In a description of Harry's broomstick, in English it says, "top of the range".
In Latin it says "quo non erat genus praestantius".
Surely this translates to, "which was not of an outstanding type".
Is the non here a misprint or typo?
Typo in Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:55 pm
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:30 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Typo in Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum
Not really. 'Praestantius' is a neuter comparative for praestans. And so 'quo non erat genus praestantius' would literally translate to 'than which there was not a type more outstanding'.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Re: Typo in Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum
Is that correct Latin? // Estne bonum Latinum?"top of the range" "quo non erat genus praestantius"
You don't say (in my opinion) // Non dicis (ut opinor) "a broomstick than which there was no type more outstanding" // "manubrium scoparum quo non erat genus praestantius"
Nonnè dicis (meâ sententiâ) // You do say rather (I think) "a broomstick of such a type than which there was no more outstanding one [type]" // "manubrium scoparum talis generis quo non erat praestantius"
Why not these? // Pro "top-of-the-range broomstick", cur non haec?
"manubrium scoparum praestantissimi generis"
"manubrium scoparum maximum seriei"
"manubrium scoparum ê praestantissimâ notâ"
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: 57
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:55 pm
Re: Typo in Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum
Of course it's a comparative! Thanks!
- ptolemyauletes
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:26 am
Re: Typo in Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum
Adrianus,
I think your correction is more stylistic than anything. 'quo non erat genus praestantius' works fine as a complete sentence, which it, in essence, is. There was not type more outstanding than this. The Latin is fine, but another author might well change it to your first suggestion.
I think your correction is more stylistic than anything. 'quo non erat genus praestantius' works fine as a complete sentence, which it, in essence, is. There was not type more outstanding than this. The Latin is fine, but another author might well change it to your first suggestion.
The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.