A simple question, need your help.

[tom654321]

I began studying Latin a few days ago. I saw one sentence in Latin like this: "scripta imago animi." Is it right or not? if not, how can I correct?

thank you first.

[Gonzalo]

Hi and welcome,

Literally it means: Written soul's image.
If it makes sense to you, it´s ok.

Regards and good luck with your studies,
Gonzalo

[Twpsyn]

More precisely: written image of soul (in your translation, Gonzalo, written was ambiguous: it could modify either soul or image). It could also mean The image of the soul has been written, if you supply an implied 'to be'. In any event, it is indeed good Latin.

[tom654321]

thank you so much for your help.

but, a friend told me imago is single and scripta is plural? He said imago should be imaginis?

Is there something concerned with gender?

[Twpsyn]

but, a friend told me imago is single and scripta is plural? He said imago should be imaginis?

Is there something concerned with gender?

No, it's fine as it is ... unless you or your friend are trying to say something different. Imago is singular feminine nominative, and so is the form scripta, which means they correctly agree. Imaginis is the genitive singular of imago. (If you've only been studying Latin a few days, I don't know how much explanation will be helpful ...)

[tom654321]

but, a friend told me imago is single and scripta is plural? He said imago should be imaginis?

Is there something concerned with gender?

No, it's fine as it is ... unless you or your friend are trying to say something different. Imago is singular feminine nominative, and so is the form scripta, which means they correctly agree. Imaginis is the genitive singular of imago. (If you've only been studying Latin a few days, I don't know how much explanation will be helpful ...)

Thank you!

by the way, may i ask what's different between:

1. Scripta imago animi.

2.Scripta, imagines animi (SUNT).

If both are right, the comma in the second sentence is necessary? and why?

[Gonzalo]

The second sentence should be Scriptæ imagines animi and I do not know why the comma is placed there.

Scriptus, scripta, scriptum is the past participle of scribere .

[tom654321]

The second sentence should be Scriptæ imagines animi and I do not know why the comma is placed there.

Scriptus, scripta, scriptum is the past participle of scribere .

So the first sentence "scripta imago animi" is ok?

[Gonzalo]

Even though there´s a ellipsis of the verb, in Latin it works. They're now ok. Scripta imago animi. Scriptæ imagines animi.

[textkat]

The Latin clip came toward the end of page 205 (the link is for page 204):

http://books.google.com/books?id=zdI2BA ... &ct=result

where the discussion of Chinese writings (ideograms) was brought up. The author quoted from a Chinese text original which says:

(With regard to the Chinese writings,) every character laid down is a picture of the mind.

The author then attempted to added a Latin equivalent to the above and made an error by using the singular form of imago instead of the plural to match against scripta, or things written.

[tom654321]

The Latin clip came toward the end of page 205 (the link is for page 204):

http://books.google.com/books?id=zdI2BA ... &ct=result

where the discussion of Chinese writings (ideograms) was brought up. The author quoted from a Chinese text original which says:

(With regard to the Chinese writings,) every character laid down is a picture of the mind.

The author then attempted to added a Latin equivalent to the above and made an error by using the singular form of imago instead of the plural to match against scripta, or things written.

how can textkat be so stupid? no matter what the context is, my question above has been solved by some kind friends here!!!!!!!!!!

A very clear answer here is : "scripta imago animi". ok!

[textkat]

how can textkat be so stupid? no matter what the context is, my question above has been solved by some kind friends here!!!!!!!!!!

A very clear answer here is : "scripta imago animi". ok!

That's very interesting, there is no such thing as completely correct interpretation of Latin WITHOUT FULL CONTEXT, especially for something as short as this one. "scripta imago animi" is a phrase only, but "scripta, imagines animi" is a complete SENTENCE by itself, just like the Chinese ORIGINAL.

Hum, start to wonder what are you trying to hide from people who are doing their best to help you out?

[Twpsyn]

That's very interesting, there is no such thing as completely correct interpretation of Latin WITHOUT FULL CONTEXT, especially for something as short as this one. "scripta imago animi" is a phrase only, but "scripta, imagines animi" is a complete SENTENCE by itself, just like the Chinese ORIGINAL.

Um... okay, clearly there's some battle going on here. However, with regard to the Latin, each of those ... shall we call them 'sequences of three words'? ... can be interpreted as a full sentence or a phrase, depending on the context. You could translate the former as 'the written image of the mind' or 'the image of the mind has been written', and the latter as 'things written, the images of the mind' or (without the comma) 'things written are images of the mind'. Furthermore, 'scripta imago animi' is also a correct full sentence in either interpretation, since it can mean 'things written are the image of the mind' as well as 'the image of the mind has been written.' I hope that clears things up ...

[textkat]

Um... okay, clearly there's some battle going on here. However, with regard to the Latin, each of those ... shall we call them 'sequences of three words'? ... can be interpreted as a full sentence or a phrase, depending on the context. You could translate the former as 'the written image of the mind' or 'the image of the mind has been written', and the latter as 'things written, the images of the mind' or (without the comma) 'things written are images of the mind'. Furthermore, 'scripta imago animi' is also a correct full sentence in either interpretation, since it can mean 'things written are the image of the mind' as well as 'the image of the mind has been written.' I hope that clears things up ...

Thanks! However, the image of the mind has been written is not what the author for that Chinese Text intended to say, for just prior to this sentence, the author wrote: Spoken words, (are) the voices/vocalizations of the heart; (and) things written, pictures/visualizations of the soul. (i.e., different handwritings reveal much of different personalities). Hence, apposition of two nouns were suggested as a natural easy way to render it in Latin. (Of course, Chinese lacks inflections, so all interpretations are more or less strictly context-driven or context-unique.)

RE: 'scripta imago animi' is also a correct full sentence in either interpretation, since it can mean 'things written are the image of the mind' -- can we at least say that's not GOOD Latin then, because each character is a different picture/image and this interpretation would also betray the intend and mind of the author of original Chinese text.

The guy who wrote "scripta imago animi" in his essay happened to have been deified in China, hence a lot of unwillingness in admitting that he, too, like any other mortal, dozes off once in a while.

[tom654321]

thank you, twpsyn!