Are my Latin terms correct?

Mark Moore

Banned
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
39
Age
45
Location
Florida
I'm close to self-pubbing the first story in a metaseries/universe, and I want to make sure that the Latin name that I've chosen for the series as a whole is correct:

Apocalypsis Deas (The Revelation of the Goddesses)

Also, the term that I've come up with for my group of magical-girl characters: Nutricii Lucis (The Bringers of Light)
 

NDoyle

Writer, Editor, Photographer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
116
Reaction score
8
Location
Maine
Website
www.noreen-doyle.com
My rather rusty Latin tells me that these should be Apocalypsis Deae and Nutriciae Lucis. A single of the latter would be Nutricia Lucis. (Nutricii is the masculine plural, the singular of which is nutricius.)

But be aware that "nutriciae" really means "nourisher" (think "nutrient"). Maybe you are thinking of "nuntiae/nuntia"? That's the feminine form of a word that means "messenger."

(I suspect you know that one common word for "light-bringer" is "lucifer," so you are trying to avoid that for the obvious reason...?)
 

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
I'm close to self-pubbing the first story in a metaseries/universe, and I want to make sure that the Latin name that I've chosen for the series as a whole is correct:

Apocalypsis Deas (The Revelation of the Goddesses)

Also, the term that I've come up with for my group of magical-girl characters: Nutricii Lucis (The Bringers of Light)

Apocalypsis Deas should be Apocalypsis Dearum or Deis (genative or dative plural) not the accusative that you used.

Doyle is right about Lucifer, light-bearer
 

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
I'm close to self-pubbing the first story in a metaseries/universe, and I want to make sure that the Latin name that I've chosen for the series as a whole is correct:

Apocalypsis Deas (The Revelation of the Goddesses)

Deas is plural accusative. You need plural genitive. Dearum.

Apocalypsis Dearum.

Also, the term that I've come up with for my group of magical-girl characters: Nutricii Lucis (The Bringers of Light)
Nutrici is nurse/foster mother in the singular dative case.

Vectores Lucis would work as carriers of light.

 
Last edited:

M.S. Wiggins

"The Moving Finger writes..."
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
3,266
Reaction score
680
Location
Charleston
I get all warm and gooey inside at these Latin terminology threads. It's a good thing auditory links aren't around. Otherwise, I'd be tossing in random questions just to hear the answers!
 

Mark Moore

Banned
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
39
Age
45
Location
Florida
(I suspect you know that one common word for "light-bringer" is "lucifer," so you are trying to avoid that for the obvious reason...?)

Actually, I had no idea about that. Interesting.
 

Nualláin

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
139
Reaction score
21
You're good on the morphology with the advice given above. I just have to (it's actually in the contract we sign when we do philology...) pick at semantic range a little.

Apocalypsis
does literally mean "a revealing" (it's actually a Greek word from the verb ἀποκαλύπτω which means to uncover something), but it does have obvious English associations with the mundane meaning of "apocalypse", horrible violent events as such. If you want readers to make that association, go right ahead. If that isn't quite what you wanted, Latin does have a perfectly nice word, revelatio, which is directly the root of English "revelation". It's a noun formed on the verb revelo, which also means to uncover something. Basically, apocalypsis is a Greek word that was transliterated straight into Latin, while revelatio is its proper Latin translation. Both words are heavily or exclusively ecclesiastical in their attestation.

For "bringers of light", obviously lux is light. Lucifer means "the light-bringer" by pairing lucis with the verb ferro, to carry, bear, or bring. The word pre-dates Christianity, though, and has some lovely ancient attestation; the Romans called the morning star Lucifer in antiquity. It is properly a tri-gender adjective with substantive uses, so one way of describing a group of women as light-bringers is simply to call them Luciferae.

That is to me an utterly beautiful word. (In classical pronounciation, the c is hard, the e is long and the dipthong is elongated, so you would say something like "loo-key-fair-aye" with the accent on the penultimate). It does also have obvious connotations to modern eyes, though, and you may still prefer to avoid them. In that case vectores would be fine to pretty much any reader, but it does sound odd to my Latin ear. It comes from the verb veho which means to carry something, but more in the sense of carrying something on your shoulders, by beasts of burden or by ship. It's actually distantly cognate with the English word "wagon", if you can believe that!

If you don't want wagons of light, and don't want Lucifer hanging around your novel, one work-around would be to use the agent noun of fero rather than the compound adjective. That would give you lucis latores, or "the ones who bring the light".

It may also be interesting to note that Luciferae is the only one of the options given that is identifiably feminine in form. The agent nouns could refer either to masculine or feminine subjects.

Philology nerd: Off.
 
Last edited:

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
That would give you lucis latores, or "the ones who bring the light".
That's a definite possibility. Among the meanings listed in the OCL are proposer (of a law) , voter and one who brings (generally).

Like vector, lator is derived by appending the tor/toris agentive suffix to the supine stem of the verb.

It may also be interesting to note that Luciferae is the only one of the options given that is identifiably feminine in form. The agent nouns could refer either to masculine or feminine subjects.

Philology nerd: Off.
Actually, the tor/toris agentive suffix is masculine which is something I forgot when I suggested vector(es).

It could be a case of a noun being masculine in grammar but not reserved just for males.

