Subjunctive "amere" with nefas?

[Carolus Raeticus]

Salvete!

I am just wrapping up the proofreading part of my latest transcription project (this one I will give to the Gutenberg-project): the crime novel Mysterium Arcae Boulé by Burton E. Stevenson as translated by Arcadius Avellanus. I tried to weed out typos where clearly discernible as such (and not some variant spelling). I have one or two questions left, however. The first one is this:

English original:

"I knew that madame also..."
She stopped again. I walked over to the window and stood staring at the wooden shutter, strangely moved.
"Well, why not?" she demanded fiercely, and I felt that she was addressing my turned back. "Why not? Shall a woman not be loved? Shall a woman endure what madame endured..."

Latin translation:

"Novi scilicet Heram quoque ..."
Iterum substitit. Interim ego ad fenestram perambulavi, ibique, valde commotus, forum ligneum spectans steti.
"Eccur non?" quaesivit aspere, ego autem scire putabam eam revera tergum meum alloqui. "Eccur non? Numquid amere mulieri nefas est? Num mulieri tolerandum est quod Hera toleravit? ..."

I keep wondering: is amere correct or a typo? It is a "correct" Latin word as such (alternative 2nd person singular present passive subjunctive), but I would have expected amari with nefas. But two typos in a single word seems suspicious. amare might be an impersonal statement (like "one would..."). What do you think?

Carolus Raeticus

[mwh]

Surely should be amari. With amare would mean wrong for a woman to love. Looks a very good translation, to judge from this stretch. But what a strange thing to have done! Winnie and Potter I can understand (well, Winnie, at least), but this? But I can see it might be more attractive than Caesar for boys (and girls?) learning Latin.

[Carolus Raeticus]

Salve mwh!

But what a strange thing to have done! Winnie and Potter I can understand (well, Winnie, at least), but this? But I can see it might be more attractive than Caesar for boys (and girls?) learning Latin.

Not quite as strange as you might think. Learning Latin is quite difficult as it is. It is very important to maintain motivation. Many original texts suitable for beginners (e.g. the Breviarium Historiae Romanae by Eutropius or the Vitae by Cornelius Nepos) can be dry sometimes and somewhat aloof. Also there is only so much bellum one can stomach before getting bored. Caesar's Bellum Gallicum is better because it also contains some lively bits. But on the whole I think that a longer text with a story (instead of a chain of only ever superficially treated events) and lively narration is far more apt to maintain the interest while grappling with the difficulty of Latin as a language.

Of course, your surprise may arise from an interest which may focus on Latin as a vehicle to learn about Roman history. I am interested in the Latin language as such. The Roman history is of lesser importance to me.

Why choosing this specific book - Mysterium Arcae Boulé, a crime novel - to transcribe? My main reason for doing so was my interest in Latin phraseology. Caesar, Nepos, Eutropius: all these authors offer what I want to call here high-level action/language. Entire armies are moved from place to place, cities are razed, etc. The Mysterium, in contrast, represents low-level action/language. We are informed in detail about what is happening. People pick up things, gaze at a specific direction, lock and unlock doors, leave rooms, go up/down stairs, etc. In this novel we encounter these low-level phrases in a density unknown to me from other books (not even the Harrius Potter books, both of which I have read). I want to have access to these phrases, create a list of these (and perhaps even put such a list online). And that requires a digital version so that I can use a script to find all instances of "ianu*/osti*", for example, and from there find out what can be done with "doors".

By the way, why can you understand Winnie, but not Potter? Winnie seems rather childish (at least to me, of course, so please do not be offended by me saying this) to attract attention by older readers, whereas Potter represents a type of fantasy novel easier to appreciate (or "stomach" if you will) by a wider (age) range of readers.

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

[mwh]

SVV
Yes I quite see your point, and I see how it might be useful, if it’s as well done as it appears to be from the excerpt you quote. I’m interested in the language too, but I prefer to read real Latin, so that I can read it not just for the language but also for the content in its cultural context. Latinized Winnie is just a bit of fun (childish yes but something of a cult text, spawning i.a. the classic Pooh Perplex). Grecized Potter is a classic “composition” exercise, designed to elicit admiration from the half-dozen people in the world who can properly appreciate it. It’s extremely well done, and quite fun too, but again, what a way to spend one’s time! (I mean the translating, not the transcribing. I’m very supportive of Project Gutenberg.)

[thesaurus]

I'd love to read your transcription when you finish, Carolus!

A few years ago I was researching the life and works of Arcadisu Avellanus. He's an interesting guy and produced a lot of good Latin translations. At the time I wrote the Latin wikipedia page on him (there was no info out there) : http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadius_Avellanus . I hope the Latin is good... it's been a long time since I've looked at it