Error in LL Roma Aeterna Cap. XXXVI?

[Maximus]

Salvete!

I recently started working through the second volume of LL. In Cap. XXXVI , on page 17 I stumbled upon this sentence: "Non solum ... refecit, sed plurimas domos e lateribus factis destruxit ...". I read it to mean, that he destroyed most houses made of planks. Shouldn't it be "domos e lateribus factas" or am I missing something here?

Thanks in advance!

[Lucus Eques]

Yes, it seems like a typo. It might be worth looking up the original Livy: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/

[Chris Weimer]

It could be a variety of reasons. The author wasn't factis to go with lateribus, not domos. Latin often times does this weird thing with words, which doesn't correspond in English. Think of the phrase "ab urbe condita", literally "from the city having been made". In English, this means "from the (insert modifier here) city". You technically ought to be able to switch out condita for another adjective like "magnus" and get the same meaning "from the large city". But this is wrong, since it's not from the city, it's from the founding of the city. It has to do with it being a verbal adjective. Transferred epithet is the wrong term, though I cannot remember for the life of me what it's called. Perhaps one of the grammar intensives here can pinpoint where in Bennet's or A&G's it is to be found. But no, it's not a mistake, and I see this kind of thing all the time in real Latin.

[cdm2003]

I initially read right over this myself, assuming that the author simply meant "hand-made bricks." The phrase "hand-made bricks" appears often in Akkadian and Sumerian as well, implying the opposite of "cut stone." However, I have to agree with Lucus...here it does look like a typo..."homes made of bricks" making much more sense considering the flow of the entire passage.

I would agree with you, Chris, but though it may be somewhat common, it's still seems rather early on in LL-II for Orberg to be throwing screwballs.

Chris

[Lucus Eques]

It could be a variety of reasons. The author wasn't factis to go with lateribus, not domos. Latin often times does this weird thing with words, which doesn't correspond in English. Think of the phrase "ab urbe condita", literally "from the city having been made". In English, this means "from the (insert modifier here) city". You technically ought to be able to switch out condita for another adjective like "magnus" and get the same meaning "from the large city". But this is wrong, since it's not from the city, it's from the founding of the city. It has to do with it being a verbal adjective. Transferred epithet is the wrong term, though I cannot remember for the life of me what it's called. Perhaps one of the grammar intensives here can pinpoint where in Bennet's or A&G's it is to be found. But no, it's not a mistake, and I see this kind of thing all the time in real Latin.

I don't really follow what your saying at all. "Ab urbe condita" means "from the city [having been] founded" — the "having been" part is understood in Latin. The Latin goes right to English with no particular strangeness at all.

[Lucus Eques]

I looked up the passage and found it was Ørberg's original, not from Livy. He made a typo. End of story. There are numerous typos in the MMIII version of Pars II that I have. I never got around to emailing him the corrections. There are a couple is Pars I as well — mostly macron related.

[Chris Weimer]

I don't really follow what your saying at all. "Ab urbe condita" means "from the city [having been] founded" — the "having been" part is understood in Latin. The Latin goes right to English with no particular strangeness at all.

Not quite. "From the city having been founded" implies that the x comes from the city, not from the foundation.

It's no mistake. Or it could be, for cdm's reason, but it doesn't have to be. Let me look for some examples. I remember them more clearly in Vergil.

[Iulianus]

Carissimi,

I feel some confusion has been wrought here, and would like to volunteer some clearing up of this:

- there is the transferred-epithet phenomenon, mentioned by Chris, which is also known as hypallage, and is quite common in poetry (especially Vergil), less though in prose. It usually takes form as in the following example (Aen. 1.4):

saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram

where, based on the individual meaning of the words, the joining of 'memor' and 'Iuno' might make more sense, although this is not the case, grammatically speaking

- then there is the phenomenon of a participle or adjective that is used in, as we call it, a dominant sense - i.e. where the partciple or adjective is given emphasis over the substantive. An example of this is the 'ab urbe condita' mentioned by Chris, where 'condita' can be said to be dominant, meaning: 'since the founding of the city' , another one is (in Tac. Ann. 4) 'initium imperii mutati in deterius' 'the beginning of the change of the empire for the worse'

From the above, it can be gathered that the phrase from Orberg is definitely not a case of the second phenomenon, although maybe a case of hypallage - although I think most instances of hypallage occur with transferred adjectives, not participles (which is, grammatically speaking, a lot more disruptive, especially for prose). I agree with Lucus that Orberg plainly made a typo, as 'factas' would fit (as mentioned above) a lot better in the flow of the sentence.

[quendidil]

Care Luce, if it's not inconvenient, would you provide a list of typos you have found in the texts?

[adrianus]

Read what little pig number three and the big bad wolf say about houses made of bricks here.
De domis e lateribus factis secundum porcellum tertium et magnum malum lupum, legite in hoc loco: www.magisterwebb.com/qas/porcelli.pdf

[Lucus Eques]

I don't really follow what your saying at all. "Ab urbe condita" means "from the city [having been] founded" — the "having been" part is understood in Latin. The Latin goes right to English with no particular strangeness at all.

Not quite. "From the city having been founded" implies that the x comes from the city, not from the foundation.

Not so: "the city founded" is a singular event, not an event which began some time ago and continues forward.

Think aorist, not imperfect.

[Lucus Eques]

I never listed the typos, and a rare few only have I actually marked. Scanning through my Pars II, I can't find any marks. But know there are some. If you doubt it, bring it forward to Textkit.

[Maximus]

Thanks for all the replies! Very interesting. (Oh and it is of course 'bricks', not 'planks'. I completely missed that.)

[Chris Weimer]

I don't really follow what your saying at all. "Ab urbe condita" means "from the city [having been] founded" — the "having been" part is understood in Latin. The Latin goes right to English with no particular strangeness at all.

Not quite. "From the city having been founded" implies that the x comes from the city, not from the foundation.

Not so: "the city founded" is a singular event, not an event which began some time ago and continues forward.

Think aorist, not imperfect.

You're still missing the point. Ab urbe insert adjective here refers to local distance, not temporal distance. It's from the city. Switch out condita for magna and you'll see what I mean.

And thanks to Iulianus for the information. Another case, this time from memory, is from Catullus, with the gemina/lumina/nocte problem. If I recall, gemina has to go with nocte, yet it clearly ought to go with lumina.

And I disagree that the author meant "factas" here based on syntactic concerns. While you sometimes see a prepositional phrase separating a noun from its modifier, if I recall correctly, it's far rarer than my alternative, and is usually done either for metrical reasons (I recall it abundantly in Vergil, not very much so in Cicero) or for emphatic purposes (which is what it is when I normally see it in Cicero).

Sorry for uncareful references. I worked all day yesterday, and all day today, with today having overstayed the session with the kid I'm tutoring in Latin since he really needed help. I think that's excuse enough, nonne?

[Lucus Eques]

Not quite. "From the city having been founded" implies that the x comes from the city, not from the foundation.

Not so: "the city founded" is a singular event, not an event which began some time ago and continues forward.

Think aorist, not imperfect.

You're still missing the point. Ab urbe insert adjective here refers to local distance, not temporal distance. It's from the city. Switch out condita for magna and you'll see what I mean.

Ah, then you have missed the point you yourself are illustrating: ab urbe condita DOES indicate temporal distance. No wonder you find it so strange! My Cassell's Latin-English Dictionary circa 1960 clearly states:

"a, ab, abs prep. with abl. (1) of motion or measurement in space, from, away from. (2) of time from, after..."

Good now?


P.S. The switch-out-for-any-adjective thing is non sensical, since condita is a past participle, while magnus is only and adjective.

[adrianus]

Lucus and Chris, you are arguing past each other. My take on this is that Chris knows and argues that "ab urbe conditâ" indicates temporal distance and "ab urbe" (or "ab urbe magnâ") indicates spatial distance. He just tackles your point, Lucus, about the English: "From the city having being founded", which should strictly be "From the city's having being founded" --not that you would often use that phrase in English, but it does extend from "from the city's founding" and "from the city's being founded". (You wouldn't say "from the city founding", would you? Actually, were you to say it so, you would be insinuating that "city" was being used adjectivally, -- which would be alright, if a bit strained.) Chris I understand to say, then, that the Latin phrase isn't exactly an extension of the English sense, which should be "From the city's having being founded". Is that right, Chris? But Lucus may say that "From the city having being founded" is perfectly understandable in English (without insisting on genitive 's, whatever the sticklers may say) and, then, does convey the temporal sense, in the exact same way that the Latin phrase does. And that is fair enough (provided you don't walk past a grammarian in a dark alleyway). What do you say? [Since this is more about English, I won't attempt to wobble about with this in Latin. Relief.]

[Chris Weimer]

Thank you, adrianus, but "from the city" indicates a local (is that the right terminology? oblitus sum) sense and not a temporal sense. The city isn't doing anything, it's static. Lucus himself agreed with me (though unwittingly, I imagine) when he said that condita is different because it's a participle. The same applies to factis. It doesn't agree directly because it's a participle, and I said as much: "It has to do with it being a verbal adjective."

