Vos operor non postulo ut exsisto dementis laboro hic tamen

[Ian]

Hello all.

I know what this is supposed to say but want to know if it is correct in terms of spelling and grammar:

Vos operor non postulo ut exsisto dementis laboro hic tamen is succurro

(You don't have to be mad to work here but it helps)

Also can an exclamation mark can be used in Latin?

Thank you,

Ian.

[whiteoctave]

your version is elegant and well-formed in both grammar and sense.
an alternative, should you wish, could be 'hic laborare dementes non postulat; eis tamen multo fauet.' or perhaps better still 'tu facio haud habeo duo esse rabiosus duo opus audio scopus id auxilia!!'.
choose your own and enjoy,

~D

[Episcopus]

what the hell is going on in this thread?

and they say that I leave people bewildered

[Ian]

Thanks whiteoctave!

Hi Episcopus,

do you agree with whiteoctave that the Latin I posted is ok?

Thanks,

Ian

[Episcopus]

I see you go to Warwick Ian? whiteoctave's example is very good, but the second is excellent in my humble opinion, I think if you stuck that up on a door in warwick they would all be wondering why you don't study classics at oxford! good work whiteoctave!

aegrissime tibi octavo inanissimas fero quae ob famam istic classicis studere constituant: cantabrigiam enim elegi quod suspicabar aliis partibus sic, ut Ian nobis benigne explicavit, res classicas esse. (per mihi propinquum tui ingenii exemplum coactus sum cantab. oxonio praeponere) aspice nunc me ian sine dubio canino ore nosmet allocutum pessime admonentem.

me quidem et germanicis et gallicis et graecis et femellis faciendis examinationibusque occupatum maxime paenitet latinitatem meam haud plurimum valere, sed tamen enitor consueta edere.

~E

[whiteoctave]

optime dicta, ut semper, mipiscope, ego enim cognoui studia Classica et in illa Iani uniuersitate inque illa Thucydidis misera inque omnibus aliis orbis terrarum academiis iamdudum fuisse miserabilia; Cant. tamen certe praetermitto. quam sapientissimus elegisti: puellas pulcherrimas (iam, mirabile dictu, illam Helueticam habeo; sed tace, precor), aedificia splendidissima, atque artes liberrimas sic elegisti. haec urbs te ipsa (ut dicam quod sentiam) te sibi post aestatem uenturum cupida postulat.
en: uide hunc indicem ad foliam quartam uicensimamque: http://www.varsity.co.uk/archive/630.pdf
da denique ueniam mihi non macra super omnes uocales longe dicendas ponenti! paulum scilicet Latinae habeo, at, conloquiis cum illo eculeo per skypem laetissime habitis, maius (ita me di ament) habere ualde spero!

~D

[Lucus Eques]

You guys are such jerks.

Ian, they are making fun of you. Unfortunately, not knowing Latin as you admitt, you were unable to see that the sentence that the translator gave you was completely incorrect.

your version is elegant and well-formed in both grammar and sense.

Completely sarcastic. This one actually looks like it's supposed to help you:

hic laborare dementes non postulat; eis tamen multo fauet

And then the third is random and nonsensical, making fun of you again:

'tu facio haud habeo duo esse rabiosus duo opus audio scopus id auxilia!!

You can see that Episcopus, another accomplished Latinist, was "bewildered":

what the hell is going on in this thread?

But then he caught on to the joke:

whiteoctave's example is very good, but the second is excellent in my humble opinion, I think if you stuck that up on a door in warwick they would all be wondering why you don't study classics at oxford! good work whiteoctave!

His Latin is far more insulting, I'm afraid. This phrase stands out:

ian sine dubio canino ore nosmet allocutum

"Ian without a doubt spoke to us with the mouth of a dog [with a canine mouth]."

And then David (whiteoctive his alias) decides to try to make fun of me:

da denique ueniam mihi non macra super omnes uocales longe dicendas ponenti! paulum scilicet Latinae habeo, at, conloquiis cum illo eculeo [a nickname he has for me, meaning "little horse"] per skypem laetissime habitis, maius (ita me di ament) habere ualde spero!

"May you pardon me for not putting macrons over all the long vowels! For of course I only know a little Latin; however, whereupon I will most elatedly have had conversations with that Lucus through Skype, I really hope to learn it better (may the gods love me so)."


