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. :)
occidentis
- klewlis
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
- Contact:
occidentis
First say to yourself what you would be; then do what you need to do. ~Epictetus
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
Re: occidentis
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".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"
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
- klewlis
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
- Contact:
Re: occidentis
oops.benissimus wrote: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".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"
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.
First say to yourself what you would be; then do what you need to do. ~Epictetus
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
- klewlis
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1668
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
- Location: Jakarta
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
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
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:51 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?
"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?