PDA

View Full Version : Latin problem



Fallen
04-23-2010, 03:38 PM
I know Latin (enough to get me by) but I've been watching a debate on another site and it's got me curious enough to ask for a more professional opinion. (I'm basically asking you guys here because you seem to know your stuff a lot better than most.)

In English, you can use nouns as adjectives etc (and verbs have also been known to wonder to nominal position too (evaporate to evaporation etc)). How would you handle a change in sufix if the same happened in Latin?

Using adjectives as proper nouns is the main question here. Can you use a Latin adjective as a proper noun without changing the suffixes?

For example, if an author wanted to call her character 'memorabilis' (third a -is stem m/f (-e nt)), (memorable, remarkable) could she keep -is -e adjective form, or would she need a noun alternative? Can she use it as a proper noun at all?

It's been going round in my head for a while now. Can anyone help?

PeterL
04-23-2010, 04:46 PM
I'm not a great expert in Latin, but I believe that using 'memorabilis' as a name without changing it would be acceptable. It would have to have other endings in other cases, 'o' in vocative and so one, but the nominative form would be the same.

What other changes were advised elsewhere?

OneWriter
04-23-2010, 04:47 PM
I'm not sure I understand the question... In another thread there was a question raised of how to call a boy "Of-the-Moon", and Rufus rightfully suggested to call him using the adjective Lunaris, capitalized as to indicate it is a name. Does that answer your question? Of course, being originally an adjective, you have to use either the feminine or the masculine ending depending on the gender of the person.

Fallen
04-23-2010, 05:09 PM
Peter: thanks. It was on another writing site. The author wanted to use mirabilis, but wasn't sure whether he'd have to use miraculum instead.

One: thank you too. I think the author liked the sound of 'miracle' as a translation (it didn't matter which case) he was just preferred the adjective 'look' of the word.

OneWriter
04-23-2010, 05:11 PM
I did find a few examples of adjectives that had become first names: Aurelianus, Aquilinus, Blandus, (with corresponding feminine in -a) etc. So, sure, why not?

ETA: mirabilis carries a lot more meaning than just "miracolosus", it means also wonderful, extraordinary... For a name, one can do whatever one wants, but I'd agree that mirabilis sounds way better just because of the added meaning. Also, miracolosus I see on witkionary is Medieval Latin ....

Oh, sorry, I must be dyslexic.... you wrote memorabilis, not mirabilis... that's even more different, has nothing to do with miracles... It does mean remarkable, but if the author wants one of the meanings to be "from a miracle", I'd go with mirabilis... Oh, anyways, I should stop now, sorry, I got carried away.

Fallen
04-23-2010, 05:28 PM
So it may be best for the adjective to have noun endings? (Mirabilus?)

OneWriter
04-23-2010, 05:31 PM
what do you mean a noun ending? it depends on the declension, memorabilis and mirabilis are both third declension, so it should end in -is...

Fallen
04-23-2010, 05:58 PM
Yeah, I know that, hun. Question is, so the adjective keeps its adjective suffixes, it doesn't changed to noun suffix? I know adjectives decline mostly with nouns, but we're not on about an adjective complimenting a noun, it's becoming a noun. mirabil... what? as a noun, not an adjective.

Maybe I'm thinking over this too hard...?

OneWriter
04-23-2010, 07:21 PM
Yes, I think you are. There is no such thing as a "noun suffix" or an "adjective suffix". There's declensions, and you stick to those. You call the person "remarkable", then remarkable it is, the only change you make is you capitalize the word.

Fallen
04-23-2010, 07:57 PM
Ok, let's see if I can explain it any better:

1st decl F nouns will differ in 'suffixes' compared to 2 nd decl m nouns: -a -ae compared to -us -i. (Also nueter etc).

Any adjective used will match the declension of the noun (so if I wanted to write a boyish girl, it would be somehing like puerilis puella).

The -is -e stem is showing that pueril- is an adjective. If the author wanted to use that adjective as a noun, would she have to 'bastardise' it (puerila) to show that it's not mean in adjective stance, but as a proper noun (yes upper case on 'p' (Puerilis) would also indicate that.) I just want to know if you'd have to make any morphlogical changes to change the adjective stem to noun?

