Hi,
I'm translating fragments of Thomas' Summa and have some problems.
Thank you very much for helping me.
1) Praeterea, quod potest compleri per pauciora principia, non fit per plura. Sed videtur quod omnia quae apparent in mundo, possunt compleri per alia principia, supposito quod Deus non sit.
"supposito" - is it Ablativus, ppp from "suppono"? I'm not sure.
2)Nulla igitur necessitas est ponere Deum esse. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exodi III, ex persona Dei, ego sum qui sum. Respondeo dicendum quod Deum esse quinque viis probari potest.
The meaning is clear, but I don't know what kind of senstence it is. "Dicendum" - gerundive? Why accusativus in "Deum esse"?
3) Impossibile est autem omnia quae sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est.
? ACI?
4)Ergo est aliquid quod omnibus entibus est causa esse, et bonitatis, et cuiuslibet perfectionis, et hoc dicimus Deum.
"ESSE" - is it gerundium? If not, what is it?
And two sentences from Anselm's "Proslogion":
"Clauso ostio" [Mt 6,6] quaere eum.
What kind of form is "clauso"?
Quaeram te desiderando, desiderem quaerendo. Inveniam amando, amem inveniendo (...), ut tui memor te cogitem, te amem.
desiderando... ? - gerundivus, but why in dat./abl.? I have no idea.
Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:18 pm
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:31 pm
Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)
Yes, it is. The clause may be understood as an ablative absolute in which the place of one of the ablatives is taken by a noun clause (beginning with "quod"). Thus we arrive at the translation: "on the assumption that God does not exist".philosophos wrote:Hi,
I'm translating fragments of Thomas' Summa and have some problems.
Thank you very much for helping me.
1) Praeterea, quod potest compleri per pauciora principia, non fit per plura. Sed videtur quod omnia quae apparent in mundo, possunt compleri per alia principia, supposito quod Deus non sit.
"supposito" - is it Ablativus, ppp from "suppono"? I'm not sure.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm
Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)
Hello,
Here are my two cents, I hope this helps.
respondeo dicendum (esse) quod
I answer it must be said that
Deum esse (...) probari potest.
it can be proved that God exist.
Here are my two cents, I hope this helps.
probo + accusative-infinitive construction, so :philosophos wrote:2)Nulla igitur necessitas est ponere Deum esse. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exodi III, ex persona Dei, ego sum qui sum. Respondeo dicendum quod Deum esse quinque viis probari potest.
The meaning is clear, but I don't know what kind of senstence it is. "Dicendum" - gerundive? Why accusativus in "Deum esse"?
respondeo dicendum (esse) quod
I answer it must be said that
Deum esse (...) probari potest.
it can be proved that God exist.
I don't know what "ACI" is, sorryphilosophos wrote:3) Impossibile est autem omnia quae sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est.
? ACI?
I would say esse is gerund, "the reason of existing".philosophos wrote:4)Ergo est aliquid quod omnibus entibus est causa esse, et bonitatis, et cuiuslibet perfectionis, et hoc dicimus Deum.
"ESSE" - is it gerundium? If not, what is it?
clauso ostio is an ablative absolute (from claudo)philosophos wrote:And two sentences from Anselm's "Proslogion":
"Clauso ostio" [Mt 6,6] quaere eum.
What kind of form is "clauso"?
I too was puzzled by this when I began reading medieval Latin but then I read somewhere (maybe in Sidwell, Reading medieval Latin) that in medieval Latin, the gerund in the ablative can be used instead of the present participle whatever the case of the latter. So this sentence could be written : Quaeram te desiderans, desiderem quaerens. Inveniam amans, amem inveniens.philosophos wrote:Quaeram te desiderando, desiderem quaerendo. Inveniam amando, amem inveniendo (...), ut tui memor te cogitem, te amem.
desiderando... ? - gerundivus, but why in dat./abl.? I have no idea.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)
Est quidem, Shenoute, in isto opere de Sidwell, in adnotatione decimâ octavâ. Inquisivi. Gratias tibi qui rem illuminaveris.Shenoute wrote:(maybe in Sidwell, Reading medieval Latin)
I looked it up. It is indeed in Sidwell (Grammar 18), so thanks, Shenoute, for casting light on that.
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.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:00 am
Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)
accusative-and-infinitiveShenoute wrote:I don't know what "ACI" is, sorryphilosophos wrote:3) Impossibile est autem omnia quae sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est.
? ACI?
And yes, it is. Omnia and talia are both accusatives.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm
Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)
Ah, thanks for the explanation, Radagasty.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:18 pm
Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)
Thank you very much!