[Lucus Eques]

Chris, buddy, I know what you're saying, I do understand you, but you're not right about this. URS CONDITA is an event. AB means "from (in a temporal sense)": AB + [event] = "from [event]." AB URBE CONDITA = "from the city [having been] founded." The artificial constructs you are trying to add to the phrase are not applicable. If they were applicable, then the Romans would not have formed such a construction in the first place.

[Lucus Eques]

Let's take another example. Instead of ANNO DOMINI we might say A CHRISTO NATO. Does this somehow imply physical displacement from the physical man Christ (who only just happened to be born — any adjective will do, right?)? Certainly not. It means "from Christ having been born."

What about A CAESARE MORTO? CAESAR MORTUS is an event. A CAESARE MORTO means "from Caesar having died." MM anno a Caesare morto = in the two thousandth year from Caesar having died, or rather, in the two thousandth year from Caesar's death.

[adrianus]

[Lucus Eques]

Lovely examples.

[adrianus]

L&S thank you very much indeed. Lewis & Short plurimas tibi gratias agunt.

[Chris Weimer]

Lucus Eques, no, I understand clearly, but you're not understanding what I'm saying. In Latin, yes, you're right. Ab urbe condita, a christo nato, a caesare morto, etc... are temporal events. But this is a developed idiom (cf. Allen and Greenough).

The whole "ab puero" thing is a far developed idiom, further still than ab urbe condita. Likewise, Vergil can use iuuentus as a young man (Aen. II.63). But "youth-hood" does not literally mean "a young boy", nor does "from the boy" literally mean "from boyhood". In English (mehercule, adriane, tu primum recte dicis), "from the city having been founded" is not temporal. In order for that to work in English, you must have "from the founding of the city".

One must not commit the fallacy of equating later Latin with earlier Latin. If it were inherent in PIE, then English could have adopted it, but clearly cannot.

Aye, but we've gotten a bit away from the original question, haven't we? And that is, the original point was not an error, because Latin does funky things that do not always make literal sense in English, just like "from the city having been founded" in English is not temporal, but spatial (my memory has returned).

I still have been very busy to pore over my old notes and look through texts from vague memory (it has not entirely returned).

Curate, amici, ut ualeatis.

[adrianus]

"from the city having been founded" in English is not temporal, but spatial (my memory has returned)

I say that's neither in English. It's incorrect English if used other than to convey the literal translation of the Latin. Nec temporale nec spatiale anglicè est at corruptum, si plus quàm subtile latinae locutionis sensum anglicè dicere vis. Probè dicis "from the city's having being founded" quod temporale sensum clarè habet.

[Chris Weimer]

Vere in sermo Anglico, melius est loqui "from the founded city" quoniam "urbem" in accusitavo, non genitivo est.

[adrianus]

Nice one, Chris. However... Ludus ingenuus, Christophore. Verumtamen...
Allen & Greenough libris (Novi Grammatici Latini) auctoritatem invoco, ubi dicit (ad 497am sectionem)

"A noun and a passive participle are often so united that the participle and not the noun contains the main idea:....iam a condita urbe (Phil. iii. 9), even from the founding of the city"

So how, then, does one disambiguate the two senses, spatial and temporal, "from the founded city" and "from the city's founding (or the founding of the city)" in English translation? Out of context, just by the latter meaning being statistically the more probable.
Quomodò autem sine contextu utrum sensum, spatialem et temporalem, "from the founded city" atque "from the city's founding" anglicè disambiguare? Res probabilitatis est, et probabilius exemplum alterum.

[Chris Weimer]

You'll find no such thing in English grammars where a noun and a participle are so entwined that the participle carries the main idea.

Note, I'm not saying that we ought to translate it some way or another, I'm disagreeing with Lucus Eques that participles are so static, even though he disagreed with such a notion later in the thread.

And as for disambiguation, I suggest context and patterns.

[adrianus]

And as for disambiguation, I suggest context and patterns

Agreed, Chris, which is what I mean by talking about using statistics derived from patterns in previously known contexts for situations when you have no context.

Ita est, Christophore. Verùm est quod dicere volebam quia, cum casibus sine contextu, eventibus statisticis ab formis derivatis e contextibus priùs cretis usi oportet.

What sense did the author intend? In the example "ab urbe conditâ", the likelihood will be temporal rather than spatial, -- but you know I don't actually know the statistics. (A bit risky, yes.)

Uter sensus ab auctore quodamcunque destinatus est? Hoc in exemplo "ab urbe conditâ", temporalis sensus probabilior erit quàm spatialis. (Ut verò autem dicam, id pro certo nescio. Sic dicere ità res sine periculo non est)