Textkit Logo

First latin prose- Matris Patri

This board is a composition workshop, like a writers' workshop: post your work with questions about style or vocabulary, comment on other people's work, post composition challenges on some topic or form, or just dazzle us with your inventive use of galliambics.

Moderator: annis

First latin prose- Matris Patri

Postby Deudeditus » Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:11 am

Hi, this is my first bit of latin longer than just a line or two that was thought of without having to translate English-Latin. I'm actually kinda pleased that I thought of some of it in latin. haha. baby steps. :) That said, I need practice and criticism, so here it is.

Sōle trāns caelum rubrō ardente et, ultrā caelō, lūnā caelum idem nocte dōnante, caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit. Caelō vīsō, ut nepōs suus nātūrae pulchritūdinem vērē sentiat et cernat quī quoque caelum cum eō virō oculōs caruleōs habente aspexit, senex tum dīxit; ‘Pax, nepōs. Nunc vērissimam pācem aspicis, et nātūram cernis; animō haec nātūrae pax pulchritūdōque semper teneātur nam in nātūrā Deus. In nātūrā Deus. Nātūra amanda enim semper est.”
Etiam sentiō et cernō pulchritūdinem nātūrālem et amō. Haec pax mēcum etiam remanet, ō pater matris.
I.V.M. nepōs


NB Originally it was just one or two big sentences connected with alot of ets and atques, but obviously I changed that... I'm not sure if I formed the adjective 'vere' right or not, as I haven't gotten there in my book yet. And not sure about the abl. absolute in the beginning.. But hopefully I'll get tons of criticism. I'll provide a translation if the above passage doesn't make sense and a translation would show where I went wrong.

I don't know how to say 'grandfather'. verbum quaeram.
User avatar
Deudeditus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The world, man.

Postby bellum paxque » Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:01 am

Deudeditus,

(Non mihi satis temporis est ut plus quam hoc scribere possim, cuius maxime paenitet me.)

Well done, I think! I was able to follow along pretty well, though there were a couple points that confused me.

*ultra caelo - are using ultra as adverb? If as preposition, I think it usually takes the accusative. If you intend it as an adverb, "beyond that, in heaven," you probably ought to have a preposition, in caelo
*luna...donante - does donante have an object here? I'm not sure what its purpose is.
*eo uiro oculous caruleos habente - a typo on caEruleos, but also I'm not sure if habeo is appropriate in this sense. I'm not sure what ought to be used, though.
*enim - usually second word in sentence?
*remanet - don't you want the future tense here? remanebit seems more natural (no pun intended) in this context.
*pater matris - grandfather is, I think, auus (with consonantal u)
for authority, cf. Aeneid II.455-7: ...infelix qua se, dum regna manebant, / saepius Andromache ferre incomitata solebat / ad soceros et auo puerum Astyanacta trahebat (by which [route] unhappy Andromache, while the kingdom stood, used to visit [se ferre] unaccompanied to her mother and father in law and pull along her boy Astyanax to her grandfather).

cura ut ualeas

David
bellum paxque
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: nanun Hanguge issoyo (in Korea sum)

Postby Deudeditus » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:23 pm

Sōle trāns caelum rubrō ardente et, ultrā caelum, lūna caelum idem nocte dōnante, caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit. Caelō vīsō, ut nepōs suus nātūrae pulchritūdinem vērē sentiat et cernat quī quoque caelum cum eō virō oculōs caeruleōs habente aspexit, senex tum dīxit; ‘Pax, nepōs. Nunc vērissimam pācem aspicis, et nātūram cernis; animō haec nātūrae pax pulchritūdōque semper teneātur nam in nātūrā Deus. In nātūrā Deus. Nātūra enim amanda semper est.”
Etiam sentiō et cernō pulchritūdinem nātūrālem et amō. Haec pax mēcum etiam remanet, ō pater matris.
I.V.M. nepōs

lūna caelum idem nocte dōnante- sorry, got carried away with the macrons. I was thinking ablative for some reason.
cum eō virō oculōs caeruleōs habente- with the man having blue eyes. I didn't want to introduce another relative phrase like cum quo oculos caeruleos habet, as this phrase was in the middle of a relative phrase. qui... aspexit. But if it was the verb that seemed wrong, are there any hints as to what verb to use?
enim- right you are, sir. I thought I remembered reading somewhere that it could be 2nd or 3rd. Oh well.
remanet- this peace still will remain with me? This peace still remains with me, o grandpepe.
Thanks for auus, but I think pater matris sounds cooler. :)

I've made the corrections, except for the one concerning remanet, as I still don't really know why it would seem more natural.

Thank you for the help, I appreciate it alot.

semper vale
User avatar
Deudeditus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The world, man.

Postby bellum paxque » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:09 pm

lūna caelum idem nocte dōnante- sorry, got carried away with the macrons. I was thinking ablative for some reason.