The trix/tricis suffix though is feminine and it also appends to the supine stem.

So, lucis vectrices or lucis latrices are possibilities which are unambiguously feminine.
 
Last edited:

Nualláin

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
139
Reaction score
21
Actually, the tor/toris agentive suffix is masculine which is something I forgot when I suggested vector(es).

It could be a case of a noun being masculine in grammar but not reserved just for males.

True, they are grammatically masculine. I was thinking specifically of the plural forms that could denote a group of male subjects, a mixed group of male/female subjects, or even -- as you note -- in certain cases a group of female subjects.

The trix/tricis suffix though is feminine and it also appends to the supine stem.

So, lucis vectrices or lucis latrices are possibilities which are unambiguously feminine.

Quite right, and I should have thought of that too. I've just never particularly liked the -trix/-tricis pattern on an aesthetic level. The plurals especially sound a bit harsh to me, don't you think? It's the stop-liquid-vowel-stop that I choke on, and I guess (without any supporting evidence) that that was a contributing factor in the rarity of those feminines in ancient usage. It was a highly unproductive pattern in antiquity, and the Romans did love their rolling sounds. Tores sounds so much nicer than trices to me.
 

Robert Dawson

Getting The Hang Of It
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
286
Reaction score
32
Website
cs.smu.ca
Easy to do/facilis agere.

I don't think the "to do" here is an infinitive - "facilis agere" feels as if it should translate as "to do, easily." In the English, syntax allows "to do" can be omitted but not "easy." Thus, "to do" modifies "easy" in a way that Latin doesn't seem to allow for.

A passive participle is called for, I think. There is no present available, so we have to choose between the perfect "facile actum" - "done easily", but rather suggesting that it has been done - or the future "facile agendum" - or gerundive - suggesting with some moral force that it should be done easily. Neither, to my inexpert ear, is quite equivalent to the English, which suggests that it could be done easily sed non do culum muri si sic facies :)
 
Last edited:

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
Quite right, and I should have thought of that too. I've just never particularly liked the -trix/-tricis pattern on an aesthetic level. The plurals especially sound a bit harsh to me, don't you think? It's the stop-liquid-vowel-stop that I choke on, and I guess (without any supporting evidence) that that was a contributing factor in the rarity of those feminines in ancient usage. It was a highly unproductive pattern in antiquity, and the Romans did love their rolling sounds. Tores sounds so much nicer than trices to me.
Absolutely. I think tores does sound nicer than trices.
 

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
Easy to do/facilis agere.

I don't think the "to do" here is an infinitive - "facilis agere" feels as if it should translate as "to do, easily." In the English, syntax allows "to do" can be omitted but not "easy." Thus, "to do" modifies "easy" in a way that Latin doesn't seem to allow for.
I'm thinking of it more in terms of the infinitive having a sort of nouny-ness.

The infinitive can be used as a nominative and even as a direct object in various constructions including constructions where the genitive, dative or ablative would take a gerund.

There is also the Latin custom of omitting the verb to be. That's one that can take a bit of getting used to.

facilis agere est. - it is easy to do.

Grammatically speaking, I think it mirrors the phrase, errare humanum est - 'to err is human' or 'it is human to err'.

A passive participle is called for, I think.
I really like this idea. In fact, despite defending facilis agere, I prefer this suggestion.

There is no present available, so we have to choose between the perfect "facile actum" - "done easily",
No, BUT....there is always the third person present singular passive indicative.

facile agitur.

I reckon that works without sounding as if one gives either a volantem fututionem :evil or a cullum muri ( :ROFL:).
 
Last edited:

Nualláin

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
139
Reaction score
21
Great discussion!

I'd only add one thing. Where the infinitive is taken as nominative subject of a copulate, its predicate is usually neuter. There's a line somewhere in Phaedrus, ea sunt quae longum est promere, "there are things which to explain is long", or in more sensible English, "that would take a long time to explain". It's a neat little example of the versatility of the Latin infinitive. Promere is subject of est with longum as predicate and quae as its neuter-plural object, thus being fully verby and nouny at the same time.

So facile agere would work fine as a concise expression of quod facile est agere.

One could also go full Cicero and rock the supine, facile actu, "easy in respect of the doing". But, er, we've probably stopped helping the OP at this point...
 

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
Great discussion!

I'd only add one thing. Where the infinitive is taken as nominative subject of a copulate, its predicate is usually neuter.
Hence facile as a neuter nominative adjective rather than as the adverb?

One could also go full Cicero and rock the supine, facile actu, "easy in respect of the doing". But, er, we've probably stopped helping the OP at this point...
:D Yeah.
 

Mark Moore

Banned
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
39
Age
45
Location
Florida
It might be appropriate to have apocalyptic connotations in the title, since the basic premise of this series are these three goddesses are giving powers to three women to do battle against various demons/monsters/gods, and bad stuff's gonna go down. Basically, a magical-girl series with a Lovecraftian flavor and actual consequences.

But I do like "Revelatio". I'll have to think about it some more.

If I use Luciferae (which I don't mind, and I think it sounds nice), I might be able to have some fun with it, like the girls got the name for their group, and then they have to stop people from getting the wrong idea.

Thanks, everyone! :)