I recently began reading Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola's biography of his uncle, and I came across a sentence I found rather difficult to parse. I hope that someone here with more experience in (Neo-)Latin might be able to help me understand it. In the passage in question, Gianfrancesco is describing Giovanni's thoughts about his 900 theses and Apology.

The sentence is: Scolasticamque exercitationem more academiarum meditatus, multa veterum philosophorum - Alexandri scilicet et Averrois aliorumque quam plurium - impia dogmata proposuisse, quae semper publice et privatim asseruerat, professus fuerat, praedicaverat non minus a verae rectaeque philosophiae quam a fidei semitis declinare.

I think I understand that se must be understood as subject of proposuisse in continued indirect speech (by the way, is this a Neo-Latin thing?), but if this is the case I would expect meditatum, agreeing with this se. Could it somehow be connected with the (implied) subject speaking, being the same person as the subject of proposuisse? How common are such constructions? Sorry if my question is unclear or stupid; I was just not able to be certain about this on my own.

If it helps, here is a link to the text (on page 11).

Cannot understand this sentence for the life of me (from Latin by the Natural Method, vol 2):

“In urbem quia duci credidit ingredientem comprehenderunt qui mali erant cives eiusdem urbis.”

No macrons given in the original. The best I can do is the following but it makes no sense in terms of meaning (although I think it is a grammatically correct translation):

“Those who were evil citizens of that town arrested the man entering the town because he believed himself to be led.”

So like I was thinking about the word "estar" in spanish, and learned it's etymology -- it comes from latin stare.

So I want to say "'estar' in spanish is derived from 'stare' in latin".

Would it then be grammatical and rightly idiomatic to say "estar hispanice derivitatur a latina: stare".

How I parse that super-literal being "estar spanishly is derived from (out of lingua) latina: stare".

Is this right, or is there a better and more idiomatic way of saying this? I feel like literally I should probably have some sort of genetive construct there to say it's "latin's" stare, or that this is an overwrought construct overall and probably has a better idiom to do the same thing.

“ORNAMENTA DOMUS AMICI FREQUENTANTE”

My best guess is frequently adorn your house with friends? But is there a more poetic translation??

I can read the Gospel in Latin without any problems (because I know it in my own language), other examples of texts that I understand well are the first chapter of De bello gallico, the third chapter of De coniuratione Catilinae or, even if with some difficulty, the first chapter of the Catilinarian Orations.

What are good texts of this level or slightly higher to translate?

I prefer to distinguish vocalic <i> from consonantal <j> when writing Latin, but I’m puzzled about how to handle the verb aio. None of the dictionaries on Logeion—not even those that usually draw this distinction—spell it with a <j>. However, the Wiktionary entry contains this usage note:

Often spelt āiō, etc. with long ā before consonantal i, especially in older editions, even though the a is in fact short. This is to mark the syllable as long by position due to the regularly-double morpheme-internal /j/, which is normally spelt as single in modern editions.

I understand that the <i> in forms like ais and ait are strictly vocalic, but what about when it is followed by a vowel? Should I write <j> in forms like ajō, ajunt, ajēbam, ajēns, and so on?

EDIT: After seeing how "aiunt" scans in Hor. Sat. 1.1.32, I’m pretty sure it's consonantal (though maybe that’s just poetic license). So now I’m wondering: why doesn’t Gaffiot 2016 use <j> here, even though it usually does elsewhere?

Hello everyone! As I wrote in my previous posts about my challenging medieval treatise, you guys have been very helpfull and I have gratitude for that. I will improve my skills and do my best to help all those I can out here!

The very last passage that I have is longer and deals with polygamy. The author argues that although it is sinful and unnatural for mankind, it was somewhat tolerated by God in exceptionnal cases and if it was used with a godly mindset. He writes about a few passages in the Old Testament where it happened before this passages. The second sentence probably means that "for this reason, we should be tolerant (about polygamy) in that period and not draw conclusion that the privilege of a few should become the common rule." The rest of this passages mentions important characters from the Old Testament and argues that they had a godly reason for polygamy. My problem is again that I can't make full sense of these sentences, except for the second one.