Such poorly presented and cowardly jabs at me are commonplace from his direction. But you two, David and Episcopus, you have deliberately misled someone and teased him, right in front of him, but in a language that he couldn't understand. This is immature and inexcusable conduct for any of us. For those of us who have already experienced the language, the entire purpose of this forum is to help others, not deride them and make fools of them. How dare you, especially when many of the rest of us can see what you do.


Ian, I am sorry that you became a victim in a stupid prank. I hope, if you come to pursue Latin or Greek, that you will turn again to Textkit so that you might augment our number and learn the wondrous gifts those languages offer us, and not be dissuaded by a couple of jerks.

[whiteoctave]

sorry Lucus. i try as hard as i can to write Latin in a manner that becomes good Classicists, but it is difficult, you know?
i'm sorry you didn't like the former example of mine as well. was that one a joke? i can never tell. in the latter i tried to use a more exotic rhetorical figure - i hear they call it parataxis - but my dictionary may have got the better of me this time.
as for the macra, i really am apologetic, but you clearly waded safely through the turbelent currents of variable vowel quantities.

~D

p.s. go for it Ian!

[Episcopus]

My latin was hardly insulting, only briefly touched upon Ian, proferring truth (which in this case happens to be negative) rather than pointless derisions and indeed acting upon necessity to do what is best. I believe that it is best for some to pursue other fields if this one here is clearly inappropriate, and only a royal tosser such as whiteoctave and a silly bishóp can provide one os caninum, as it were, with unpleasantness of sufficient efficacy that they might be compelled to never return. You don't see me trying to run for the Vatican City olympic team for I simply can't do 100m in less than 10 seconds but I accept this. I was rejected by Warwick University, Ian's fine institution, due to lack of qualification; but as Kelly Clarkson would say "you don't get to see the tears I cry" since I accept that I am not good enough. I can't account for the cruelty of whiteoctave but he has been very good to me and I know that he is not a savage jester deep down. He had similar motives as I did, but executed them in a slightly more amusing way. The fact that he included you in the Latin means nothing, and without this mockery of you, I doubt that you would have produced such a malicious retort (re: "You...jerks") If octave takes the time to write Latin about you then he must be fond. I might mock octave on textkit from time to time but it is clearly a joke. That you were able to translate our Latin is commendable, and I had told octave before that your Latin has improved greatly recently, even if you are gay with Hans Orberg. neu tamen ferrum strinxeris, modo ioculor!

~E

P.S Tabby cats you little rascals if you want to read me read DIS "TABS BUGGER OFF STAY OUT OF THE FELLOWS GARDEN" i.e. the latin board if you do not have an account don't think I Episcopus do not know who you sitis! bugger off I say! bloody tabs

[mraig]

your version is elegant and well-formed in both grammar and sense.
an alternative, should you wish, could be 'hic laborare dementes non postulat; eis tamen multo fauet.' or perhaps better still 'tu facio haud habeo duo esse rabiosus duo opus audio scopus id auxilia!!'.
choose your own and enjoy,

~D

Can 'postulat' be used impersonally like that? Or is that just part of the joke? Oculus fac nodus sub sta.

[whiteoctave]

postulat is not to be used impersonally, of course, but here its subject is provided by the infinitive, which, ut bene scis, serves as the equivalent of a nominative gerund.

~D

[mraig]

Okay... I took the accusative as object of the infinitive, not of postulat. I still question the difference between an impersonal verb and a verb with an infinitive as subject - isn't the subject of an impersonal verb also the infinitive used as nominative noun? I'll give it some thought.

Edit:

Allen and Greenough 452a: The infinitive as subject is not common except with est and similar verbs. But sometimes, especially in poetry, it is used as the subject of verbs which are apparently more active in meaning.

I still think what you have is an odd construction. A Roman would of course understand it, but I question how normal it would sound.