I'm still a bit confused by part of this sentence. Let me see if I've analyzed your syntax correctly....

Sōle trāns caelum rubrō ardente ... ablative absolute, "with the red sun burning, etc"
et, ultrā caelum, lūna caelum idem nocte dōnante, ... initially luna was an ablative, making this an ablative absolute, but I couldn't get a coherent meaning: "with the moon presenting the same heaven with night" - that didn't seem clear to me. Now, however, we have luna in nominative...
caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit. ... and I presume that it's not the moon that's gazing at heaven with blue, leisurely, most wise eyes. Am I missing something?

cum eō virō oculōs caeruleōs habente- with the man having blue eyes. I didn't want to introduce another relative phrase like cum quo oculos caeruleos habet, as this phrase was in the middle of a relative phrase. qui... aspexit. But if it was the verb that seemed wrong, are there any hints as to what verb to use?


Well, you could just say "cum viro oculos, etc." The eo seems unnecessary here. I do have an alternative for habeo, by the way. How about dative of possession? Thus: cum viro cui oculi caerulei erant . I'm really not sure what the best way is to indicate physical attributes. Possibly the ablative/genitive of description? cum viro oculis caeruleis or cum viro oculorum caeruleorum? If so, you can use either ablative or genitive to express that. (Lit, the man with blue eyes or the man of green eyes.)

remanet- this peace still will remain with me? This peace still remains with me, o grandpepe.


Whoops. I was initially reading the last two sentences as if respondentes verbis tui patris matris . Now I see that they are functioning as commentary, almost, in retrospect. Now I see how the peace remains with you. (If you had been replying to the previous sentences, however, you would have said, "They will remain with me.")

Thanks for auus, but I think pater matris sounds cooler.


Well, it has the advantage of being more specific (ie, indicates which grandfather). But if you ever want to use grandfater in the genitive, you may be in trouble. Then (see above), you'll have patris matris - of my father's mother, or of my mother's father?

te quoque valere volo!

David
bellum paxque
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: nanun Hanguge issoyo (in Korea sum)

Postby Deudeditus » Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:22 pm

...lūnā caelum idem nocte dōnante, caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit.


I'm retarded, I swear. Luna is abl.
This is how I would write it in english. With the red sun... and, on the other side of the sky (across the sky) the moon giving the same sky night, he (Grandfather) beheld the sky with blue eyes, calm and most wise. I should have added the subject, but I kinda wanted the reader to be in suspense about who was looking at the sky. Should it be
... Is (hic, ille) caelum caeruleis oculis otiosis sapientissimis aspexit.

I was trying to describe twilight, when the sun looks as if it's burning the western horizon and the moon, rising on the eastern horizon, seems to be bringing the night with it. So it looks like half the sky is night and the other half is day.

I don't think I've learned the ablative of description yet (if I have, I don't remember it.), but I kinda like that, since I want to avoid another relative clause.

- Sōle trāns caelum rubrō ardente et, ultrā caelō, lūnā caelum idem nocte dōnante, hic caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit. Caelō vīsō, ut nepōs suus nātūrae pulchritūdinem vērē sentiat et cernat quī quoque caelum cum eō virō oculīs caeruleīs aspexit, senex tum dīxit; ‘Pax, nepōs. Nunc vērissimam pācem aspicis, et nātūram cernis; animō haec nātūrae pax pulchritūdōque semper teneātur nam in nātūrā Deus. In nātūrā Deus. Nātūra amanda enim semper est.”
- Etiam sentiō et cernō pulchritūdinem nātūrālem et amō. Haec pax mēcum etiam remanet, ō pater matris.


How's that? If I use hic to describe meus avus, it kinda makes it sound like I'm making a Eulogy, and talking about his corporeal remains.

I guess one could say avus maternus. Or would that simply give maternal characteristics to the grandfather?
User avatar
Deudeditus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The world, man.

Postby bellum paxque » Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:54 pm

...lūnā caelum idem nocte dōnante, caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit.

This is how I would write it in english. With the red sun... and, on the other side of the sky (across the sky) the moon giving the same sky night...


I see what you are doing now. Dono can take two constructions - accusative recipient and ablative present, or dative recipient and accusative present. I didn't pick up on this metaphor when I read it, but was instead confused by the three ablatives (lunā, nocte, donante) in the absolute. The grammar would be less ambiguous in a separate sentence - luna caelum idem nocte donans, or you could use the dative/accusative option - lunā caelo eodem noctem donante. However, I am still not quite satisfied that this metaphorical use of dono (in which the moon is "presenting" the heaven with night) is completely Latin. It's still striking, though, when the ambiguity is removed.

he (Grandfather) beheld the sky with blue eyes, calm and most wise. I should have added the subject, but I kinda wanted the reader to be in suspense about who was looking at the sky. Should it be
... Is (hic, ille) caelum caeruleis oculis otiosis sapientissimis aspexit.