Quare manifestum est intelligentibus consilio usos fuisse ad tempus, in parte ista, quo nature auxilium contra tenebras errorum impietatis et ydolatrie advocarent. Unde quod ex causa indultum est paucis ad tempus, non est trahendum ad consequentiam, cum privilegia paucorum non faciant legem communem. Propter predictas igitur multitudo uxorum tolerata est, ne deteriora fierent. Aut suscepto divino consilio ut gentes sanctorum multiplicarentur, et divini cultus religio augmentaretur. Quantus autem amor sancte posteritatis sanctis mulieribus fuerit, ostendunt sara, lia, rachel, qui viros suos abraam, scilicet, et iacob induxerunt, ut ad ancillas earum ingrederentur. Viris igitur perfectis alia fuit causa ut diximus multitudinis uxorum, alia deteriora timentibus, ut imperfectis alia lascivientibus, et viciosis. Et hoc precipue mundo in dei noticia et cultura novicio.

This is a letter praising a certain rhetorician, Isaeus, whose prowess is thus explained:

Ad tantam ἕξιν [= peritiam] studio et exercitatione pervenit; nam diebus et noctibus nihil aliud agit nihil audit nihil loquitur.

Quite easy to understand, literally: "he does nothing else, doesn't listen to anything, doesn't speak at all". But what to make of it? That doesn't sound like practice for a speaker?

J. B. Firth translates it so:

He has attained this facility by study and constant practice, for he does nothing else day or night: either as a listener or speaker he is for ever discussing.

How did he get to "for ever discussing" from "nihil loquitur"?

Hey guys, I've been workign with a couple of high schoolers with introductory latin for 1-2 hours a week, and currently we are aiming for them to take the NLE Intro exam. However that seems a little boring in terms of how much stuff we are doing during the year. Are there any online activities like online Certamen that you guys know of? Preferably contests or exams that would keep our high schoolers interested.

It is simply strange to me that there are both masculine and feminine versions of the same noun that seems to have its meaning unchanged with the change of its grammatical gender. How did Ancient Latins use them?

I tried to find a previous post about this, but was unsuccessful. Apologies for a possible repetition...

HERE MI, NESCIS HORA MORIERIS, SI QUÆRIS, QUA

I understand HORA...QUA as ablatives, "At what time you will die," i.e....

Here Mī, Nescīs Hōrā Moriēris, Sī Quaeris, Quā

Can a grammar expert confirm this parse (...or disconfirm it)? Asking because... Victorian poet laureate Lord Alfred Tennyson, "when translating it, broke out into exclamations, "But you've no notion what bad Latin it is!" "But you can't imagine how vile the Latin is!'" (Gatty 1872, 1900; bold, mine)...and this is his translation, FWIW..."Oh! my master, if thou should'st seek to know the hour of thy death, thou shalt be ignorant of it."

Thank you!

I'm currently going through Fr. Most's Latin by the Natural Method, and one of the sentences I have to translate is:

A large part of the soldiers was seen.

At first, I thought it would be:

Magna pars militum visa est.

where visa est agrees with pars (feminine nominative singular). But earlier in this section, Most has:

Magna pars legatorum Romanorum in urbem venerunt.

In this sentence, venerunt is plural, agreeing in number with legatorum, not pars. This made me think it should be:

Magna pars militum visi sunt.

with visi being plural rather than singular. But then I thought, "If visus agrees with militium in number, shouldn't it also agree in case?" That translation would be:

Magna pars militum visorum sunt.

Which of my translations is correct? Should visus esse agree with pars or militum?

Hello, I am a composer in search of a Latin lyricist to help with a large scale orchestral and choral work. This is a paid job and will require a very high level Latin expertise, as well as a sense of musicality, rhymes and proper understanding of rhythm. Please DM me if you are interested or know where I could find someone. Many thanks.

Hi there, nice to be here.

