Sapientia est pulchrum.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:41 pm
Sapientia est pulchrum.
I am a beginner, studying from Learn to Read Latin by Keller and Russell. The Workbook, in Chapter III, Drill 24-28, Sentence 9, asks for a translation of Sapientia est pulchrum. There are no macrons. At first glance, this seemed trivially easy. But, I can't seem to conjure up a translation with agreement between sapientia and pulchrum. Would appreciate any help.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Sapientia est pulchrum.
lbkoppel wrote:I am a beginner, studying from Learn to Read Latin by Keller and Russell. The Workbook, in Chapter III, Drill 24-28, Sentence 9, asks for a translation of Sapientia est pulchrum. There are no macrons. At first glance, this seemed trivially easy. But, I can't seem to conjure up a translation with agreement between sapientia and pulchrum. Would appreciate any help.
I'm a beginner too, so I don't know the answer. But I see "sapientia" as feminine and "pulchrum" as neuter.
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Sapientia est pulchrum.
BTW, welcome to Textkit!!!
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: London, UK
You are right that pulchrum cannot be made to "agree" with "sapientia".
I can only think that it is because pulchrum is functioning as a noun ("beauty" 2nd dec. n, here nominative) not as an adjective ("beautiful"). One is not saying "wisdom is beautiful" (in which case one would have to make the adjective agree with its noun) but "wisdom is beauty", with each substantive in its "natural" case. When pulcher is used as a noun it is normally a second declension neuter.
I can only think that it is because pulchrum is functioning as a noun ("beauty" 2nd dec. n, here nominative) not as an adjective ("beautiful"). One is not saying "wisdom is beautiful" (in which case one would have to make the adjective agree with its noun) but "wisdom is beauty", with each substantive in its "natural" case. When pulcher is used as a noun it is normally a second declension neuter.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm
I'll counter that his sapientia has surpassed you all (praestitit vobis) since he was evidently opting to convey the meaning "wisdom is a beautiful thing", the neuter "pulchrum" used as a neuter substantive implying as we know a thing in a simple sense. Had he used "pulchra" it might have been more than plausible to suggest that a "res" were understood, rendering once again "wisdom is a fine thing". Ah Latin...
Anyhow, welcome! However use D'Ooge's "Latin For Beginners" from textkit you fool! It is not wise to use any other book. Ask mariek.
Anyhow, welcome! However use D'Ooge's "Latin For Beginners" from textkit you fool! It is not wise to use any other book. Ask mariek.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: London, UK
I don't think this is evident at all. We agree on what is happening here (i.e., pulchrum is a neuter substantive). The question is: how should that be translated.Episcopus wrote:I'll counter that his sapientia has surpassed you all (praestitit vobis) since he was evidently opting to convey the meaning "wisdom is a beautiful thing", the neuter "pulchrum" used as a neuter substantive implying as we know a thing in a simple sense. Had he used "pulchra" it might have been more than plausible to suggest that a "res" were understood, rendering once again "wisdom is a fine thing". Ah Latin...
Turning an adjective into a substantive does not necessarily imply some imaginary "thing" with its quality. It implies a substantive form of the adjective. Sometimes that will require or invite the addition of "thing" in translation, but not always. We need only produce the substantive form of "beautiful", i.e. "beauty" (which as it happens is a meaning found in literature, as a large dictionary shows).
"Wisdom is a beautiful thing" would be so close to "Wisdom is beautiful" that it would hardly explain the use of a substantive rather than an adjective. Though it is a possible translation, I think it would be a mistranslation.
(If the author intended "res" this would certainly not be left to be understood merely from a feminine adjective. For who ever would guess it was needed. Nothing would tell you not to translate "sapientia est pulchra" as "wisdom is beautiful"; to take it otherwise would be perverse. If res were intended it would be expressed.)
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: Belgium
This time, o Ulpiane, pace tua liceat dixisse, Episcopus is completely right. It is a well known phaenomenon that exists also in Greek. Triste lupus stabulis, "a wulf is a harmful thing to stables". "Beauty" is rather PULCHRITUDO, pulchritudinis, an abstract substantive.Ulpianus wrote: I don't think this is evident at all. We agree on what is happening here (i.e., pulchrum is a neuter substantive). The question is: how should that be translated.
Notwithstanding, VALE.[/i]
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: London, UK
Well, I will retire to sulk in my tent, though I'm still not happy with the translation (though I accept it's possible; and -- curses -- probably right given its context). I have only Lewis and Short for company in thinking pulchrum can mean "beauty". Citing Horace. Not bad company for me in my tent, completely wrong as we may be.Skylax wrote:This time, o Ulpiane, pace tua liceat dixisse, Episcopus is completely right. It is a well known phaenomenon that exists also in Greek. Triste lupus stabulis, "a wulf is a harmful thing to stables". "Beauty" is rather PULCHRITUDO, pulchritudinis, an abstract substantive.Ulpianus wrote: I don't think this is evident at all. We agree on what is happening here (i.e., pulchrum is a neuter substantive). The question is: how should that be translated.
Notwithstanding, VALE.[/i]
(Incidentally, I am reminded of a nice little story about a young keen scholar talking to a distinguished papyrologist:
Young Keen Scholar: Can X mean Y?
Long Pause
Old Stager: If you find it in that sense, yes. )
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: Belgium
Please, come back ! I was surely confused by the French language. In French we say "le beau" (= "what is beautiful", i.e. beauty inasmuch it is found in real objects), which could translate PULCHRUM - I think in German it would be "das Schöne" - and "la beauté" (= the characteristic that leads to define an object as "beautiful", German "die Schönheit"). Maybe it is "beauty" in both cases in English ?Ulpianus wrote:
Well, I will retire to sulk in my tent, ...
And, please, if he is willing, bring Horace back to us too.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm