Textkit Logo

in + abl.

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

in + abl.

Postby Junya » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:38 pm

Hi.

o ignee spiritus laus tibi sit
qui in timpanis et citharis operaris


This is plainly translated who is working in (the instruments of / in the sound of) timpanies and citharas,

but I thought this in timpanis et citharis may be instrumental.
So I checked L&S and Gildersleeve.

But,
in L&S for in + abl. there was no definition of by means of,
in Gildersleeve for the preposition in, too, there was no such definition, and the section for ablative of means (401) had no example of the use with in (only, in Note 1., erudire in + abl. was mentioned).

But in L&S for operor there was a sample sentence with in + abl. which obviously means instrumentally.
This.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y%3Doperor
B. In partic., in relig. lang., to serve the gods, perform sacred rites, to honor or celebrate by sacrifices
“sacra refer Cereri laetis operatus (= sacrificans) in herbis,” Verg. G. 1, 339;

What do you think ?




-------

Though this is a different additional question,
in L&S operor under the article (b). With dat., to bestow pains upon a thing; to devote one's self to, be engaged in or occupied with a thing (mostly poet. and in post-Aug. prose):
there is a sample with in + abl..
“in cute curandā,” Hor. Ep. 1, 2, 29:


I wonder if this is the meaning used in in timpanis et citharis.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:53 pm

The "ablative of means" is, by definition, I think, an ablative operating alone, without a preposition. I know "ab homine" is instrumental but I don't think (maybe I'm wrong) that you have to talk of an "ablative of means" there, since its the collocation which is instrumental. Per can mean "by means of" but you wouldn't say its accusative was an "accusative of means".

Ablativus instrumentalis significat nomen ablativo casu solum et sine praepositione. Bene scio "ab homine" collocationem instrumentalem esse at de ablativo instrumentale loqui ibi non possumus nisi erro. Et per praepositio sensum instrumentalem significet at instrumentalis non vocatur accusativus casus cui servit.
Junya wrote:...to bestow pains upon a thing; to devote one's self to, be engaged in or occupied with a thing...I wonder if this is the meaning used in in timpanis et citharis.

I would say it is, right enough. // Tecum concurro quidem.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: in + abl.

Postby Junya » Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:27 pm

hi Adrianus, :)

then how do you translate qui in timpanis et citharis operaris ?
To me the plain translation (the fiery spirit .... probably the holy spirit) who devote himself to / is occupied with (playing) timpanies and citharas is a little unclear and needs an explanation.


Again, if this translates "who serves God / celebrate the rite for God with timpanies and citharas (instrumental)", it is clearer to me.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:14 am

Junya wrote:then how do you translate qui in timpanis et citharis operaris ?
To me the plain translation (the fiery spirit .... probably the holy spirit) who devote himself to / is occupied with (playing) timpanies and citharas is a little unclear and needs an explanation.


Again, if this translates "who serves God / celebrate the rite for God with timpanies and citharas (instrumental)", it is clearer to me.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but, for me, it seems this verb + "in" is rather like (or can be like) "I work in computers" and "I work with computers" in English.

Forsit male intellego sed, meâ sententiâ, nonnunquam habet illud verbum similem sensum anglicè huius: "I work in computers" et "I work with computers".
"servi qui operari in agro consueverunt" "slaves who were used to toiling away within/in/on/upon the field"
"o ignee spiritus...qui in timpanis et citharis operaris" "Oh flaming spirit...who works away within/in/on/upon drums and lutes"
"laetis operatus in herbis" "performed in/on/upon the lush grass"

It's possible to say "with" but not necessary in these examples, and hard to see these expressions as instrumental, I think. But maybe others see things differently and more clearly and you're right.
"With" anglicè illis locis dici potest sed non continuó. Minus credibile est haec exempla instrumentalia vocari, ut opinor. Forsit alii rem meliùs clariùsque spectant; forsit tu rectus sis.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: in + abl.

Postby Junya » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:11 pm

Thank you. Then I wait for others to come to help, or later post the same question anew.