[nostos]

By the gods you two are quite the snivelling little monsters. That Episcopus tried to cover his shame (ho ho ho, the timorous hilarity) and then save whiteoctave's reputation (quisiera saber si estuvieras tan cortante y desairado con una lengua que no conoces, whiteoctave, o si te gustaría que alguien te tratara así cuando eres tú el que no sabe nada del idioma y estás tratando de aprender) speaks loudly and clearly, not to mention the shift of focus with his statement on translation (and implied shock that Lucus actually got it). If you're gonna vomit it up, at least have the courage not to shout 'I didn't puke!' afterwards. But after all whiteoctave, with his feigned omniscience, has his little sarcasm to hide behind and his little books to 'prove' anything. Talking above oneself does not make one's statements more correct, as we have seen. And Episcopus gives us his own views about learning Latin, elitist indeed, not taking into account that anyone can learn it, and one does not have to know everything from the start. Perhaps he will one day grow up and realise it ain't all so black and white - neither is he not worthy of Warwick, nor is Ian supposed to give up Latin because of a 'lack of ability' when it isn't ability at all, just knowledge, that he lacks.

I too was credulous enough to believe that whiteoctave actually se ex eculeo deformissimo descendisse and helped someone (finally) for the sake of helping; I had figured my Latin simply was not yet good enough to understand (with a very emphatic 'yet'). It is especially mocking, not to mention heartrending, to see Ian's reaction, genuinely giving exclamatory thanks.

Ian, know that most people here are not going to mock you, and that those who do help are revolted by such behaviour. If, of course, you're bothering to read this. I know I wouldn't after having been thrashed by our 'most respected' member and his sidekick upon giving my first post.

[whiteoctave]

nostos, nostos. thank you for applying yourself to such a lengthy post, and to much avail. i will in future avoid to try and use objective fact recorded in 'books' in order to 'prove' anything, that seems a sound dictum to follow. as for amusing myself with Latin japes, i confess (atque expertus dico) that is a grave flaw in character. as for 'feigned omniscience', infer what you will.
mraig, my good man, as for the infinitive serving as the nominative of the gerund, it is not isolated to poeticisms. as nostos has warned, don't believe all you read in the little books. let us consider, for instance, 'me hoc ipsum nihil agere delectat' at Cic.de Or.ii.24, where the explanation would not be treated as identical to the impersonal (for the subject serves as a substantive), or Val.Max.vii.3.7 'cuius non dimicare uincere fuit', or an example from Plautus (whose language is of course not to be regarded as poetic) Bacch.158 'hic uereri perdidit'. Also at Cic.Br.cxl, the presence of ipsum in 'ipsum Latine loqui est...' demonstrates a distinction from the typical impersonal sense. for the definitive treatment see, as e'er, Kuhn.-St. I 664ff.

~D

[nostos]

Most perspicacious whiteoctave, clearly you have understood precisely my poorly formulated argument; thank you in advance. That you make errors in basic logic (shall I post them?) is, however, the height of your coruscation. The partial dissimulation of the knowledge in 'books' (as you say) must help you tremendously in proving whatever it is that you want to prove. Or do you do that only with Lucus?

Perhaps I have a case of premature senility and I'm confusing my memories. In any case, it is the complacent cachet you wield so well that I admire. When it's used particularly scathingly (as in this thread) you do so verily shine.

[Lucus Eques]

Whiteoctave David — Your deception and transparent condescension reveal you as a fraud. We come here to help. You come to insult and to provoke. These facts bear themselves crystal clear before us. Such deeds speak for themselves.

[annis]

Perhaps the combatants could take the dispute elsewhere, and leave the rest of the thread for real answers to the question in the originating post.

[mraig]

mraig, my good man, as for the infinitive serving as the nominative of the gerund, it is not isolated to poeticisms. as nostos has warned, don't believe all you read in the little books. let us consider, for instance, 'me hoc ipsum nihil agere delectat' at Cic.de Or.ii.24, where the explanation would not be treated as identical to the impersonal (for the subject serves as a substantive), or Val.Max.vii.3.7 'cuius non dimicare uincere fuit', or an example from Plautus (whose language is of course not to be regarded as poetic) Bacch.158 'hic uereri perdidit'. Also at Cic.Br.cxl, the presence of ipsum in 'ipsum Latine loqui est...' demonstrates a distinction from the typical impersonal sense. for the definitive treatment see, as e'er, Kuhn.-St. I 664ff.

~D

I believe that the quote from A & G was that, other than with the verb esse, this construction is uncommon outside of poetry. This covers your example from Cicero and Valerius Maximus. As for the other two:

me hoc ipsum nihil agere delectat

Whether you want to call this impersonal or not, "delectat me + inf" is a fixed expression, common with this verb. Show me a similar example with "postulat".

and I'll allow Plautus as representative of common speech, and not poetry, but:

hic uereri perdidit

is not (if I'm reading it right) using the infinitive as the subject of the verb. The subject is 'hic', and 'vereri' is either the direct object of 'perdidit', or maybe serving as some sort of complementary infinitive? It seems an unusual expression, but I don't see how the infinitive could be the subject of the verb; as I read it, the translation would be something like, "this man has lost respecting" (i.e. he has lost the ability to be respectful).

