Istud quae non est...
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am
Istud quae non est...
Below is a line from Martial and I offer two alternative translations.
Could anyone guide me as to which is closest - mine is the first one?
Istud quae nōn est, dīcere, Bassa, solet!
1. That which is said, Bassa, is usually not true!
2. Those that are not, Bassa, usually say it!
I'm following the grammar closely 'Istud' is Neuter nominative so it should refer to a thing but, of course, this is poetry so there's a wider range of possible translations.....
Could anyone guide me as to which is closest - mine is the first one?
Istud quae nōn est, dīcere, Bassa, solet!
1. That which is said, Bassa, is usually not true!
2. Those that are not, Bassa, usually say it!
I'm following the grammar closely 'Istud' is Neuter nominative so it should refer to a thing but, of course, this is poetry so there's a wider range of possible translations.....
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:07 pm
Re: Istud quae non est...
dicis formosam,dicis te, Bassa, puellam
Istud , quae nōn est, dīcere, Bassa, solet!
you say you are beautiful girl , you call you so Bassa
this (that she is beautiful) used to say Bassa, is not true
this is my try
Istud , quae nōn est, dīcere, Bassa, solet!
you say you are beautiful girl , you call you so Bassa
this (that she is beautiful) used to say Bassa, is not true
this is my try
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Re: Istud quae non est...
"You say you're a beautiful girl, Bassa, you say you are.
She [/one] who isn't typically says that, Bassa"
She [/one] who isn't typically says that, Bassa"
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 Zealot
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am
Re: Istud quae non est...
Thanks to you both... I think what threw me was 'istud' neuter...but of course impersonal 'one' would be neuter wouldn't it?
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Upsalia, Suecia
Re: Istud quae non est...
No, never; humans are never neuter in Latin, as far as I know. The "she/one who" of Adriani translation is contained in "quae". If you want, you can think of it as an "ea" which is understood:pmda wrote:but of course impersonal 'one' would be neuter wouldn't it?
[Ea], quae non est [formosa], solet istud dicere.
"Istud" refers to the previous utterance ("Formosa sum").
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am
Re: Istud quae non est...
Alatius...thanks...now it makes sense.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:46 am
- Location: Loca feta furentibus austris
Re: Istud quae non est...
There is mancipium for "slave" (or more directly, something which is purchased, and "slave" by extension), but that's the only exception that I know of.Alatius wrote:pmda wrote:No, never; humans are never neuter in Latin, as far as I know.
mihi iussa capessere fas est
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Re: Istud quae non est...
Metonymically, "chattle", "partner/spouse", "Mellissa Tarentina, a very lovely bit of fruit", "partner", "guest", "sweetheart", "object of desire", "hunting party", "darling", "convicts", "house servants", "casualties", "bodyguard", "sweetheart", "prostitute", "slaves", "sweetheart". [I only looked at the second declension.]
Third declination: "head/leader", "sweetheart"
Per metonumiam, ut "mancipium", ut "conjugium / conubium", ut "noveratis Melissam Tarentinam, pulcherrimum bacciballum" (Satyricon Petroni), ut "consortium", ut "convivium", ut "corculum", ut "cupitum", ut "cynegiolum", ut "deliciolum seu delicium", "ergastula", "famulitium", "fortuita", "satellitium", "savium", "scortum", "servitium", "suavium" [Solam secundam declinationem examinavi.]
Tertia declinatio: "caput", "mel"
Third declination: "head/leader", "sweetheart"
Per metonumiam, ut "mancipium", ut "conjugium / conubium", ut "noveratis Melissam Tarentinam, pulcherrimum bacciballum" (Satyricon Petroni), ut "consortium", ut "convivium", ut "corculum", ut "cupitum", ut "cynegiolum", ut "deliciolum seu delicium", "ergastula", "famulitium", "fortuita", "satellitium", "savium", "scortum", "servitium", "suavium" [Solam secundam declinationem examinavi.]
Tertia declinatio: "caput", "mel"
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 Fan
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Upsalia, Suecia
Re: Istud quae non est...
Hah, I knew I was going to regret that. What if I said that people are never refered to with a neuter pronoun (which was what I had in mind)? Sure, you can probably dig out an example of that as well, but not unless the person is deliberately dehumanized, I would think.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Re: Istud quae non est...
Et "eam" et "quod"http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=i74DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=%22corculum+quod%22&source=bl&ots=FXndWkkt7d&sig=wEd7X2euD5LKrrCcm93tc04C8Sk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bq4MT8bgGI-p8QOBy7TsBQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22corculum%20quod%22&f=false wrote:"Mane Daintry ut venissem
Corculum quod reliquissem
Avide quaerens per musaeum
Desponsatam esse eam
Intellexi; qua audita
'Vale, dixi, Proselyta'"
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.