Medieval Latin

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
mjdubroy
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Medieval Latin

Post by mjdubroy » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:26 pm

Alexander, Glossa in I Sent., d. 27, n. 8 (ed. Quaracchi, p. 265): “Proprietas est personae distinctivum; relatio vero est habitudo personae ad personam; notio est quae cognoscitur persona sub proprietate relata. Item, haec est differentia secundum nomen: proprietas personalis est distinctivum personae quo persona est persona.”

“A property is distinctive of a person; relation, indeed, is a relation of person to person; a notion is which a person is known under the related property. Likewise, this is a difference according to the name: a personal property is distinctive of the person by which a person is a person.”

Is this a good translation? My main concern has to do with: "notio est quae cognoscitur persona sub proprietate relata." I translate it as: "a notion is that which a person is known under the related property"

User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
Posts: 3783
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California
Contact:

Re: Medieval Latin

Post by bedwere » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:27 pm

I'd translate more freely: a notion is what a person is known under a related property.
Also, distinctivum = something distinctive?

mjdubroy
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Medieval Latin

Post by mjdubroy » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:15 pm

Thanks!

mjdubroy
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Medieval Latin

Post by mjdubroy » Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:03 am

Alexander, Glossa in I Sent., d. 31, n. 1 (ed. Quaracchi, p. 297): “Ad id quod obicitur, utrum respectus creaturae ad Creatorem sit creatura, dicendum est quod ille respectus non est aliud secundum essentiam quam ipsa creatura. Ipsa enim se ipsa dependet a Creatore, et non aliqua proprietate accidentali; nam sic oporteret in infinitum abire . . . .”

My translation: “To that which is objected, whether the relation of the creature to the Creator is a creature, it should be said that the relation is not other according to the essence than the creature itself. For it depends on the Creator, and not by means of some accidental property; for so it would be necessary to go on into infinity . . . .”

My concern is with "Ipsa enim se ipsa dependet a Creatore." Why is the 'se ipsa' in there? "dependet" I believe is intransitive so what is an accusitive "se ipsa" doing in the sentence. It makes perfect sense without it: "For it depends on the Creator."

Any thoughts?

User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
Posts: 3783
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California
Contact:

Re: Medieval Latin

Post by bedwere » Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:12 am

mjdubroy wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:03 am


My concern is with "Ipsa enim se ipsa dependet a Creatore." Why is the 'se ipsa' in there? "dependet" I believe is intransitive so what is an accusitive "se ipsa" doing in the sentence. It makes perfect sense without it: "For it depends on the Creator."

Any thoughts?
It's ablative not accusative (it would have been se ipsam, if accusative), like it is ablative the following "aliqua proprietate accidentali," ,which you translated correctly.

mjdubroy
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Medieval Latin

Post by mjdubroy » Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:06 pm

That makes far more sense. Interestingly, I use the Notre Dame program "words" (http://archives.nd.edu/words.html) to sometimes double-check what forms a word could be, and it fails to list ablative on its list for Ipsa. So I was thinking se ipsa was an acc. pl. but that didn't make any sense.

Of course "For it depends by itself on the Creator" makes perfect sense now! Thanks for your help!

Post Reply