please translate

[Geo71]

can you put this into latin please..

you wish you were us!

the you is meant to be plural not singular.

thanks.

[Edward Casey]

Post by Geo71
can you put this into latin please..
you wish you were us!
the you is meant to be plural not singular.
thanks.

Cupitis ut nos essetis.

[I have no confidence at all in the above translation. I suspect that
the Romans couldn't say it. It may even be the case that it's not really
possible to mean such a thing in any language. See Penrose's excursus on
teleportation and cloning in "The Emperor's New Mind" and Michael Keaton
in the movie "Multiplicity."]

"Nobis invidetis" sounds more like Latin to me.

Eduardus

Eduardus

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Edward Casey

Post by Geo71
can you put this into latin please..
you wish you were us!
the you is meant to be plural not singular.
thanks.

Cupitis ut nos essetis.
[I have no confidence at all in the above translation. I suspect that
the Romans couldn't say it. It may even be the case that it's not really
possible to mean such a thing in any language. See Penrose's excursus on
teleportation and cloning in "The Emperor's New Mind" and Michael Keaton
in the movie "Multiplicity."]
"Nobis invidetis" sounds more like Latin to me.
Eduardus
Eduardus

I go with "nobis invidetis". However, I'm sure there's some very appropriate
phrase for something like "stand in our shoes".
I've found the following in L & S.
Calceus - a shoe, half-boot (covering the whole foot). Because senators wore
a peculiar half-boot; calceos mutare (ie. to change shoes) = to become a
senator.
Vestitum mutare (change clothing) = put on mourning.
Ad suum vestitum redire = lay off mourning.

My stab is for "Calceati sicut nos".

Edus Britannicus

[Geo71]

what is it with these replies?

one of you says it can't be said in any language. but, i gave it to you in
english.

the other starts talking about staing in my shoes.

why can't you focus on the request.

[Edward Casey]

Post by Geo71
what is it with these replies?
one of you says it can't be said in any language. but, i gave it to you in
english.
the other starts talking about staing in my shoes.
why can't you focus on the request.

I did focus, to the point of achieving double vision:

"Cupitis ut nos essetis. "
*** Literal, but all but meaningless. See below***

"[I have no confidence at all in the above translation. I suspect that
the Romans couldn't say it. It may even be the case that it's not really
possible to mean such a thing in any language. See Penrose's excursus on
teleportation and cloning in "The Emperor's New Mind" and Michael Keaton
in the movie "Multiplicity."]"

"Nobis invidetis" sounds more like Latin to me. "
*** You didn't give any clue in your original posting whether you knew
Latin or not. I assumed that you did. In case I was mistaken then know
that the above version means "You envy us," which is in fact what "You
wish you were us" means, neither more nor less. Literally, of course, it
seems to aim at something beyond the bounds of the thinkable and,
therefore, darüber muss man schweigen. I admit that, however, it is very
colorful in an ultraviolet sort of way.

Eduardus

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Geo71
what is it with these replies?
one of you says it can't be said in any language. but, i gave it to you in
english.
the other starts talking about staing in my shoes.
why can't you focus on the request.

As soon as you can convince me that propositions exist as real entities
irrespective of a particular language, then I'll attempt a
once-and-for-all-time translation. This will stand alongside God in that
firmament beyond space-time.
In the meantime we must at all costs avoid bigotry; in fact anything non-PC.
Multi-culturalism; multi-denominationalism, multi-linguistically multiplied
for the multitude.

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Geo71
what is it with these replies?
one of you says it can't be said in any language. but, i gave it to you

in

Post by Geo71
english.
the other starts talking about staing in my shoes.
why can't you focus on the request.

As soon as you can convince me that propositions exist as real entities
irrespective of a particular language, then I'll attempt a
once-and-for-all-time translation. This will stand alongside God in that
firmament beyond space-time.
In the meantime we must at all costs avoid bigotry; in fact anything non-PC.
Multi-culturalism; multi-denominationalism, multi-linguistically multiplied
for the multitude.
Ed

Let me illustrate this with an example.
"It is raining", "Il pleut", "Es regnet".
If you say they all mean the same, then what is entailed? Do they picture or
illustrate some real situation, ie. correspond to something independent of
the language?
Or maybe they have the same grammatical structure; subject + verb.

Or do they all convey the same proposition? Perhaps some ideal thought in
the mind of God?

Consider "It is raining cats and dogs", "it's tipping it down", "it's
pouring"; or progress to a higher metaphor, "it's coming down fair to warn
Noah to get building". (This is being written in England, in October)

I think the best you can say for all these is that "they function the same
in the same situation", but then when you come to consider how norms and
values differ between cultures and across time, you're in trouble again.

****

The best we can manage, Geo71, seeing that Latin is a dead language and that
all attempts to keep it alive and evolving are highly artificial and depend
on prescriptive input from individuals rather than the melting-pot of common
usage, is to give you our personal preferences.

Ed

[John Briggs]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Geo71
what is it with these replies?
one of you says it can't be said in any language. but, i gave it
to you in english.
the other starts talking about staing in my shoes.
why can't you focus on the request.

