Textkit Logo

occidentis

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

occidentis

Postby klewlis » Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:30 pm

I saw this quote in someone's sig:

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."--Lucius Annaeus Seneca

I am having a hard time making sense of it.

"Just as a sword kills no one, killing is the weapon"

?

that's the best I can do. :)
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada

Re: occidentis

Postby benissimus » Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:46 pm

klewlis wrote:I saw this quote in someone's sig:

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."--Lucius Annaeus Seneca

I am having a hard time making sense of it.

"Just as a sword kills no one, killing is the weapon"

Make sure not to mix up the "-ing" of the present participle and the "-ing" of the gerund. Occidens is not "killing" as a noun, but "the one (who is) killing".

The passage could be translated "That his sword kills no one, is the weapon of a killer". What Seneca means by that requires a different sort of translation ;)
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

Re: occidentis

Postby klewlis » Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:20 pm

benissimus wrote:
klewlis wrote:I saw this quote in someone's sig:

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."--Lucius Annaeus Seneca

I am having a hard time making sense of it.

"Just as a sword kills no one, killing is the weapon"

Make sure not to mix up the "-ing" of the present participle and the "-ing" of the gerund. Occidens is not "killing" as a noun, but "the one (who is) killing".


oops. :oops:
I think I still get the latin participles mixed up with the greek ones. In greek it wouldn't be substantival like this without a definite article (generally).

The passage could be translated "That his sword kills no one, is the weapon of a killer". What Seneca means by that requires a different sort of translation ;)


Your translation still doesn't make sense to me but maybe I need the context in order to understand. :P
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada

Postby blue » Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:17 am

________ (swords, guns, drugs, whatever) doesn't kill people, people kill people.

that seems to be the idea, right?
User avatar
blue
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:39 pm
Location: florida

Postby benissimus » Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:40 am

I thought it meant something like "a killer's power does not lie in his weapon". Without context it is a guessing game and I am just as klewlis as you guys :?
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 klewlis » Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:14 pm

blue wrote:________ (swords, guns, drugs, whatever) doesn't kill people, people kill people.

that seems to be the idea, right?


that was my *first* impression. I guess I will have to read the rest sometime. :)
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada

Postby bingley » Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:29 am

A bit more context:

His quidam hoc respondent: 'erratis, qui incommoda divitis inputatis. Illae neminem laedunt: aut sua nocet cuique stultitia aut aliena nequitia, sic quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit: occidentis telum est. Non ideo divitiae tibi nocent si propter divitias tibi nocetur.'

From: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/seneca.ep11-13.shtml
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Postby Special K » Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:03 pm

Gotta love Latin. Here's my best shot.

"To these guys certain people respond (with) this: You all, who lay charges of misfortunes upon wealth, are wrong. That (ie. wealth) harms no one. Either each person's own cluelessness or bad intention from an outside source does harm. So, just as a sword kills no one, it is the weapon of the guy doing the killing. Therefore wealth is not harming you, if on account of wealth there is harm done to you."


"Sic" and "quemadmodum" like to go together, but I'd be more comfy if the "sic" came after "occidit", but that's probably asking Latin to be too much like English.
My big question is what to do with "divitis"; I took it as a dative of "divitiae" with the second "i" lost, as sometimes happens in post Augustan prose.
The other question I have has to do with "imputatis" which I know can take a dative of person or thing accused, but I'm assuming that the charge would go in the accusative.
What do y'all think?
phpbb
Special K
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:51 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 62 guests