical split is at the "but" (sed), thus;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima mors est
But, because of other syntactical considerations in the Latin, I'd
prefer something even more split up, like this;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima
mors est
Ed
I would have thought that "ultima" should go with "mors":

Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit
ultima mors est

This would seem to fit with the literal sense of the quotation, which is
more or less:

Death does not come [just] once ["single" in the Loeb translation]
but the one that carries [us] off
is the last death.

- Grant

P.S. This is not original with Seneca; it's Seneca quoting his friend
Lucilius's own verse back to him.
Ed Cryer
2005-10-19 17:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Hi Scholars!
I'm working on an art project using a phrase I liked from Seneca's
writing (which I read in English). The phase will be stamped into an
iron gate frame, part about the lock and part below. Not knowing even
the Latin sentence structure I don't know where to split it and I hope
to beg some help here. I have had no luck finding a working translator
on line.
Mors non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est
Which is translated in the book I read to something like, death is not
the first to come but the final. Meaning death is a process we live
with for our entire life... So I would logically split it into two
parts thus
death is not the first to come/ but the final
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Ed
Well, the logical split is at the "but" (sed), thus;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima mors est
But, because of other syntactical considerations in the Latin, I'd prefer
something even more split up, like this;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima
mors est
Ed
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit
ultima mors est
This would seem to fit with the literal sense of the quotation, which is
Death does not come [just] once ["single" in the Loeb translation]
but the one that carries [us] off
is the last death.
- Grant
P.S. This is not original with Seneca; it's Seneca quoting his friend
Lucilius's own verse back to him.
Yes, but he has to tell Lucilius to read the line again in order to see it
your way. He says;
Malo te legas quam epistulam meam; apparebit enim tibi hanc quam timemus
mortem extremam esse, non solam.
He uses "extremam" and "solam" to make it read that way; and "apparebit".
This implies to me that my interpretation (with "ultima" as object to
"rapit") hit first to a native Latin speaker.

Ed
Grant Hicks
2005-10-19 18:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Hi Scholars!
I'm working on an art project using a phrase I liked from Seneca's
writing (which I read in English). The phase will be stamped into an
iron gate frame, part about the lock and part below. Not knowing even
the Latin sentence structure I don't know where to split it and I hope
to beg some help here. I have had no luck finding a working translator
on line.
Mors non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est
Which is translated in the book I read to something like, death is not
the first to come but the final. Meaning death is a process we live
with for our entire life... So I would logically split it into two
parts thus
death is not the first to come/ but the final
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Ed
Well, the logical split is at the "but" (sed), thus;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima mors est
But, because of other syntactical considerations in the Latin, I'd
prefer something even more split up, like this;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima
mors est
Ed
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit
ultima mors est
This would seem to fit with the literal sense of the quotation, which
Death does not come [just] once ["single" in the Loeb translation]
but the one that carries [us] off
is the last death.
- Grant
P.S. This is not original with Seneca; it's Seneca quoting his friend
Lucilius's own verse back to him.
Yes, but he has to tell Lucilius to read the line again in order to see
it your way. He says;
Malo te legas quam epistulam meam; apparebit enim tibi hanc quam timemus
mortem extremam esse, non solam.
He uses "extremam" and "solam" to make it read that way; and
"apparebit". This implies to me that my interpretation (with "ultima" as
object to "rapit") hit first to a native Latin speaker.
Ed
In that case I don't quite understand Lucilius's meaning. How would you
translate what Lucilius was trying to say?

Even assuming you're right, though, esdusenet's interest in this phrase
seems to be based on Seneca's interpretation rather than Lucilius's:
cf. his paraphrase, "death is not the first to come but the final".
Breaking between "rapit" and "ultima" certainly better represents
Seneca's meaning.

- Grant
Ed Cryer
2005-10-19 19:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Hicks
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Hi Scholars!
I'm working on an art project using a phrase I liked from Seneca's
writing (which I read in English). The phase will be stamped into an
iron gate frame, part about the lock and part below. Not knowing even
the Latin sentence structure I don't know where to split it and I hope
to beg some help here. I have had no luck finding a working translator
on line.
Mors non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est
Which is translated in the book I read to something like, death is not
the first to come but the final. Meaning death is a process we live
with for our entire life... So I would logically split it into two
parts thus
death is not the first to come/ but the final
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Ed
Well, the logical split is at the "but" (sed), thus;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima mors est
But, because of other syntactical considerations in the Latin, I'd
prefer something even more split up, like this;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima
mors est
Ed
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit
ultima mors est
This would seem to fit with the literal sense of the quotation, which is
Death does not come [just] once ["single" in the Loeb translation]
but the one that carries [us] off
is the last death.
- Grant
P.S. This is not original with Seneca; it's Seneca quoting his friend
Lucilius's own verse back to him.
Yes, but he has to tell Lucilius to read the line again in order to see
it your way. He says;
Malo te legas quam epistulam meam; apparebit enim tibi hanc quam timemus
mortem extremam esse, non solam.
He uses "extremam" and "solam" to make it read that way; and "apparebit".
This implies to me that my interpretation (with "ultima" as object to
"rapit") hit first to a native Latin speaker.
Ed
In that case I don't quite understand Lucilius's meaning. How would you
translate what Lucilius was trying to say?
Even assuming you're right, though, esdusenet's interest in this phrase
seems to be based on Seneca's interpretation rather than Lucilius's: cf.
his paraphrase, "death is not the first to come but the final". Breaking
between "rapit" and "ultima" certainly better represents Seneca's meaning.
- Grant
I can't help but suspect that edsusenet knows more than he's letting on
here. Just consider what he's doing.
1. Posing as knowing no Latin
2. Choosing an ambiguous sentence.
3. Asking us to split it into two (ie. pass judgement on a particular
interpretation).

What's at stake here is the famous "Latin ambiguity".

May I ask a question of Ed himself (the OP, that is)? Where did you come
across this?

Ed
Grant Hicks
2005-10-19 20:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Hi Scholars!
I'm working on an art project using a phrase I liked from Seneca's
writing (which I read in English). The phase will be stamped into an
iron gate frame, part about the lock and part below. Not knowing even
the Latin sentence structure I don't know where to split it and I hope
to beg some help here. I have had no luck finding a working translator
on line.
Mors non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est
Which is translated in the book I read to something like, death is not
the first to come but the final. Meaning death is a process we live
with for our entire life... So I would logically split it into two
parts thus
death is not the first to come/ but the final
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Ed
Well, the logical split is at the "but" (sed), thus;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima mors est
But, because of other syntactical considerations in the Latin, I'd
prefer something even more split up, like this;
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit ultima
mors est
Ed
Mors non una venit
sed quae rapit
ultima mors est
This would seem to fit with the literal sense of the quotation,
Death does not come [just] once ["single" in the Loeb translation]
but the one that carries [us] off
is the last death.
- Grant
P.S. This is not original with Seneca; it's Seneca quoting his
friend Lucilius's own verse back to him.
Yes, but he has to tell Lucilius to read the line again in order to
see it your way. He says;
Malo te legas quam epistulam meam; apparebit enim tibi hanc quam
timemus mortem extremam esse, non solam.
He uses "extremam" and "solam" to make it read that way; and
"apparebit". This implies to me that my interpretation (with "ultima"
as object to "rapit") hit first to a native Latin speaker.
Ed
In that case I don't quite understand Lucilius's meaning. How would
you translate what Lucilius was trying to say?
Even assuming you're right, though, esdusenet's interest in this
phrase seems to be based on Seneca's interpretation rather than
Lucilius's: cf. his paraphrase, "death is not the first to come but
the final". Breaking between "rapit" and "ultima" certainly better
represents Seneca's meaning.
- Grant
I can't help but suspect that edsusenet knows more than he's letting on
here. Just consider what he's doing.
1. Posing as knowing no Latin
2. Choosing an ambiguous sentence.
3. Asking us to split it into two (ie. pass judgement on a particular
interpretation).
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational issues,
since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of how you
construe "ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise the
possibility of a 3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty darn
subtle. (In this country we generally attribute that level of wiliness
only to Karl Rove.)
Post by Ed Cryer
What's at stake here is the famous "Latin ambiguity".
May I ask a question of Ed himself (the OP, that is)? Where did you come
across this?
Ed
Ed Cryer
2005-10-19 21:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Hicks
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational issues,
since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of how you construe
"ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise the possibility of a
3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty darn subtle. (In this country
we generally attribute that level of wiliness only to Karl Rove.)
I had to look up Karl Rove. But he wasn't hard to find. Something like one
of our spin-doctors.
Ever hear of Alastair Campbell?

Well, ok. Maybe I'm projecting some of my own underhand, devious,
devilishness onto the OP, who might have all the ingenuous innocence of a
saint.

So, we have it as originally given; a split at the "sed".

Ed
Grant Hicks
2005-10-19 21:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational
issues, since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of how
you construe "ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise the
possibility of a 3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty darn
subtle. (In this country we generally attribute that level of
wiliness only to Karl Rove.)
I had to look up Karl Rove. But he wasn't hard to find. Something like
one of our spin-doctors.
Ever hear of Alastair Campbell?
Well, ok. Maybe I'm projecting some of my own underhand, devious,
devilishness onto the OP, who might have all the ingenuous innocence of
a saint.
So, we have it as originally given; a split at the "sed".
Ed
I don't know if "spin doctor" quite covers it; to me this implies trying
to affect perceptions after the event. Rove is a by reputation a
plotter. He and his cohorts in the White House were famously described
as "Mayberry Machiavellis" by a man who used to work there.

One of the stories about Rove, apparently true (or at least not to my
knowledge rebutted), was that in a Texas election some time back he had
his own office bugged (and the bug discovered) a day or two before the
election, so that he could blame the opposition without allowing time
for an investigation or an adequate response from the opposition. He
was also reputedly behind the "push polling" (look it up) during the
2000 primaries that spread a rumor that John McCain's adopted
Bangladeshi daughter was actually his illegitimate child with a Black
mother.

Grant
Ed Cryer
2005-10-19 21:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Hicks
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational issues,
since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of how you
construe "ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise the
possibility of a 3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty darn
subtle. (In this country we generally attribute that level of wiliness
only to Karl Rove.)
I had to look up Karl Rove. But he wasn't hard to find. Something like
one of our spin-doctors.
Ever hear of Alastair Campbell?
Well, ok. Maybe I'm projecting some of my own underhand, devious,
devilishness onto the OP, who might have all the ingenuous innocence of a
saint.
So, we have it as originally given; a split at the "sed".
Ed
I don't know if "spin doctor" quite covers it; to me this implies trying
to affect perceptions after the event. Rove is a by reputation a plotter.
He and his cohorts in the White House were famously described as "Mayberry
Machiavellis" by a man who used to work there.
One of the stories about Rove, apparently true (or at least not to my
knowledge rebutted), was that in a Texas election some time back he had
his own office bugged (and the bug discovered) a day or two before the
election, so that he could blame the opposition without allowing time for
an investigation or an adequate response from the opposition. He was also
reputedly behind the "push polling" (look it up) during the 2000 primaries
that spread a rumor that John McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was
actually his illegitimate child with a Black mother.
Grant
Ah; sounds more like a Tory than a New Labour man {:-
I lived through Watergate, and I can believe anything of the Oval Office.
Clinton and his cigar weren't a patch on the "expletive deleted" tapes back
in the 70s.

Ed
Grant Hicks
2005-10-20 18:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational
issues, since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of how
you construe "ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise the
possibility of a 3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty darn
subtle. (In this country we generally attribute that level of
wiliness only to Karl Rove.)
I had to look up Karl Rove. But he wasn't hard to find. Something like
one of our spin-doctors.
Ever hear of Alastair Campbell?
Well, ok. Maybe I'm projecting some of my own underhand, devious,
devilishness onto the OP, who might have all the ingenuous innocence of
a saint.
Ed, I slept on this last night and woke up to the realization that
there's an argument to be made that you yourself are the OP.