As soon as you can convince me that propositions exist as real
entities irrespective of a particular language, then I'll attempt a
once-and-for-all-time translation. This will stand alongside God in
that firmament beyond space-time.
In the meantime we must at all costs avoid bigotry; in fact anything
non-PC. Multi-culturalism; multi-denominationalism,
multi-linguistically multiplied for the multitude.
Ed

Let me illustrate this with an example.
"It is raining", "Il pleut", "Es regnet".
If you say they all mean the same, then what is entailed? Do they
picture or illustrate some real situation, ie. correspond to
something independent of the language?
Or maybe they have the same grammatical structure; subject + verb.
Or do they all convey the same proposition? Perhaps some ideal
thought in the mind of God?
Consider "It is raining cats and dogs", "it's tipping it down", "it's
pouring"; or progress to a higher metaphor, "it's coming down fair to
warn Noah to get building". (This is being written in England, in
October)
I think the best you can say for all these is that "they function the
same in the same situation", but then when you come to consider how
norms and values differ between cultures and across time, you're in
trouble again.
****
The best we can manage, Geo71, seeing that Latin is a dead language
and that all attempts to keep it alive and evolving are highly
artificial and depend on prescriptive input from individuals rather
than the melting-pot of common usage, is to give you our personal
preferences.

This is usually the point at which I trot out my Descartes anecdote. People
think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first wrote (in the
"Discours de la Méthode") was "Je pense, donc je suis". When he came to
translate it into Latin (for an international audience) he found that just
writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis that that it was "I" who was doing
the thinking - so he wrote "Ego cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the
same existential meaning as "I am".

So his final formulation was: "Ego cogito, ergo sum, sive existo." "I,
myself, I think, therefore I am, or rather I exist."

[Ed Cryer]

Post by John Briggs
This is usually the point at which I trot out my Descartes anecdote.

People

Post by John Briggs
think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first wrote (in the
"Discours de la Mthode") was "Je pense, donc je suis". When he came to
translate it into Latin (for an international audience) he found that just
writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis that that it was "I" who was doing
the thinking - so he wrote "Ego cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the
same existential meaning as "I am".
So his final formulation was: "Ego cogito, ergo sum, sive existo." "I,
myself, I think, therefore I am, or rather I exist."
--
John Briggs

Apart from failing to see that the very use of a verb in the first person
ontologically implies an "I", didn't Descartes also believe in the
ontological proof of God?

Ed

[John Briggs]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by John Briggs
This is usually the point at which I trot out my Descartes anecdote.
People think that he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum". But what he first
wrote (in the "Discours de la Mthode") was "Je pense, donc je suis".
When he came to translate it into Latin (for an international
audience) he found that just writing "cogito" didn't really emphasis
that that it was "I" who was doing the thinking - so he wrote "Ego
cogito". Similarly "sum" didn't convey the same existential meaning
as "I am".
So his final formulation was: "Ego cogito, ergo sum, sive existo."
"I, myself, I think, therefore I am, or rather I exist."
--
John Briggs

Apart from failing to see that the very use of a verb in the first
person ontologically implies an "I",

Not in Latin, it doesn't :-)

Post by Ed Cryer
didn't Descartes also believe in
the ontological proof of God?

Apparently not :-)

[Geo71]

its not meant to be a work of high end literature. its a slogan. can you get
it?

[John Briggs]

Post by Geo71
its not meant to be a work of high end literature. its a slogan.
can you get it?

Have you considered employing a language more suited to "low end
literature"?

[Edward Casey]

Post by John Briggs

Post by Geo71
its not meant to be a work of high end literature. its a slogan.
can you get it?

Have you considered employing a language more suited to "low end
literature"?
--
John Briggs

Hey, Latin works fine for the Umgangssprache! Someone even posted a few
limericks here in Latin once. They were definitely non suitable for
mixed company.

Eduardus

[bob]

Lucius Alter Eduardo sal.

Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:41:32 -0500
Subject: Re: please translate

Post by John Briggs

Post by Geo71
its not meant to be a work of high end literature. its a slogan.
can you get it?

Have you considered employing a language more suited to "low end
literature"?
--
John Briggs

Hey, Latin works fine for the Umgangssprache! Someone even posted a few
limericks here in Latin once. They were definitely non suitable for
mixed company.
Eduardus

Exemplo gratia:

Admiror, paries, te non cecidisse ruina,
qui tot scriptorum taedia sustineas. (CIL 4. 2487)

Quid sequitur commentarium Housman detraxit qui id simile consideraret
sententiae Anglicae qua dicitur "whoever reads this is a fool...":


amat qui scribet, pedicatur qui leget,
qui opscultat prurit, paticus est qui praeterit.
ursi me comedant; et ego uerpa qui lego. (CLE 1864) Commentaria Housmaniana
hic inveniantur: Hermes 66 (1931), 406.