OneWriter
04-23-2010, 08:01 PM
I can only think of one case where that happened and it's Cicero, but that's because it was taken from cicer which is a noun and not an adjective. IMHO? No. You do not change it. And by the way, there are lots of nouns that end in -is. That's what I meant by no such thing as adjective suffix. Adjective is defined by the role the word takes in the sentence, not by the ending. HTH.

Fallen
04-23-2010, 08:18 PM
Cheers, hun. You've been a big help.

OneWriter
04-23-2010, 08:22 PM
you're welcome. :)

oh, and that baby is a cutie!

Rufus Coppertop
04-24-2010, 08:42 AM
Yeah, I know that, hun. Question is, so the adjective keeps its adjective suffixes, it doesn't changed to noun suffix?

There are adjectives of the first and second declension and they use the same endings as nouns of the first and second declension.

Example.

Puella = girl. first declension noun. Feminine.
Agricola = farmer. first declension noun. Masculine.

Magnus. Magna. Magnum. = big

first AND second declension adjective. 3 possible endings depending on gender.

us = masculine
a = feminine
um= neuter

These three endings are for the nominative case.

Puella magna = big girl. 'a' ending for feminine.
Agricola Magnus = big farmer. 'us' ending for masculine.

Note that the adjectives agree in case, number and gender. They do not have to agree in declension. It would not make sense to have a rule saying they have to agree in declension.

"Of the big farmers" would be "agricolarum magnorum".

In the case of third declension adjectives, their endings are the same as third declension nouns except for the ablative singular taking 'i' rather than 'e' and the genitive plural taking 'ium' instead of 'um'.

Third declension adjectives can be bit weird. Some have an ending for each gender, some have one for M & F and another for N. Some have the same ending for all genders. Note, we're talking about endings for the nominative here.

Pungent girl = Puella Acris
Pungent farmer = Agricola Acer
Pungent apartment/condo = Habitaculum Acre.

Generally, you can use an adjective as a noun in the same way we do in English.

dives=rich
thus we could say, 'dives saepe pecuniam habent'. 'The rich often have money.'

We've used 'dives', normally an adjective as a noun and the subject of a sentence and made perfect sense.

There are suffixes that can turn an adjective into an abstract noun.

'Amicus' can mean friend or friendly. 'Amicitia' means friendly.

Because of the 'a' ending, amicitia is first declension and feminine. So for the genitive it becomes amicitiae, accusative, amicitiam etc.

Rufus Coppertop
04-24-2010, 08:56 AM
Any adjective used will match the declension of the noun

No. Adjectives match case, number and gender.


(so if I wanted to write a boyish girl, it would be somehing like puerilis puella).

Yeeeees! Absolutely! :hooray: But only because puerilis is both the masculine and feminine nominative form of 'boyish' and puerile is the neuter form.

It's an adjective of the third declension and it's working nicely with puella, a noun of the first declension. It's also one of the slightly funny ones that shares a nominative ending in both masculine and feminine.

Remember this rule.

Adjectives take number, gender and case,
other concerns get a kick in the face!


The -is -e stem is showing that pueril- is an adjective.

is & e are endings. pueril is the stem. This is worth remembering if you ever take up Latin. Latin rocks. Omnes adipiscantur Latinam.


If the author wanted to use that adjective as a noun, would she have to 'bastardise' it (puerila)

Ibit Tartarum si ita agat! Multus daemones somnia eius implebunt. Scarabaei gignent in auribus eius. :rant: Bonus non erit!


I just want to know if you'd have to make any morphlogical changes to change the adjective stem to noun?

Not at all. No need. :Hug2:

Fallen
04-24-2010, 01:21 PM
Rufus...

Ibit Tartarum si ita agat! Multus daemones somnia eius implebunt. Scarabaei gignent in auribus eius. Bonus non erit!

Lol, no offence meant, hun. It was put in quotes because it is the quote used by someone else and it got across what he was trying to say a lot better than I was.

Conjugation and declension I'm familar with, hun:

minabor
minaberis (minabere)
minabitur
miniabimur
minabimini
minabuntur

serua seruae
seruam seruas
seruae (-ai) seruarum
seruae seruis
serua seruis

And I know adjective match in case, gender and number

But the problem is this:

I can tell that something is a vocative in English by where it's placed in the clause:

Pass the salt, Mike.

