Textkit Logo

latin translations to english

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

latin translations to english

Postby emeka ofor » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:32 pm

1.for with God nothing shall be impossible.
2. with God nothing id impossible.
phpbb
emeka ofor
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:03 pm

Postby whiteoctave » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:30 pm

Hey toby, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "with god". Do you mean "with god on your side", i.e. having accepted god, or do you mean "when it comes to god/ as regards god etc.", i.e. god can do everything?

~dave
User avatar
whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Postby Ulpianus » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:26 pm

It's Lk 1:37 (more or less) in English: an explanation of how the barren Elizabeth has become pregnant.

The Vulgate has quia non erit inpossibile apud Deum omne verbum, which seems at first sight an odd use of verbum but is very close to the Greek [face=spionic]o(/ti ou)k a)dunath/sei para\ tou= qeou= pa=n r(h=ma.[/face].

Perhaps someone with more than my rudimentary koine could explain the idiom.
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby benissimus » Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:47 am

Ulpianus wrote:quia non erit inpossibile apud Deum omne verbum, which seems at first sight an odd use of verbum but is very close to the Greek [face=spionic]o(/ti ou)k a)dunath/sei para\ tou= qeou= pa=n r(h=ma.[/face].

Is that inpossibile or impossibile?
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby Ulpianus » Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:36 am

According to Perseus in, but I don't have the text in print, so I can't cross-check it. Odd I agree.
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby whiteoctave » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:18 am

there is no meaningful palaeographical distinction between inp- and imp-.

~dave
User avatar
whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Postby Ulpianus » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:21 am

there is no meaningful palaeographical distinction between inp- and imp-.


Thanks, that's interesting. I would have imaginedthat there was a clear paleographical distinction between inp and imp (they are not "the same", in the sense that, say, uncial "A" is the same as miniscule "a" though they look rather different), although the difference may not be orthographically significant. If confronted with two manuscripts, one "inp" the other "imp", would one not bother to note the difference in a critical edition?
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby whiteoctave » Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:58 pm

Such differences would (generally) appear in critical apparatuses but that is not my point. The writing of inp- or imp- would be purely at the scribe's discretion and it appears that in the manuscript tradition there were "seasons", as it were, of what spelling was to be favoured over the other for various consonant collocations. Therefore it is almost impossible to ascertain what the original palaeographic script of Latin was in many instances at any given point, so to write Latin now with imp- or inp- is a fruitless debate.

~dave
User avatar
whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Postby Ulpianus » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:30 pm

Yes, I see. Like -ize and -ise in English. Variant spellings, each equally "acceptable".
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 26 guests