COPLAND 3 wrote:Thanks for translating that for me. I will give it a shot when I post another, but I am not very good. As for the Latin that I posted it is a medieval work, so the Latin is crude, using f or s a v for u and so on. I will edit it when I post anymore.
Is it just that the Latin is crude, or is it more a matter of accurately transcribing antiquated writing? For example, while the word might seem to say "funt," in the past it has been customary to write an elongated "s" that looks similar to "f". Similarly, ligatures and other writing conventions were used that must be known to know what a word should actually say. For example, "potetiam" should clearly be "potentiam"; although I have not seen your source, I know that letters like "m" and "n" were frequently omitted, and there will be a tilde or some mark over the remaining letters to indicate that the letters are to be understood.
Num prave scriptum est? Immo scriptura antiqua, mea sententia, prave lecta est. Exempli gratia, verbum "funt" esse videtur, sed prius mos scribendi erat ut S longa, litterae F hodiernae simillima, scribenda esset. Sic alii modi scribendi sunt quibus scriba facilius scribat; si hi lectori non sunt noti, perperam litteras transcribet. Exemplia gratia, "potetiam" clare "potentiam" legi debet; cum fontem quem adhibes ignoscam, scio litteras "m" et "n" saepe omissae in scribendo esse; earum in locis linea scripta est parva super litteras quae etiam manent, quae nota lectori monstrant intellegandas esse has litteras.I suppose an ignorant scribe could make all sorts of blunders, but it is very unlikely that a literate writer would make such mistakes. So that your project may have a firm foundation, I recommend spending some time acquainting yourself more fully with the textual history of your sources.
Forsan scriba ignarus haec menda et alia fecisse poterat, sed dubito scriptor esset ullus Latinae tam insciens ut ista quae nobis adtulisti faceret. Ut opus tuum crescat, tibi suadeo fontium historiam textualem magis discas.