By the way,
I wrote :
But in L&S for operor there was a sample sentence with in + abl. which obviously means instrumentally.
This.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y%3Doperor
B. In partic., in relig. lang., to serve the gods, perform sacred rites, to honor or celebrate by sacrifices
sacra refer Cereri laetis operatus (= sacrificans) in herbis,” Verg. G. 1, 339;



you wrote :
"laetis operatus in herbis" "performed in/on/upon the lush grass"



I thought this meant
give Ceres a sacred rite sacrificing with green crops pleasant to her
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:22 am

I reckon you could also translate // Et sic id vertatur, puto,
"Give sacrifices to Ceres, having performed [them] within/in/on/upon the lush grass /or young/green crops/crop-shoots"

Other translations // aliae versiones:
http://www.theoi.com/Text/VirgilGeorgics1.html (Fairclough)
"sacrificing on the glad sward"

http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/georgics.1.i.html
"upon the happy sward
With sacrifice"

http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilGeorgicsI.htm (Kline)
"with sacrifice on the grass"
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: in + abl.

Postby Junya » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:33 pm

Then most people would take this in herbis as locatival, not as instrumental.
Now in timpanis et citharis operaris looks to me to be locatival.
Thank you.





you wrote :
Forsit male intellego sed, meâ sententiâ, nonnunquam habet illud verbum similem sensum anglicè huius: "I work in computers" et "I work with computers".
"servi qui operari in agro consueverunt" "slaves who were used to toiling away within/in/on/upon the field"
"o ignee spiritus...qui in timpanis et citharis operaris" "Oh flaming spirit...who works away within/in/on/upon drums and lutes"
"laetis operatus in herbis" "performed in/on/upon the lush grass"


You may feel strange why I am so concerned about exact meaning.
English speakers seem to have tendency to be content with abstract or not-so-clear understanding of the meaning of Latin texts.
I suppose that is because English has similar way of expressions to Latin, and a literal translation often goes as English, at least superficially.
But Japanese doesn't allow the literal translation. That's too un-understandable.
I feel I have to understand the meaning more clearly, exactly, concretely, not abstractly, when I translate Latin into Japanese.




Oh I'm happy, with this 350th post I became Textkit Enthusiast. :D
Last edited by Junya on Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:41 pm

Junya wrote:English speakers seem to have tendency to be content with abstract or not-so-clear understanding of the meaning of Latin texts.

I don't completely agree with you there, Junya. Possibly you mean that some translators depart from a literal meaning, by bending the meaning somewhat to give a translation that achieves an end similar to the end imagined by the original author but in the language of the translator's readers,—English, say. But you need to understand English very, very well to see that purpose and judge just how faithful the interpretor has been. Of course, there can also be poor translations.

De hoc tecum dissentio, Junya. Fortasse ita vis dicere: sunt interpretes qui verbum pro verbo non vertunt et sic faciendo sensum mutant ut voluntas auctori pristini concepta in sermones lectorum ab interprete vertatur,—in sermones anglicos, dicamus. Nisi bene anglicè loqueris, tu eventum operatum aestimare non potes. Malas autem versiones emissas esse certum est.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: in + abl.

Postby Junya » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:24 am

No, no, I'm saying now about the English-speaking learners of Latin, though I'm including the translators in them.

For example,
to understand the Latin in, English speakers are given the English in which has various meanings similar to Latin,
so they are content with getting the easy (and comprehensive) translation word in and don't bother to dig into it to get the narrower, exact meaning used in the text.
I suppose you will agree to that.

When a person tries to make a translation to show it to others, it is hard to make a good one with such vague understanding.
When I try to translate Latin into Japanese, this problem always confronts me.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:08 pm

Junya wrote:For example,
to understand the Latin in, English speakers are given the English in which has various meanings similar to Latin,
so they are content with getting the easy (and comprehensive) translation word in and don't bother to dig into it to get the narrower, exact meaning used in the text.

