latin translations to english

emeka ofor · Post by **emeka ofor** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:32 pm

1.for with God nothing shall be impossible.
2. with God nothing id impossible.

whiteoctave · Post by **whiteoctave** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:30 pm

Hey toby, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "with god". Do you mean "with god on your side", i.e. having accepted god, or do you mean "when it comes to god/ as regards god etc.", i.e. god can do everything?

~dave

Ulpianus · Post by **Ulpianus** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:26 pm

It's Lk 1:37 (more or less) in English: an explanation of how the barren Elizabeth has become pregnant.

The Vulgate has quia non erit inpossibile apud Deum omne verbum, which seems at first sight an odd use of verbum but is very close to the Greek ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα..

Perhaps someone with more than my rudimentary koine could explain the idiom.

benissimus · Post by **benissimus** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:47 am

Ulpianus wrote:quia non erit inpossibile apud Deum omne verbum, which seems at first sight an odd use of verbum but is very close to the Greek ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα..

Is that inpossibile or impossibile?

Ulpianus · Post by **Ulpianus** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:36 am

According to Perseus in, but I don't have the text in print, so I can't cross-check it. Odd I agree.

whiteoctave · Post by **whiteoctave** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:18 am

there is no meaningful palaeographical distinction between inp- and imp-.

~dave

Ulpianus · Post by **Ulpianus** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:21 am

there is no meaningful palaeographical distinction between inp- and imp-.

Thanks, that's interesting. I would have imaginedthat there was a clear paleographical distinction between inp and imp (they are not "the same", in the sense that, say, uncial "A" is the same as miniscule "a" though they look rather different), although the difference may not be orthographically significant. If confronted with two manuscripts, one "inp" the other "imp", would one not bother to note the difference in a critical edition?

whiteoctave · Post by **whiteoctave** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:58 pm

Such differences would (generally) appear in critical apparatuses but that is not my point. The writing of inp- or imp- would be purely at the scribe's discretion and it appears that in the manuscript tradition there were "seasons", as it were, of what spelling was to be favoured over the other for various consonant collocations. Therefore it is almost impossible to ascertain what the original palaeographic script of Latin was in many instances at any given point, so to write Latin now with imp- or inp- is a fruitless debate.

~dave

Ulpianus · Post by **Ulpianus** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:30 pm

Yes, I see. Like -ize and -ise in English. Variant spellings, each equally "acceptable".