And I know when an adjective is being used as a vocative by where it's placed:

Just get here, thicko.

In English I know the complexity of a noun phrase:

The (definite article) huge (describer) red (describer) victorian (classifier) hall (head noun)

Even though 'Victorian' is a noun, it's being used in an adjective way. And in English, because we're not so morphology based, there's no change to the form of the word if a known 'noun' takes an adjective role.

You know what, I think It's just clicked.

OneWriter
04-24-2010, 05:56 PM
Hi Rufus, glad you got here! :hi:



Remember this rule.

Adjectives take number, gender and case,
other concerns get a kick in the face!



LOL!!!

So now I have a question for you: I've been betting with hubby on how one would translate trains in Latin.
My money goes on "machinae trahentes" (machina trahens, singular). Or just trahens? ...

I'm still pondering over car though.... vehiculum?

Sorry... :)

OneWriter
04-24-2010, 06:07 PM
You know what, I think It's just clicked.

I think the hardest part for an English speaker learning Latin is the grammar, just because it is so complex, whereas grammar-wise English is very simple (it's got other complexities, like pronunciation, spelling, a way larger vocabulary than most western languages).

Rufus Coppertop
04-24-2010, 09:32 PM
Hi Rufus, glad you got here! :hi:
So now I have a question for you: I've been betting with hubby on how one would translate trains in Latin.
My money goes on "machinae trahentes" (machina trahens, singular). Or just trahens? ...

I'm still pondering over car though.... vehiculum?

Sorry... :)

:Hug2:

Very weird. I was wondering about this just yesterday!

Machina trahens is nice. Pulling machine. Trahens by itself is just "pulling".

The best I could come up with was chalybs-via motor - steelroad mover.

Chalybs. chalybis - 3rd masculine. Steel.
Motor from the supine stem of moveo with the um removed and the tor suffix added to make it an agentive noun.

I am going to catch the train would be, ibo chalybem viam motorem capere.

I'm a bit worried by it though because chalybs is masculine and via is feminine. It doesn't seem as neat as res publica/rem publicam where both res and publica are feminine.

viamotrix? waymover? trix is the feminine equivalent of tor.

ibo viam motricem capere.

It occurs to me, the word tractor no doubt comes from traho, trahere, traxi, tractum.

For the actual train of carriages, what about cauda carrorum? Tail of wagons?

Rufus Coppertop
04-24-2010, 09:37 PM
Rufus...
Lol, no offence meant, hun.

Nullum captum. Credes mihi anatia!

None taken. Trust me ducky! :)

OneWriter
04-24-2010, 10:09 PM
Very weird. I was wondering about this just yesterday!



Magni cogitantes similia putant !!! :D

(Argh, I'm sure you would have said it way better...)

If I'm not mistaken the word "train" also comes from the Latin trahens, that's why I thought of that.

BTW: It's all your fault, you got me thinking of all these things and how they might have been translated into Harrius Potter.... ;)

Gratias!

Rufus Coppertop
04-24-2010, 10:13 PM
Magni cogitantes similaria putant !!! :D

(Argh, I'm sure you would have said it way better...)

Not necessarily. I would've said mentes magnae but magni cogitantes rocks.


If I'm not mistaken the word "train" also comes from the Latin trahens, that's why I thought of that.

I'll bet you're not mistaken. It didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it, it looks pretty likely.


BTW: It's all your fault, you got me thinking of all these things and how they might have been translated into Harrius Potter.... ;)

Gratias!

Ha haaaa! :e2sling:

OneWriter
04-25-2010, 03:12 AM
Not necessarily. I would've said mentes magnae but magni cogitantes rocks.



Dang it, I should've thought of that. It's the same in Italian, grandi menti. Also, probably cogitatores would have been more appropriate than cogitantes...

Heh.

Rufus Coppertop
04-25-2010, 04:47 PM
Nullum captum. Credes mihi anatia!

None taken. Trust me ducky! :)

Whoops! Rufus neglegens est! :rant:

Credes mihi should actually be Crede mihi as an imperative or Credis mihi if an indicative.