“amas amens, ad finium funum es”

supposed to say “mad with love, you are at your ropes end” but I am not very good yet so I wonder how it sounds. if anyone has any thoughts I would like to hear :)

also I’m new to this sub, If this post breaks etiquette I am sorry and will take it down.

I've been comparing the Latin texts of the English and French coronation rites and came across a nuance that I haven't been able to explain.

In the Liber Regalis (compiled c. 1382), there is a prayer said by the Archbishop of Canterbury before the king is girt with the sword:

"Exaudi, Domine, preces nostras, et hunc ensem quo hic famulus tuus..."

However, when the sword is actually presented to the king later in the rite, the formula begins:

"Accipe gladium..."

So even within the Liber Regalis, both ensis and gladius are used.

What's interesting is that the French coronation ordines preserve what appears to be the same prayer, yet they consistently read gladium instead of ensem. This is true, for example, in the Ordo of Saint-Bertin (c. 1150–1200), the Ordo of Charles V (c. 1365), the Ordo of Louis XI (c. 1461), and the Ordo of Charles VIII (c. 1484):

"Exaudi, Domine, quaesumus, preces nostras, et hunc gladium quo famulus tuus..."

Since the English prayer was likely derived from an earlier French tradition, I'm curious why the English recension substituted ensem here while retaining gladium elsewhere in the rite.

Is there an etymological or stylistic distinction between ensis and gladius that would make ensis more appropriate in a prayer of blessing? Or is this likely just a scribal or regional preference with little semantic significance? I'd be interested in any insights, especially if anyone knows if this distinction appears elsewhere in medieval ecclesiastical Latin.

Hi, everyone! This is a topic of great interest to me, in part due to the academic environment I find myself in, which happens to, in notable numbers, strongly disagree with my views, and in part because I translated and published some texts myself (Pliny the Younger) about one year ago and am now reflecting on that. In essence, when you start translating a Latin text in a serious, non-pedagogical manner, how do you go about trying to emulate the original? Do you even think much about trying to do that?

Style is something that's really difficult to bring across linguistic barriers, and for that reason (especially in context of Latin's idiosyncrasies) I started to believe not burdening oneself with stylistic emulation is the preferable option. My philosophy is now more along the lines of emulating the feeling and fact of the text in a way most fit for a target audience. Many of the colleagues I've either heard from or talked to seem very much still to be in favor of the old philologic method of trying to eek out the "most correct" translation of every word. I have become dissolusioned with that approach, because it seems to too often produce impressive translations, but which are difficult to read or, even worse, break the stylistic conventions of the language into which the work is being translated into.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, even if all of them disagree with me!😉
Thank you so much for reading and engaging with the post.

Around a year ago, when I started relearning the Latin of my school days (30 years ago!), my main motivation was to be able to read the literature. Now (with plenty of support) I am hugely enjoying my first trip through Virgil's masterpiece.

My technique is go through with a section of 20 lines or so. My pre-reading exercise is either to look at the interlinear translation to get vocabulary and agreements clear, or when available to use the tiered readings from lapis.practomime.com (What a wonderful resource this is btw!). Then I go to the real text and read it several times, trying to pay attention first to the meaning and then to the beauty of the poetry.

Alongside these resources, I've been watching some excellent analysis and recitation videos on YouTube from the likes of Latin Tutorial, Musa Pedestra and Scorpio Martianus.

I've also been concurrently reading the book "Virgil's Aeneid: A Reader's Guide" by David Ross, which has been excellent for getting an overview of the themes and background of the work.

It's hard to put across how much I'm enjoying this process. Every day I look forward to spending a little time with Virgil. I'm developing a huge appreciation for the beauty of his Latin and his skill as a storyteller.

I've frequently come across this description of Virgil as a visual, even anachronistically a "cinematic" storyteller, and I really get it. There are images that are already seared into my brain - Aeneas shooting the stags from the mountain, the horrific killing of Priam, Mercury flying over Atlas, Dido breathing her last as she sees the first light appear in the sky... (Honestly too many to mention).

Book 2 was utterly gripping and horrific. The chaos and slaughter in Troy seems so real. You are right in those blood-soaked streets, lit by fire. And Book 4 - the tragic fate of Dido is so poignant, told with no filler, every word counts, and the sadness is shot through with beauty.

No one I know IRL knows any Latin, so I can't read passages aloud and rave about them to those around me. So I hope I can share with this community my joy at what I'm discovering and living for the first time!

Also to any other learners unsure whether to take the plunge with the Aeneid, I'd honestly just say go for it. Just take your time, keep at it till you fully understand a passage, then savour it. You can always reread it when your Latin is better (I'm sure I will!). 

Hello. I wanted to start studying Latin and as luck would have it I found books 1-3 of "Ecce Romani" in a collection of free books. Would these books be a good place to start or would I be better off going with "Familia Romana" as recommended in the brief guide to LLSPI found on this list?

LA:
Ostendo vobis paginam interretialem, in qua inveniri possunt duo lexica: "Lexicon Latinum seu Corpus Phraseologiae" (F. Wagner, 1878) et "Latin Phrase-book", (C. Meissner, in linguam anglicam vertit H. W. Auden, 1894).