None of these seems a true parallel for your expression "inf + postulat + acc" = "doing X calls for Y"

[whiteoctave]

this is intense! and stimulating!
the only point worthy of response is, as per usual, mraig's. firstly, the distinction between impersonal verbs+infin. and infinitives as the subject of verbs is a nice, but nonetheless distinguishable, one. the very presence of ipsum in the former Ciceronian example makes it quite clear that the 'impersonal' construction (in its typical formulation) is not applicable, for infinitive must have attained substantival status. the fact is that Latin idiom, perhaps influenced by the similar use of the articular infinitive in Greek, allowed this surprising use of the infinitive with a number of odd verbs besides the most predictable ones (esse etc.). the idiom seems to have been a colloquial level, and is thus found more often in looser style prose (i.e. Cicero's letters, his quasi-dialogues, Seneca's epistles; the scenic poets should be classified here; as for the Plautine instance cited above it is to be rendered as the Latin demands, which is with uereri as the object, the point being that in this extreme example the substantival force of the infinitive was thought to be so great as to be employed in the accusative; this could only arise from a substantival conception of the infinitive used as the verbal subject elsewhere, such examples abounding in Plautus and Terence) or the looser syntax of poetry. it is therefore not good method to state that the idiom can only be used with verbs that extant Latin brings forth exhibiting the construction: on the contrary it is the type of verb that is important, and the fact that we find the construction with transitive verbs in scriptores digniores should hold weight. there is, i am quite sure, no example of the infinitive being used with postulo, but that is of no great trouble. for alongside the aforementioned compare: Caes.b.c.i.11 'tempus uero colloquio non dare neque accessurum polliceri magnam pacis desperationem afferebat' (and 82.2); Cic.Tusc.iii.21 'cadit igitur in eundem et misereri et inuidere', or id.fin.i.1 'nam quibusdam et eis...totum hoc displicet philosophari'; or Sen.epp.xcuiii.11 'habere eripitur, habuisse numquam' etc.
Ian's piece of English is evidently of a colloquial tone (mark ye it's contracted form 'don't' and its general jauntiness), and for this a colloquial idiom of Latin does not seem inappropriate. call it rare, but the Latin prose writers with whom I fall in, seem confident in its use.

~D

[Episcopus]

nostos, your choice to address whiteoctave in spanish is bizarre to say the least: you should have at least gone Germanic on him, that is either north or perhaps anglo saxon. do you think he can't read that? this amused me anyway, not dissimilar to a little 18 year old boy vaunting himself to his mother, having mastered the uses of his new tricycle. it was a silly attempt to look clever, and words such as 'coruscation' and even 'perspicacious' sound very forced. if you really desire to insult us take it to the agora, in which case i would respect you if you write latin well, which is why i respect whiteoctave, not because we are partners in crime, snivelling monsters or the batman and robin of textkit. he and i live in very different worlds and have very different customs; he works on the classics with academics at cambridge, i work on various languages alone. as for warwick, you once again have no idea, you will see soon perhaps. you need to seriously evaluate yourself: your unjustified insolence, your bitterness due to patent lack of talent, your curious belief that a good classicist might be unable to read your spanish, and finally your naive presumption that any one can learn latin: any one can indeed pick up a latin book and attempt to learn, but i find that very few can write well. indeed, i do search for classicists to correspond with, but they seem reluctant to write and when they do, if (forte) they write correctly, it is never felicitous. you might as well give up now, i don't say this in a facetious manner, i am trying to help you, this huge post is trying to help you: you will never make a good classicist for your analytical skills are more disappointing than your attempt to foil octave with your ramblings in the ever so obscure hispanic tongue. my initial post firstly contained little shame, it was a simple address to Lucus, whom i commended for the amelioration of his latinity. notice i do not have a ramulum up my anulum and tell him this despite his heartbreaking insult of 'jerk' towards me. i am in no way ashamed, because it was funny. if i as a beginner had come across an arrogant snivelling monster such as whiteoctave this would have simply made me more determined to surpass him in skill. you two, nostos and Lucus, seem appalled at what was merely a little fun, and it was all in latin so there would have been no harm done if Lucus had not desired to act like a little girl and expose our evil plan, with the little macron halo floating above his head of course. there are so many people in this world who are harming others in more savage ways than a few derisions in latin, 'jerk', 'monster', 'smelly poo poo face'.
Lucus i don't know why you felt the need to post again. perhaps pleased that nostos agrees with you. anyway, thank you. we all now know that whiteoctave is a fraud, that he knows no latin or greek, whose presence at textkit is merely to humiliate those who love the classics. you win the argument Lucus, you have foiled our plan to take over textkit with our computer generated latinities in order to deter any one from learning latin or greek, that the languages might perish once and for all.