1. A devious person would sign the original post with his real name, on
the ground that no one would be expected to sign a pseudonymous post
with his real name.
2. An even more devious person would not directly point to the ambiguity
in question in his original post; he would raise the issue in an
apparently innocent way in his own persona (by, say, introducing the
idea of a 3-line division without specifying the "syntactical
considerations" that drive him to it).
3. a truly devious person might enjoy the irony of contrasting his own
underhand, devious, devilishness with the apparently lesser guile of the
OP.

Or maybe it was something I ate. A bad bit of beef, perhaps.

- Grant
Post by Ed Cryer
So, we have it as originally given; a split at the "sed".
Ed
Ed Cryer
2005-10-20 20:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational issues,
since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of how you
construe "ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise the
possibility of a 3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty darn
subtle. (In this country we generally attribute that level of wiliness
only to Karl Rove.)
I had to look up Karl Rove. But he wasn't hard to find. Something like
one of our spin-doctors.
Ever hear of Alastair Campbell?
Well, ok. Maybe I'm projecting some of my own underhand, devious,
devilishness onto the OP, who might have all the ingenuous innocence of a
saint.
Ed, I slept on this last night and woke up to the realization that there's
an argument to be made that you yourself are the OP.
1. A devious person would sign the original post with his real name, on
the ground that no one would be expected to sign a pseudonymous post with
his real name.
2. An even more devious person would not directly point to the ambiguity
in question in his original post; he would raise the issue in an
apparently innocent way in his own persona (by, say, introducing the idea
of a 3-line division without specifying the "syntactical considerations"
that drive him to it).
3. a truly devious person might enjoy the irony of contrasting his own
underhand, devious, devilishness with the apparently lesser guile of the
OP.
Or maybe it was something I ate. A bad bit of beef, perhaps.
- Grant
Post by Ed Cryer
So, we have it as originally given; a split at the "sed".
Ed
Ever hear of "suburban paranoia"? It covers things like when you find your
vegetable patch all trodden on; or a tomato thrown at your window. And then
conclude that it's that guy who's been winding you up. And, of course, you
can rationalise your suspicions and provide evidence; but only
circumstantial evidence.

Yes, you probably have. I once saw a Tom Hanks film called "The 'burbs"
which was about this phenomenon exactly.

Well, this looks like Usenet paranoia to me. And I don't know how to begin
to prove it wasn't me.

Ed
Grant Hicks
2005-10-20 20:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational
issues, since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of
how you construe "ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise
the possibility of a 3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty
darn subtle. (In this country we generally attribute that level of
wiliness only to Karl Rove.)
I had to look up Karl Rove. But he wasn't hard to find. Something
like one of our spin-doctors.
Ever hear of Alastair Campbell?
Well, ok. Maybe I'm projecting some of my own underhand, devious,
devilishness onto the OP, who might have all the ingenuous innocence
of a saint.
Ed, I slept on this last night and woke up to the realization that
there's an argument to be made that you yourself are the OP.
1. A devious person would sign the original post with his real name,
on the ground that no one would be expected to sign a pseudonymous
post with his real name.
2. An even more devious person would not directly point to the
ambiguity in question in his original post; he would raise the issue
in an apparently innocent way in his own persona (by, say, introducing
the idea of a 3-line division without specifying the "syntactical
considerations" that drive him to it).
3. a truly devious person might enjoy the irony of contrasting his own
underhand, devious, devilishness with the apparently lesser guile of
the OP.
Or maybe it was something I ate. A bad bit of beef, perhaps.
- Grant
Post by Ed Cryer
So, we have it as originally given; a split at the "sed".
Ed
Ever hear of "suburban paranoia"? It covers things like when you find
your vegetable patch all trodden on; or a tomato thrown at your window.
And then conclude that it's that guy who's been winding you up. And, of
course, you can rationalise your suspicions and provide evidence; but
only circumstantial evidence.
Yes, you probably have. I once saw a Tom Hanks film called "The 'burbs"
which was about this phenomenon exactly.
Well, this looks like Usenet paranoia to me. And I don't know how to
begin to prove it wasn't me.
Nor do I, but I didn't ask you to. All I said was that an argument
could be made.