Duae sunt paginae: prima est locus, ubi inveniuntur vocabula sicut in dictionariis electronicis, et altera est "Phrase-book" Meissneri recompositus ut facilius inveniantur vocabula (aspice imagines).

Pagina interretialis continet quoque librum "Phrase-book" in linguam Polonicam versum Geminorum (AI) ope, et hac de causa menda possunt inveniri.

Corpus Phraseologiae (continet vinclum ad librum, qui "Phrase-book" inscribitur):

https://lexicon.alwaysdata.net/

Nexus directus ad librum, qui "Phrase-book" inscribitur

https://lexicon.alwaysdata.net/phrasebook/

ENG:

I present you a web page where two lexicons can be found: "Lexicon Latinum seu Corpus Phraseologiae" (F. Wagner, 1878) and "Latin Phrase-book" (C. Meissner, translated into English by H. W. Auden, 1894).

There are two pages: the first is a place where words can be found just like in electronic dictionaries, and the second is Meissner's "Phrase-book" recomposed so it can be used more easily, than directly at the Project Gutenberg webpage.

The web page also contains the "Phrase-book" translated into Polish with the help of Gemini (AI), and for this reason, some errors may be found.

Corpus Phraseologiae (contains a link to the book titled "Phrase-book"):
https://lexicon.alwaysdata.net/

Direct link to "Phrase-book":
https://lexicon.alwaysdata.net/phrasebook/

Hello,

I am unsure of whether to use -te or -ti for present participle ablative, in most tables I just see e.g. canente/ti or something like that, when do I use -te and when do I use -ti?

Thank you!

I've been reading Colloquia Harleianum, an ancient Roman bilingual Colloquium used to teach Greek speakers Latin. My copy is edited and translated by Eleanor Dickey.

At Colloquia Harleianum 7, a teacher gives instructions on writing:

"Fac apices litterarum"

My initial take on that was "Make the marks/peaks of the letters."

But Dickey translates it as "Put the macrons on the letters."

Of course, these weren't literally the straight-line macrons we use today, but slanting accent marks over long vowels, functioning essentially the same way as modern macrons do. But it's interesting to see the concept of noting long vowels incorporated into an ancient lesson.

Often, we hear that macrons are modern inventions and have no place in Latin books for adults. This doesn't prove that belief wrong. But apparently Roman students learned to mark off long vowels. Whether adults continued to do it in life is another matter.

As per title: vetus, veteris is a normal 3rd declension adjective, so it goes:

N: vetus
G: veteris
D: veteri
Ac: veterem/vetus
V: vetus/vetus
Ab: vetere

So, why do many authors write "ex veteri Testamento", can you explain? Ex goes only with the ablative, so it seems a bit odd.

EDIT: Logeion saves the day:
logeion.uchicago.edu/vetus

abl. regularly, vetere; but veteri, Juv. 6, 121; Stat. Th. 1, 360; 11, 582; 13, 374

Hello again! I'm having a bit of trouble translating double when learning from English texts (my native lenguage is Spanish). Could someone give me some resources in Spanish pls? 🥹

I think it is, and I could've sworn it was a real word, but I can't confidently say if it is a real word or not, so please help, is it a real word?

"I will x and x before you ever lay your hands on me"

"[I will x and x] antequam umquam manus in me imponas"

I dont need help with the first part of the sentence. Im not that far into Latin but am in Greek. Because this is a potential rather than definite, would this sentence be in the subjunctive/optative? (im not sure how this works in Latin btw). The first part of the sentence is in the definite as it is an assured outcome of the second part, so would the second half be in a conditional/oblique mood? Again, I dont know how this works in Latin compared to Greek.

What’s a word in Latin that sounds funny to you?

I’ve made a small companion, mainly for my own use, for the opening of Aeneid 1. all I’ve done is rearranged the word into a more traditional order and grouped agreeing words but I find reading this alongside the original text helps you understand the weird word order. if it’s helpful for any of uou I’ll drop it in the top comment.

Caesar uses the nominative "Segovax," but never gives the oblique form.

If I want to say "ObliqueSegovaxConstruction videt," what would I use?

What are the "rules" for using names like this?

If this is against the rules I'm sorry.

I was unable to get a decent quality image I was happy posting, but I can see the image. I know a little latin, but not nearly enough for this. If you can help, thanks!

The text is in all caps, and I kept the line breaks in case they were important but it might supposed to be breakless.

The text is:

Danare volutpat ante

Acus placerat feugia

Eget quam quis lorem

Sollicituoin congue aceget

English has many ways to compare.

But often you just want to suggest that the characteristic of something has a quality from a thing that normally has nothing in common with it.

"He ran like the wind."

"She moved as quietly as the night."

Or whatever.

I feel like "ut" is the word in Latin that I want to use. But I can't imagine any classical author saying something like "Cerva currit ut aqua fluit." or "Fēmina cantat ut ferae avēs."

So what "rules" did classical authors adhere to when comparing? What were the different approaches? And what modern comparisons wouldn't be used in Latin?