"In" is a word that you can in different ways in Latin and that can be used in different ways in English. Translating "in" by "in" or "on",—provided the English translation makes good sense,—the fluent reader of English will immediately recognize which narrow sense of "in" (or "on") is meant in English by disambiguation,—by ruling out the other senses that don't fit and selecting the narrow sense that does. Neither the reader nor the translator was being lazy in not insisting something with narrower possibilities be used. Just the opposite: they disambiguate rapidly and adeptly. Nor do I think another translation would be more exact than "in" or "on" here. "In" or "on" (in English) for "in" (in Latin) was both literal and understandable. Maybe you let yourself be distracted from recognizing "in" as conveying a sense of place by imagining it might be used instrumentally. I admit I will sometimes miss the obvious when an esoteric notion comes into my head.

Et latinè et anglicè "in" praepositio variè adhibetur. In pro in praepositione ponere in sermones anglicos vertendo intellegibile est quod ei qui facundè legat non exstat ambiguitas. Ille longè aberit ut piger sit; magis acutus est quod sensum aptum intra alias statim deprehendit. Nec extat anglicè aptior altera praepositio quam "in" seu "on" his in exemplis, ut opinor. Forsitan te sensum loci illius praepositionis agnoscere per te ipsum non est licitum quod sensum instrumentalem quaesivisti. Fateor, cum notio arcana intervenit, nonnunquam capior et id quod est manifestum praetereo.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: in + abl.

Postby Junya » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:25 pm

I hesitate to add a post, it's too long for a topic, and even is off the topic....



I wrote :
to understand the Latin in, English speakers are given the English in which has various meanings similar to Latin,
so they are content with getting the easy (and comprehensive) translation word in and don't bother to dig into it to get the narrower, exact meaning used in the text.



you answered :
Translating "in" by "in" or "on",—provided the English translation makes good sense,—the fluent reader of English will immediately recognize which narrow sense of "in" (or "on") is meant in English by disambiguation,—by ruling out the other senses that don't fit and selecting the narrow sense that does. Neither the reader nor the translator was being lazy in not insisting something with narrower possibilities be used. Just the opposite: they disambiguate rapidly and adeptly.



I admit it, about the disambiguation.
But there is something you are not aware of.
Such disambiguation is done in a way subconsciously.
So it happens when such a reader is asked suddenly which meaning of, for example, in is used he can't clearly choose and point to the exact meaning, because he wasn't aware of , wasn't conscious of his disambiguation process, and after pondering on it gives two or three possible meanings as an answer.
So it also happens that people of mixed parentage, like, mixed of American and Japanese, are not good interpretors at all without special training.
It needs a special training (whether by oneself or taught by others) to become conscious of that disambiguation process.
Without it, even the fluent readers' understanding is only a holding of a comprehensive, vague notion.
Just to understand and to put it out by words are different.
The latter needs clear consciousness of exact, pinpoint notions.

So, to translate well, one has to know consciously the narrow, exact meaning.



By the way, I have seen a lot of translations (mostly philosophical, though) which by using ambiguous words are hiding their hesitation or laziness or inability to choose the exact meanings.
Last edited by Junya on Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:02 pm

I am aware that people can have difficulty explaining exactly how they understand something. Another complication is that someone can express a thing that is capable of having complimentary meanings or opposite meanings. People don't always express themselves in exact, pinpoint notions, nor do they always want to, so for a translation to be exact it may be required to be loose.

Quomodo quamdam rem subtiliter capiant difficile multis est, scio. Porrò, res dici quae varia et contraria exprimunt fieri potest. Rarò modo claro dicunt vel scibunt homines, nec semper volunt. Tunc ut accurata sit translatio quaedam, eandem vel similem ambiguitatem exprimere eae oportet.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: in + abl.

Postby Junya » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:09 pm

I am aware that people can have difficulty explaining exactly how they understand something.

yes, I think so. I always observe it in myself and in others.
And resuming to the talk of translating, even the scholars, who consider themselves well understanding the original text, when they translate it, very very often make extremely poor translation.



Another complication is that someone can express a thing that is capable of having complimentary meanings or opposite meanings. People don't always express themselves in exact, pinpoint notions, nor do they always want to, so for a translation to be exact it may be required to be loose.

Yes, like the case of in, though if the translator was me, I would translate such a place not loosely, but put in not-loose words several parallel readings alongside the main reading I choose.
But as to how a translation should be, I think it should be exact, I mean, the understanding of the translator should be exactly expressed, right or wrong.
Translations which are literal and can be understood two or more opposite ways are useless, they convey nothing.
(I like to translate, and want to be a translator, so I have a philosophy on how translations should be, and think the way translations are made in the present time and so far is wrong.)


I have more to explain my idea, with which you disagree at present.
But before that, I think I should ask you if you like me going on with this talking digressing from the topic.
Do you like me going on ?
Or, had I better stop this time ?
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:57 pm

Junya wrote:
Do you like me going on ?
Or, had I better stop this time ?

Whatever you would like to do here, I'm happy with that, Junya, if it's about Latin.
Ut velis, Junya. Quodcunque facis placet cum ad latinam id attinuit.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: in + abl.

Postby Junya » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:43 pm

Thank you.
But now, I forgot what I ws going to write yesterday... :oops:

So, I ask you a question. (Select 1. or 2. please, but if you like I'm glad you answer both.)

1.
Can I ask you how you think translations should be ?
Of course the case would differ by genre of the text, though, and what genre you and I mainly read would be different.

2.
Or, can you tell me whether understanding of a word and a sentence should be exact or loose ?
(This question is asking indirectly how you read texts and what type of translation you would prefer.)
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:44 am

I can't be proscriptive or prescriptive. I just know you can translate to good effect by spirit, word, style, audience, and, of course, ability.

Nec praedico nec prodico. Scio versiones effectivas esse per spiritum, verbum, genus, eos destinatos, et facultatem interpretis.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: in + abl.

Postby Junya » Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:07 am

Then let me change the subject.

Could you tell me how you read Latin ?
I would like to hear it as an advice from you.
Please give me some advices reading about my strange habit below.

Since I started challenging to read Tertullianus, my way of reading Latin changed strangely.
Before that time I was mainly reading with pocket dictionaries and used L&S only occationally.
But Tertullianus was so difficult that I needed the consultation of L&S for almost every word.
And worse, L&S itself was difficult, understanding its definitions needed much regard to lots of example sentences.
So I began to laboriously read that dictionary, the consultation of which took me far more time than pocket dictionaries.
In addition, I began to be interested in Latin words themselves.
That means I began to be unable to help checkinng every definition given for a word, in seeking for and till I arrive at the exact meaning used in the Latin text I was reading. (It takes a lot of time, as I wrote above.)
The reason I'm so concerned about getting the exact meaning is that.
Now I'm not reading Tertullianus, but this strange habit remains, even with any easy text, and I can't change the habit, as if stuck in a groove.
I know a beginner like me should not so much care about the exact meaning but should read more loosely, though, because such meticulous consultation of L&S takes away much time and keeps one from being exposed to many texts.

Give me an advice, Adrianus.
Should I change the habit ?
How can I change it ?
But I guess maybe this my habit could be utilised for some study.
So if there is one, please let me know how I can utilise my habit for it.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: in + abl.

Postby adrianus » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:56 pm

I won't pretend, Junya. I have no good advice. I, too, often have to look up words in dictionaries and, even then, often have to struggle to understand texts. It's a lot of work for me, made longer by working alone but it's encouraging to participate in a forum such as this.

De hac re non simulo. Ego te monstrare non possum, Junya, qui saepe vocabula in dictionaria inquiram et moliar ut sensum locorum capiam. Longus mihi est labor quod solus laboro. Placet autem adjuvetque hûc epistulas missi et in tale foro sodales adjungi.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Barry Hofstetter, ed-lanty, Google [Bot] and 68 guests