Grant
Ed Cryer
2005-10-20 21:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational
issues, since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of how
you construe "ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise the
possibility of a 3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty darn
subtle. (In this country we generally attribute that level of
wiliness only to Karl Rove.)
I had to look up Karl Rove. But he wasn't hard to find. Something like
one of our spin-doctors.
Ever hear of Alastair Campbell?
Well, ok. Maybe I'm projecting some of my own underhand, devious,
devilishness onto the OP, who might have all the ingenuous innocence of
a saint.
Ed, I slept on this last night and woke up to the realization that
there's an argument to be made that you yourself are the OP.
1. A devious person would sign the original post with his real name, on
the ground that no one would be expected to sign a pseudonymous post
with his real name.
2. An even more devious person would not directly point to the ambiguity
in question in his original post; he would raise the issue in an
apparently innocent way in his own persona (by, say, introducing the
idea of a 3-line division without specifying the "syntactical
considerations" that drive him to it).
3. a truly devious person might enjoy the irony of contrasting his own
underhand, devious, devilishness with the apparently lesser guile of the
OP.
Or maybe it was something I ate. A bad bit of beef, perhaps.
- Grant
Post by Ed Cryer
So, we have it as originally given; a split at the "sed".
Ed
Ever hear of "suburban paranoia"? It covers things like when you find
your vegetable patch all trodden on; or a tomato thrown at your window.
And then conclude that it's that guy who's been winding you up. And, of
course, you can rationalise your suspicions and provide evidence; but
only circumstantial evidence.
Yes, you probably have. I once saw a Tom Hanks film called "The 'burbs"
which was about this phenomenon exactly.
Well, this looks like Usenet paranoia to me. And I don't know how to
begin to prove it wasn't me.
Nor do I, but I didn't ask you to. All I said was that an argument could
be made.
Grant
Not one that a philosopher would call "argument".
It reminds me of a case we had in the UK recently. Gangs of women parading
against paedophiles. One of the men they drove from his home turned out to
be a paediatrician.

Ed
Ed Cryer
2005-10-20 21:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Message headers are a far better type of evidence; especially server routes,
newsreader clients and user-agents.

Ed
bob
2005-10-20 22:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:02:58 +0100
Subject: Re: Splitting a Latin phrase at the right word
Gangs of women parading
against paedophiles. One of the men they drove from his home turned out to
be a paediatrician.
In my town of residence there is a Christian fundamentalist revival hall. A
couple years back the Servants of the Lord dragged a young man out of the
hall, pummeling him for supposedly casting lascivious glances at the
Handmaidens. Well, the gentleman turned out to be blind, and the Faithful
paid a substantial judgment.

Actually paediatrician would be a wonderful career choice for a paedophile -
a thoughtful choice. I am reminded of a case in the "Psychopathia Sexualis":
a veteran foot fetishist who sold women's shoes.

Bob
Grant Hicks
2005-10-20 23:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Grant Hicks
Actually, splitting it in two doesn't raise any interpretational
issues, since the natural two-way split is at "sed" regardless of how
you construe "ultima". Are you assuming he expected us to raise the
possibility of a 3-way split unbidden? That would be pretty darn
subtle. (In this country we generally attribute that level of
wiliness only to Karl Rove.)
I had to look up Karl Rove. But he wasn't hard to find. Something like
one of our spin-doctors.
Ever hear of Alastair Campbell?
Well, ok. Maybe I'm projecting some of my own underhand, devious,
devilishness onto the OP, who might have all the ingenuous innocence
of a saint.
Ed, I slept on this last night and woke up to the realization that
there's an argument to be made that you yourself are the OP.
1. A devious person would sign the original post with his real name, on
the ground that no one would be expected to sign a pseudonymous post
with his real name.
2. An even more devious person would not directly point to the
ambiguity in question in his original post; he would raise the issue in
an apparently innocent way in his own persona (by, say, introducing the
idea of a 3-line division without specifying the "syntactical
considerations" that drive him to it).
3. a truly devious person might enjoy the irony of contrasting his own
underhand, devious, devilishness with the apparently lesser guile of
the OP.
Or maybe it was something I ate. A bad bit of beef, perhaps.
- Grant
Post by Ed Cryer
So, we have it as originally given; a split at the "sed".
Ed
Ever hear of "suburban paranoia"? It covers things like when you find
your vegetable patch all trodden on; or a tomato thrown at your window.
And then conclude that it's that guy who's been winding you up. And, of
course, you can rationalise your suspicions and provide evidence; but
only circumstantial evidence.
Yes, you probably have. I once saw a Tom Hanks film called "The 'burbs"
which was about this phenomenon exactly.
Well, this looks like Usenet paranoia to me. And I don't know how to
begin to prove it wasn't me.
Nor do I, but I didn't ask you to. All I said was that an argument could
be made.
Grant
Not one that a philosopher would call "argument".
It reminds me of a case we had in the UK recently. Gangs of women parading
against paedophiles. One of the men they drove from his home turned out to
be a paediatrician.
Oh for goodness' sake. I'm writing tongue-in-cheek here.
Post by Ed Cryer
Ed
e***@yahoo.com
2005-10-23 19:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ed, Grant, and all - My way with words isn't fit to describe how
I appreciate the skill and cunning that has been brought to bear on my
little question, not to mention the intrigue. My devious side tempts
me to prolong the mystery with trickery, but I'm afraid my dullness
would expose me immediately, and I feel more loyalty to the simple
truth in this case which is more profound. However, I don't claim
the innocence of a Saint!

It was actually the machinations of filth such as Karl Rove that lead
me to seek comfort from despair in writings such as Seneca's. When I
first read Seneca about a decade ago I was profoundly appreciative of
the perspective gained from viewing one's life in the context of
broad human history and the simple absolute truths of nature our minds
tend to fool us from seeing. I agree with Seneca's premise that our
reluctance to accept death has far reaching impacts on our psyche and
limits us our ability to see truth and fully and profoundly appreciate
life throughout our lives. Oswald Spengler also has much to say about
the civic perspective gained from this reasoning in The Decline of the
West.

I was commissioned to build a gate, and as the design evolved from the
aesthetic and emotional roots I initially groped for, I saw emerge from
the winter prairie scene I was developing a theme of passing of time,
seasons, and the cycles of life. I recalled my earlier reading of
Seneca and decided I would definitely find a fitting phrase to emboss
the gate frame with.

I purchased the Loeb translation and found it much more difficult to
find a fitting phrase than I expected. I don't know if I originally
read a different translation (from a university library), or my memory
was inaccurate, but the writing was simply not as succinct as I
remembered.

I was actually looking for a phrase about our all being skeletons
marching towards death (which I never found), but came across "Mors
non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est" and found it more
fitting. You could say that this inclusion in the design is mostly for
my own satisfaction since it will be written in Latin, quite small, and
in a script font taken from an ancient document. However, I find the
cryptic nature of the design and the ambiguity of the phrase fitting
for a gate, avoiding sloganeering and alluding to the folkloric
tradition of a "secret password" written in an ancient language. I
also think the owner, who is proud of his Italian heritage, will
appreciate its origin and may also have some fun spinning the meaning
to be a threat for those wishing to penetrate his security gate.

As for my original question on splitting the phrase up, I greatly
appreciate the understanding of the Latin you have all helped me with.
I like Ed's suggestion of splitting the phrase into three because it
is more poetic, and am going after Seneca's meaning as Grant
suggests, so I'll see if I can figure out how to make Grant's
format work on the gate.

Thanks so much. I wish I knew Latin so I could engage in more of these
interesting discussions!