So I've done about half a year of introductory Latin at my university but have become rusty over time due to disuse and underexposure to the language. My experience also wasn't that great given that I was quite ill all throughout the semester and it impacted my learning and enjoyment of the subject.

But nowadays, I've been trying to self-study with the textbooks I bought for the semester (Reading Latin series by Peter Jones and Keith Sidwell, which includes a more readable version of Plautus' Aulalaria) and trying to maintain disciplined and sustained engagement. I also bought LLPSI and Wheelock's Latin for variety and other reference points. I managed to engage in rigorous study for 25 minutes 5-6 days a week for a total of 3 weeks before I got ill again and had to take a break.

I've focused a lot on developing reading fluency so I focused on LLPSI and RL but I find that if I've spent too much time on reading fluency, I end up losing my joy and motivation for the subject. But what initially got me hooked and engaged with Latin is that I was able to decompile and decode the nuances of the language and discover some novel perspectives from a linguistic standpoint.

That feeling of unravelling the hidden meanings and nuances of the language is what really interests me and yes, reading fluency is a great skill and I'll certainly keep developing it, but my natural "candy" seems to be the actual decoding and close linguistic and grammatical analysis.

I have two questions arising from this:

1. Is this a motivation some of you also have that sustains you through the study of it?
2. If not, what other motivation is there? The sense of discovering the culture? Mastery? Fun?? Etc.

I'd like some perspective especially from the more experienced Latinist about what keeps them engaged. Any insight on this would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

I have problems understanding the second part of this sentence:

"Manlius Vero inter corpus et arma galli sese insinuans uno alteroque ictu ventrem transfodit et in spatium ingens ruentem porrexit hostem"

The first part I can understand, I think: but manlius charged between the three body and the weapons of the Gaul and pierced the belly with two strikes and ?????"

Thanks!!

Shirleium = Shirley (surname). I think there’s reference to him being like the sun or something related to the sun and shadows but not sure

Dear All,

Studying Nova Vulgata I have noticed a peculiar sentence, John 3:33:

Qui accipit eius testimonium, signavit quia Deus verax est.

Now Clementine Vulgate reads:

Qui accepit ejus testimonium signavit, quia Deus verax est.

Where the difference and focus of the question lies in Nova Vulgata's use of "accipit" here.

Both Greek texts and modern English versions are in support of past tense here. I am not sure whatsoever as to why present case was adopted in NV. I see three options:

1. Mistake
2. Adoption of "accipisse" for the perfect infinitive. Even if we let it be very unusual, I see no support of the use of this anywhere.
3. Use of present for the same reasons as "the sun rises in the East" is in present tense. However this seems so weak and makes the sentence so illogical as to leave me utterly confused.

Any help is appreciated.

Should I read 'v' as 'w' or 'v'? 'Ci' as 'ki' or 'chi'? This is all, I just want to know how most people do it or what is most accepted.

Wedi, widi, wiki is how I've read vedi vidi vici for a bit, but I've seen other stuff. Thank youu :3

Can anyone tell me why Latin is in the dative case instead of the accusative case? I feel like I skipped something in my actual beginning journey on Latin because of this.

I do Latin at school (IB) but really haven’t paid enough attention in class and I’ve really fallen behind particularly around grammar. Is there any advice on how to relearn what I should’ve done before?

I am reading through Familia Romana and are really confused with this phrase - "ab oppido ad villam".

Why is "oppidum" in ablative and "villa" in accusative? I just can''t really make sense of it, since in this case I cannot justify what "verb" (action) has been "done" to the villa in order to make it accusative.

I'm interested in using the Bible as a way to encourage regular practice for myself, bit is it feasible as a third year latin high school student?

I am working my way through Coleburn on my own and came up against a question that I am struggling with:

"After besieging Troy for a long time, the Greeks adopted a new plan."

"Graecī, temporō longō Trōiā obsessā, consilium novum cēperunt."

Is my current best guess. But there are two concepts I am struggling with. Firstly, how I should represent the passage of time within the ablative absolute and, secondly, if "Troiā obssessā" sufficiently indicates that the Greeks were doing the besieging. Thanks for any help.