Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
philosophos
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:18 pm

Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)

Post by philosophos » Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:31 pm

Hi,

I'm translating fragments of Thomas' Summa and have some problems.
Thank you very much for helping me.

1) Praeterea, quod potest compleri per pauciora principia, non fit per plura. Sed videtur quod omnia quae apparent in mundo, possunt compleri per alia principia, supposito quod Deus non sit.

"supposito" - is it Ablativus, ppp from "suppono"? I'm not sure.

2)Nulla igitur necessitas est ponere Deum esse. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exodi III, ex persona Dei, ego sum qui sum. Respondeo dicendum quod Deum esse quinque viis probari potest.

The meaning is clear, but I don't know what kind of senstence it is. "Dicendum" - gerundive? Why accusativus in "Deum esse"?

3) Impossibile est autem omnia quae sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est.
? ACI?

4)Ergo est aliquid quod omnibus entibus est causa esse, et bonitatis, et cuiuslibet perfectionis, et hoc dicimus Deum.
"ESSE" - is it gerundium? If not, what is it?

And two sentences from Anselm's "Proslogion":

"Clauso ostio" [Mt 6,6] quaere eum.
What kind of form is "clauso"?

Quaeram te desiderando, desiderem quaerendo. Inveniam amando, amem inveniendo (...), ut tui memor te cogitem, te amem.

desiderando... ? - gerundivus, but why in dat./abl.? I have no idea.

Patruus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:31 pm

Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)

Post by Patruus » Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:44 pm

philosophos wrote:Hi,

I'm translating fragments of Thomas' Summa and have some problems.
Thank you very much for helping me.

1) Praeterea, quod potest compleri per pauciora principia, non fit per plura. Sed videtur quod omnia quae apparent in mundo, possunt compleri per alia principia, supposito quod Deus non sit.

"supposito" - is it Ablativus, ppp from "suppono"? I'm not sure.
Yes, it is. The clause may be understood as an ablative absolute in which the place of one of the ablatives is taken by a noun clause (beginning with "quod"). Thus we arrive at the translation: "on the assumption that God does not exist".

Shenoute
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)

Post by Shenoute » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:09 am

Hello,

Here are my two cents, I hope this helps.
philosophos wrote:2)Nulla igitur necessitas est ponere Deum esse. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exodi III, ex persona Dei, ego sum qui sum. Respondeo dicendum quod Deum esse quinque viis probari potest.

The meaning is clear, but I don't know what kind of senstence it is. "Dicendum" - gerundive? Why accusativus in "Deum esse"?
probo + accusative-infinitive construction, so :
respondeo dicendum (esse) quod
I answer it must be said that

Deum esse (...) probari potest.
it can be proved that God exist.
philosophos wrote:3) Impossibile est autem omnia quae sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est.
? ACI?
I don't know what "ACI" is, sorry :-)
philosophos wrote:4)Ergo est aliquid quod omnibus entibus est causa esse, et bonitatis, et cuiuslibet perfectionis, et hoc dicimus Deum.
"ESSE" - is it gerundium? If not, what is it?
I would say esse is gerund, "the reason of existing".
philosophos wrote:And two sentences from Anselm's "Proslogion":

"Clauso ostio" [Mt 6,6] quaere eum.
What kind of form is "clauso"?
clauso ostio is an ablative absolute (from claudo)
philosophos wrote:Quaeram te desiderando, desiderem quaerendo. Inveniam amando, amem inveniendo (...), ut tui memor te cogitem, te amem.

desiderando... ? - gerundivus, but why in dat./abl.? I have no idea.
I too was puzzled by this when I began reading medieval Latin but then I read somewhere (maybe in Sidwell, Reading medieval Latin) that in medieval Latin, the gerund in the ablative can be used instead of the present participle whatever the case of the latter. So this sentence could be written : Quaeram te desiderans, desiderem quaerens. Inveniam amans, amem inveniens.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)

Post by adrianus » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:46 am

Shenoute wrote:(maybe in Sidwell, Reading medieval Latin)
Est quidem, Shenoute, in isto opere de Sidwell, in adnotatione decimâ octavâ. Inquisivi. Gratias tibi qui rem illuminaveris.
I looked it up. It is indeed in Sidwell (Grammar 18), so thanks, Shenoute, for casting light on that.
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.

radagasty
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)

Post by radagasty » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:52 am

Shenoute wrote:
philosophos wrote:3) Impossibile est autem omnia quae sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est.
? ACI?
I don't know what "ACI" is, sorry :-)
accusative-and-infinitive

And yes, it is. Omnia and talia are both accusatives.

Shenoute
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)

Post by Shenoute » Sun Sep 08, 2013 1:19 pm

Ah, thanks for the explanation, Radagasty.

philosophos
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 3:18 pm

Re: Problems with transl. (thomas, Anselm)

Post by philosophos » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:58 pm

Thank you very much!

Post Reply