Ed
Ed Cryer
2005-10-23 20:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Hi Ed, Grant, and all - My way with words isn't fit to describe how
I appreciate the skill and cunning that has been brought to bear on my
little question, not to mention the intrigue. My devious side tempts
me to prolong the mystery with trickery, but I'm afraid my dullness
would expose me immediately, and I feel more loyalty to the simple
truth in this case which is more profound. However, I don't claim
the innocence of a Saint!
It was actually the machinations of filth such as Karl Rove that lead
me to seek comfort from despair in writings such as Seneca's. When I
first read Seneca about a decade ago I was profoundly appreciative of
the perspective gained from viewing one's life in the context of
broad human history and the simple absolute truths of nature our minds
tend to fool us from seeing. I agree with Seneca's premise that our
reluctance to accept death has far reaching impacts on our psyche and
limits us our ability to see truth and fully and profoundly appreciate
life throughout our lives. Oswald Spengler also has much to say about
the civic perspective gained from this reasoning in The Decline of the
West.
I was commissioned to build a gate, and as the design evolved from the
aesthetic and emotional roots I initially groped for, I saw emerge from
the winter prairie scene I was developing a theme of passing of time,
seasons, and the cycles of life. I recalled my earlier reading of
Seneca and decided I would definitely find a fitting phrase to emboss
the gate frame with.
I purchased the Loeb translation and found it much more difficult to
find a fitting phrase than I expected. I don't know if I originally
read a different translation (from a university library), or my memory
was inaccurate, but the writing was simply not as succinct as I
remembered.
I was actually looking for a phrase about our all being skeletons
marching towards death (which I never found), but came across "Mors
non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est" and found it more
fitting. You could say that this inclusion in the design is mostly for
my own satisfaction since it will be written in Latin, quite small, and
in a script font taken from an ancient document. However, I find the
cryptic nature of the design and the ambiguity of the phrase fitting
for a gate, avoiding sloganeering and alluding to the folkloric
tradition of a "secret password" written in an ancient language. I
also think the owner, who is proud of his Italian heritage, will
appreciate its origin and may also have some fun spinning the meaning
to be a threat for those wishing to penetrate his security gate.
As for my original question on splitting the phrase up, I greatly
appreciate the understanding of the Latin you have all helped me with.
I like Ed's suggestion of splitting the phrase into three because it
is more poetic, and am going after Seneca's meaning as Grant
suggests, so I'll see if I can figure out how to make Grant's
format work on the gate.
Thanks so much. I wish I knew Latin so I could engage in more of these
interesting discussions!
Ed
You sound very educated, Ed, and I'll treat you as such.

Are you familiar with modern cosmology's theory of multiverses? Somewhere
out there, in some parallel universe flapping on a membrane amidst myriads
of others, in which there is no absolute time, no absolute reality, and
nowhere for even God to stand and view the whole shebang in a unified
glimpse, stands a version of me talking to Vergil; and not like Dante,
guided through the Inferno in the midway of this our mortal coil; no, not a
dreamy vision in some valley beset by creatures of the mind, but a real
universe of flesh and blood. And I tell Vergil in his own native Latin that
no-one has ever moved me quite as much as his hexameters do from two
thousand years ago.

He often wrote Stoic doctrines, just like Seneca; and one of these was that
time is cyclical, and keeps starting over and over again, like Nietzsche's
eternal recurrence.

Sicelides Musae, paulo maiora canamus.
non omnis arbusta iuvant humilesque myricae;
si canimus silvas, silvae sint consule dignae.
Ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis aetas;
magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo.
(Muses of Sicily, let us sing of things a little higher. Not everyone likes
trees and the lowly tamarisk. If we sing of woods, let them be woods worthy
of a consul. The last age prophesied by the Sibyl of Cumae has now come; the
great series of the centuries starts over again.)
Eclogue IV

Put this on your door. It's far better that Seneca's weary and dreary
attempts to tell us how useless life is.

Ed

Robert Stonehouse
2005-10-20 00:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.com
Hi Scholars!
I'm working on an art project using a phrase I liked from Seneca's
writing (which I read in English). The phase will be stamped into an
iron gate frame, part about the lock and part below. Not knowing even
the Latin sentence structure I don't know where to split it and I hope
to beg some help here. I have had no luck finding a working translator
on line.
Mors non una venit sed quae rapit ultima mors est
Which is translated in the book I read to something like, death is not
the first to come but the final. Meaning death is a process we live
with for our entire life... So I would logically split it into two
parts thus
death is not the first to come/ but the final
Your translator has tired to give the overall sense rather
than the meaning of particular words.

" Death comes as not one thing, but the last thing that
takes away is death."
That is, death is not one event but a process, of which only
the last stage should be called death.

I doubt the truth of this.
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
Loading...