Eheu, quid sequitur rectitudine poltitica caret:

qui uerpam uissit, quid cenasse illum putes? (CIL 4.1884)

Et ne vox quidem popularis senectutem lamentare omittat nec sapientiam
utilem dare dubitet:

seni supino colei culum tegunt.(CIL 4.4488)

Et Doctor Ruth huius actori liveret!

Futuitur cunnus pilossus multo melius quam glaber:
eadem continet uaporem et eadem u[ell]it mentulam. (CIL4.18300)

Valeas.

[Edward Casey]

Eduardus Lucio Alteri s.d.

Post by bob
Lucius Alter Eduardo sal.

[...]

Post by bob
Admiror, paries, te non cecidisse ruina,
qui tot scriptorum taedia sustineas. (CIL 4. 2487)
Quid sequitur commentarium Housman detraxit qui id simile consideraret
amat qui scribet, pedicatur qui leget,
qui opscultat prurit, paticus est qui praeterit.
ursi me comedant; et ego uerpa qui lego. (CLE 1864) Commentaria Housmaniana
hic inveniantur: Hermes 66 (1931), 406.
qui uerpam uissit, quid cenasse illum putes? (CIL 4.1884)
Et ne vox quidem popularis senectutem lamentare omittat nec sapientiam
seni supino colei culum tegunt.(CIL 4.4488)
Et Doctor Ruth huius actori liveret!
eadem continet uaporem et eadem u[ell]it mentulam. (CIL4.18300)
Valeas.

Gratias juges tibi habeo pro scriptis illis subviridibus, Luci non
infacete. Praesertim placet illud quod jure (aut secus) suspicaris
Doctrici illi reverendae et formidabili Teutonicae non placiturum nam
est res magmatica (steamy stuff). Proh dolor, in dies nos senescentes
(ne dicam silicernia evadentes) calviores fimus prope polum illum
antipodum. Quidnam morosa delectatione ruminatus est Stephanus noster
Daedalus de lacu asphaltita?

vale Aristophantice

Sed quid illud mihi subolet? Vereor ne alii his lectis incipiant
mussitare "Quis hic vissivit?" (Verbum rei maxime idoneum me judice).

[bob]

Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:29:28 +0100
Subject: Re: please translate
As soon as you can convince me that propositions exist as real entities
irrespective of a particular language, then I'll attempt a
once-and-for-all-time translation.

Actually I had a logic course for which this question was the theme.
Actually the question was more like whether or not the relationships
expressed in logical propositions required the verbal correlatives of
"traditional language". As I recall, the closest we came to an answer was
that "symbolic representation" was necessary, but that this did not
necessarily conform to what most folk would describe as "language'. As an
illustration we were given several demonstrations of systems which did not
use language or words that would in any way have conformed to the stoixeia
of Plato or, for that matter, the referential frame of any other traditional
philosopher. We manipulated systems which used only strings of nonsense
syllables, others which used a variety of graphic representations which did
not readily permit even approximate verbal utterance, and we even
encountered a system designed by a graduate physics student which utilized
light patterns.

Whole subsystems of modern logic deal with so called propositional calculus
which, among other endeavors, attempts to formalize and clarify a variety of
perceived ambiguities in traditional modes of verbal discourse. But now I'm
venturing far from familiar ground. Perhaps if Rolleston is out there among
the orbiting electrons he may more properly illuminate the matter.

Bob

[Ed Cryer]

Post by bob

Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:29:28 +0100
Subject: Re: please translate
As soon as you can convince me that propositions exist as real entities
irrespective of a particular language, then I'll attempt a
once-and-for-all-time translation.

Actually I had a logic course for which this question was the theme.
Actually the question was more like whether or not the relationships
expressed in logical propositions required the verbal correlatives of
"traditional language". As I recall, the closest we came to an answer was
that "symbolic representation" was necessary, but that this did not
necessarily conform to what most folk would describe as "language'. As an
illustration we were given several demonstrations of systems which did not
use language or words that would in any way have conformed to the stoixeia
of Plato or, for that matter, the referential frame of any other traditional
philosopher. We manipulated systems which used only strings of nonsense
syllables, others which used a variety of graphic representations which did
not readily permit even approximate verbal utterance, and we even
encountered a system designed by a graduate physics student which utilized
light patterns.
Whole subsystems of modern logic deal with so called propositional calculus
which, among other endeavors, attempts to formalize and clarify a variety of
perceived ambiguities in traditional modes of verbal discourse. But now I'm
venturing far from familiar ground. Perhaps if Rolleston is out there among
the orbiting electrons he may more properly illuminate the matter.
Bob

I see it more as a question of metaphysics, and since I can't accept the
proposals of rationalists from Plato's forms to Wittgenstein's logical
atomism, I have to make do.
Actually, in practice I make do quite well; almost as if some such
underlying truth were the case.
Who was it who said that if God didn't exist we'd have to invent him?
Dostoevsky? Voltaire?

Ed the would-be rational optimist.

[bob]

Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:06:39 +0100
Subject: Re: please translate
Who was it who said that if God didn't exist we'd have to invent him?
Dostoevsky? Voltaire?

I prefer Nietzsche who opined that if god existed he would have written
better Greek.


Bob