~E

[nostos]

E., you have discredited me. I mistakenly thought that a romance tongue would be indecipherable to an accomplished Latinist. How could I make such a gross error? Clearly the fact that whiteoctave can read the Spanish with a little more firing of his neurons was not crucial. Next time I shall be totally incomprehensible, writing in Lebanese. In this way I will remove the thrust of my (Spanish) argument.

Also good work, E., on realising that the purposely stilted speech was meant to ape your and whiteoctave’s Latin jape. What was unintended was your projection beginning with ‘this amused me’. For this I thank you, kindly; it is such an illuminating character sketch.

It is quite unfortunate that I have given nothing of my analytical skills for your inspection. Intending to deflate my analysis before I have stated it won’t help, I’m afraid. However it does pain me sincerely to think that behind your blustering lies a tiny little mouse. It is unfortunate that I am not cweb; your judgement of my Latin felicity is immaterial one way or the other.

That having been said, let’s stop this charade, shall we? We could go on forever, each with his own little arguments from his own point of view. We’re fencing and neither you nor us will win. So, a truce?

(And even if not, let’s move this cat-fight to the open board; I’m sure we’ve riled annis enough.)

[Deudeditus]

perhaps anglo saxon

Lǽte ge word to gearwian lisse ond ástynte ge cylcende æfðancan.

it's bad AngloSaxon and it's not insulting, but I tried.

[Lucus Eques]

I agree with Nostos; p?x fiat inter n?s omnēs. My only purpose was to expose unjust derision, for I have always loathed bullies.

PAX
LV·EQ

[Lucus Eques]

P.S. : Nice Anglo-Saxon, Jon.

[whiteoctave]

was there ever anything but peace between us? this is all just healthy Classical banter. no less healthy is your apparently waning interest in macra, Lucus (ud. 'fiat').

~D

[Episcopus]

re: fiat, shocking.

perhaps i should like octave disregard unworthy posts or, more accurately, unworthy people, also, since my attempts to help were answered with yet more bizarre remarks and unjustified arrogance. i really have no problem with arrogance which a talented person has the right to exercise, but here this is not the case. as for this truce, and going around in circles in this argument of yours, i corrected your post which did not merit any form of dispute or insult on my part, but will refrain from doing this again. there is no point trying to correct those who are born silly. should you remain desirous of more namecalling, take it to the agora, and provided that you do not write with the hand of a dog, i will respond.

forgive, as i did your wanting macron, the lack of circumflex, but bullies Lucus? plutot poussé?

ah saxon, i have managed to stay away from it up to now, but it does tempt me greatly. i think i am going to have to vow to learn no other IE language now, and try something crazy in order to exercise the mind further.

either way, i should like to thank all participants of this thread, including ian, Lucus (as always), and nostos. these forums were growing quiet, and since this is the largest online classical community it is necessary to keep it going strong. i am sure outsiders are enthralled by such 'classical banter' and are compelled to register here, download d'ooge, post a hi! welcome me to textkit! thread on the open board, ask one question about simple case usage covered in d'ooge, then leave textkit and latin within the week.

P.S. i was the one telling cweb to come back! i hope you feel guilty octave! he was a good man, and produced some of the most entertaining latin i have ever come across. his return would please me greatly.

~E

[mrawesome]

to the weird emo-rock fan,
quin futuis uxorem tuam foedam.

and to the clergyman,
stupra fascino volanti torum pistrinum provolventem; velim caput tuum devellere deinde in confinium gulae cacare.

[whiteoctave]

glad to see all's as it should be Oxon. way, mrawesome.

~D