Remember that is is a demonstrative, ie, it points to something that ordinarily has already been mentioned. Including is without a direct antecedent (ante + cedens) might be a little odd - perhaps more so than starting a short story with "he," since Latin technically doesn't have simple third person pronouns. What about this: "...aspexit caelum...avus"? Since the subject is arguably the most part of this sentence, it comes at the end, instead of "aspexit" (the action of which is implicit in all of the description)? Also, you avoid the weak demonstrative while still making it clear who is seeing all of this. Just an idea, though.

I don't think I've learned the ablative of description yet (if I have, I don't remember it.), but I kinda like that, since I want to avoid another relative clause.


It's a useful form, and apparently is indistinguishable in meaning from the genitive of description. However, you must have a noun with a modifying adjective to use it. For instance, you can say "erat vir pietate praeclarā / pietatis praeclarae erat" (he was a man of renowned piety), but not "erat vir pietatis." It is essential to remember that, though English commonly uses the simple genitive to describe or modify - "the art of love," "the year of wonders," Latin prefers adjectives - "ars amatoria," "annus mirabilis."

- Sōle trāns caelum rubrō ardente et, ultrā caelō, lūnā caelum idem nocte dōnante, hic caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit. Caelō vīsō, ut nepōs suus nātūrae pulchritūdinem vērē sentiat et cernat quī quoque caelum cum eō virō oculīs caeruleīs aspexit, senex tum dīxit; ‘Pax, nepōs. Nunc vērissimam pācem aspicis, et nātūram cernis; animō haec nātūrae pax pulchritūdōque semper teneātur nam in nātūrā Deus. In nātūrā Deus. Nātūra amanda enim semper est.”
- Etiam sentiō et cernō pulchritūdinem nātūrālem et amō. Haec pax mēcum etiam remanet, ō pater matris.

How's that? If I use hic to describe meus avus, it kinda makes it sound like I'm making a Eulogy, and talking about his corporeal remains.


It seems fine to me. As for hic, see what I said earlier.

*"cum eo viro oculis caeruleis aspexit" - this is now ambiguous for a different reason. What about "eo oculis caeruleis viro"? This sandwich construction presents the reader from (naturally) assuming it is an ablative of instrument with "aspexit."

I guess one could say avus maternus. Or would that simply give maternal characteristics to the grandfather?


Maternus is a good choice. I hadn't thought of that! Note what I said earlier about ars amatoria, etc.

vale, et in via vitae vigeas,

David
bellum paxque
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: nanun Hanguge issoyo (in Korea sum)

Postby Deudeditus » Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:42 pm

Thanks for all the help! Hopefully I've improved it a little bit!

- Sōle trāns caelum rubrō ardente et, ultrā caelō, lūnā noctem caelō eōem dōnante, aspexit caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs caelum senex. Caelō vīsō, ut nepōs suus nātūrae pulchritūdinem vērē sentiat et cernat quī quoque caelum cum suō oculōrum caeruleōrum avō aspexit, senex tum dīxit; ‘Pax, nepōs. Nunc vērissimam pācem aspicis, et nātūram cernis; animō haec nātūrae pax pulchritūdōque semper teneātur nam in nātūrā Deus. In nātūrā Deus. Nātūra amanda enim semper est.”
- Etiam sentiō et cernō pulchritūdinem nātūrālem et amō. Haec pax mēcum etiam remanet, ō pater matris.


Sanumne hoc epistolium?

Avo could also be written as Avo materno, but I don't think it's necessary.
I've decided to use the genitive of desc. instead of the abl. as it's describing an abl. It confused me a little bit with all the ablatives, and with the genit., it won't be mistaken as an abl. of instrument. But you said the genit. construction wasn't that common, so... :? ?

Gratias propter auxilium tibi ago, David.

-Jon
User avatar
Deudeditus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The world, man.

Postby bellum paxque » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:10 am

Sanumne hoc epistolium?


Non dubium quin ita sit.

Avo could also be written as Avo materno, but I don't think it's necessary.
I've decided to use the genitive of desc. instead of the abl. as it's describing an abl. It confused me a little bit with all the ablatives, and with the genit., it won't be mistaken as an abl. of instrument. But you said the genit. construction wasn't that common, so... ?


Good choice on using the gen - I was thinking about suggesting it myself. If I said that it was a less common option than the ablative, I didn't mean it. I'm fairly certain the gen and abl of description are equivalent both in frequency and meaning, hence I just read "constantis iuvenem fide [archaic form of fidei]" in Horace. You definitely have precedent.

"Avo" is sufficient I think.
Gratias propter auxilium tibi ago, David. -Jon


Iuvit mihi auxilium tibi dare. Nihil enim laboris est; immo vero haec magna cum voluptate scripsi.

Vale

David
bellum paxque
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: nanun Hanguge issoyo (in Korea sum)


Return to Composition Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests