"Nam nil stupra valet nihil tacere." - Catullus 6
I'm a bit stuck on this line really. I (attempt to) translate it as: For defile nothing, nothing can keep it quiet."
Should I imply a 'si'?
Nil stupra si valet nihil tacere?
Then again, I suppose it does work fine without "si" ...
Nil stupra.
-
Kasper
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Melbourne
Nil stupra.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
-
mraig
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 6:24 am
Well, first of all, there's a problem with the text of Catullus here. The manuscripts say "nam inista prevalet nihil tacere" which makes no sense. The reading you report is one of many guesses at what the text might be. Your translation is be more or less right, although 'tacere' means to be quiet, not to make someone/something quiet, so I guess it would mean something like "don't behave shamefully; nothing is able to keep quiet" (i.e. not even your bed).
But anything we can say here is just a guess, and none of the guesses have been clever enough to convince everyone that they are right.
EDIT: By the way, I think what was tripping you up was that 'nil', if I'm reading it correctly, is used as an adverb.
But anything we can say here is just a guess, and none of the guesses have been clever enough to convince everyone that they are right.
EDIT: By the way, I think what was tripping you up was that 'nil', if I'm reading it correctly, is used as an adverb.
-
Kasper
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Melbourne
Thanks mraig!mraig wrote:Well, first of all, there's a problem with the text of Catullus here. The manuscripts say "nam inista prevalet nihil tacere" which makes no sense. The reading you report is one of many guesses at what the text might be. Your translation is be more or less right, although 'tacere' means to be quiet, not to make someone/something quiet, so I guess it would mean something like "don't behave shamefully; nothing is able to keep quiet" (i.e. not even your bed).
But anything we can say here is just a guess, and none of the guesses have been clever enough to convince everyone that they are right.
EDIT: By the way, I think what was tripping you up was that 'nil', if I'm reading it correctly, is used as an adverb.
I am aware that I didn't translate 'tacere' very accurately, it seemed a more fitting 'translation' in this instance, I'm not fond of verbatim translations. of course you are right in this case my addition of "keep it quiet" didn't really add anything useful.
But why do you say that nil is used as an adverb? Perhaps I'm just displaying my ignorance here, but isn't it an accusative?
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”