Please explain how these dative (ablative?) words should be treated. I guess that “potestates idoneas” takes all these dative words, since my dictionary says that “idoneus” takes dative words.
Unde Augustinus dicit in X de civitate Dei: Porphyrio visum fuisse, quod herbis et lapidibus et animantibus et sonis certis quibusdam, ac vocibus et figurationibus atque figmentis, quibusdam etiam observatis in caeli conversione motibus siderum, fabricari in terra ab hominibus potestates siderum idoneas variis effectibus exequendis.
(my translation: So Augustine says in "City of God"10 that,
to Porphyrios it seemed that the powers of heavenly bodies that bring about, say, plants and stones and animated things and particular sounds, voices and shapes and imaginary things, and the movements of stars that are observed in the revolving of heaven, and all these various effects that have to be brought about, are being produced by human beings on earth.)
I don’t see why those are produced “by human beings”. The sentence before this one says that Aristotelian students was saying those things that are attributed to demons are broght about by the power of heavenly bodies or other natural things. So I don’t understand “fabricari in terra ab hominibus potestates siderum” (the powers of heavenly bodies are produced by human beings on earth.).
Doesn’t this sentence use the dative of the gerundive (“exequendis” or “exsequendis” as a verbal adjective in the dative agreeing in number and gender with whatever is “brought about”), which follows an adjective (“especially those which denote fitness or adaptability” according to Allen & Greenough, section 505a) such as “idoneus”, to mean “suitable for…”? So “idoneus (-a -um) exequendo (-ae -o)…” means “suitable for bringing about…”, with all that is brought about in the dative. So “res idonea effectui exsequendo” means “a thing (fem. sing. nom.) suitable for causing an effect (masc. sing. dat.)”.
The author reports that Augustine says Porphyrius thought that, regarding all the things listed including the movements of heavenly bodies, the same laws (of physics, to speak more modernly) that apply on Earth apply to the heavenly bodies (or sun, moon and stars and so on). In other words, laws of (earthly) nature apply to the heavenly or celestial bodies and you don’t need to have recourse to supernatural (or demonic) explanations for things that can otherwise be explained naturally. What do you think? It expresses an over-optimistic appreciation of the state of natural magic (or science) at the time, with the purpose of debunking certain superstitions. If English is not your first language, I have to say your translation is very smooth, by the way. Great!
Actually, it doesn’t. When I look at the passage in Augustine, Augustine is criticizing Porphyry’s belief in magic and the summoning of demons to help bring about such things. (See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm). The way the translator (Marcus Dodds) has read this passage “quod herbis et lapidibus et animantibus et sonis certis quibusdam, ac vocibus et figurationibus atque figmentis, quibusdam etiam observatis in caeli conversione motibus siderum” it’s all ablative of instrument, i.e., that by means of plants and stones et caetera, “men create upon earth powers capable of bringing about various results” [i.e., the practice of magic].
Junya’s author is quoting Augustine verbatim, Thesaure, albeit in reported speech, although it would still be interesting to know who it was. Ah, it’s St Thomas Aquinas’s De Potentia.
I want to learn your ability of referencing. I am studying Latin by translating texts that are appealing to me. I have Allen & Greenough’s too, but I don’t know how to use it in translating texts. I get tired only by searching from the index and is deprived of my stamina to translate. So at the present I don’t use the grammar when I translate texts. Could you tell me how you do reference?
The quotation is from ‘De Malo’ by Thomas Aquinas.
I’m a learner like you, Junya, and if you find that I have helped you, then I can also say that your questions help me to concentrate on things in a more focussed way. Judging from your translations, you may be a better latinist that I am. And I rely on wiser forum members correcting me if, and when, I go astray. I do have reasonable research skills, although I was careless not to notice the subtle difference in wording in your quote that places it in De Malo and not in De Potentia. Actually, if you look at the word order of this passage in De Potentia you see “siderum” shift position (insignificantly, maybe?).
As for using grammars for translation, and in particular Allen & Greenough, I just reference Allen & Greenough so anyone can check what I say by looking at the online version at Perseus (although it’s nicer to use the paper book). To sensitize me to complications and niceties, I did read it through once cover-to-cover (I forced myself by bringing nothing else to read on a camping holiday), and I actually found it enjoyable (the characterisation was great but the plot was weak ). Of course, I only retain vague memories of details but that’s a good start, I feel. When I first looked at your sentence to be translated I saw the first part as ablative of instrument, but whether the second part should be read as [accusative + infinitive = equivalent to an “ut” clause] always makes me pause in reported speech. Your translation made sense, so I stopped thinking about it and concentrated on your question. And that brings me to the point: the grammar book is less useful in doing a translation than in checking a specific question about word forms and construction types, but to me the question to think about was the use of the gerundive, which I’m coming to love because it’s so frequently employed. And it’s easier to check a grammar for a word-form than for a specific word. It just so happened Allen & Greenough talk about words such as “idoneus” in the context of “dative of gerundive”. The only thing I did right was to think about the gerundive. What I did wrong was to forget about an original feeling and not question your translation (which made sense, after all). Then, without looking at the context of the sentence, I chose to speculate wrongly about the author’s intention, and that tended to reinforce the original misinterpretation. It didn’t help that I brought into the interpretation some extraneous things (about rationalism) that used to concern me in previous research. I looked at the original passage by Augustine in Latin and that helped. Thinking about the gerundive and the dative of the gerundive didn’t resolve whether all the initial words were dative or ablative. It finally helped to look at an English online translation (I don’t have the work in English). I don’t think that is “cheating”, and, as long as the translator is wiser than either of us, Junya, we both then learn, but we both learn more by resorting to that near the end, wouldn’t you say. When you agree that the translation by Maurice Dodds makes more sense, you then begin to see reasons why the words at the end of the sentence are self-contained and it’s less likely that they are determining the cases far removed at the start (as long as there’s a better reading).
By the way, I understand “ability of referencing” as “ability to reference”, which means using conventions (such as appear in footnotes and bibliographies, generally) to refer to sources of information. I’m responding to the question “How do you use reference sources such as grammar books in translating?” Apologies if I’ve misunderstood.
No, what I want to know is how you can utilize the grammar book so easily, regardless of this particular question I posted. It is because at present I can’t get a benefit at all from this Allen & Greenough as a reference (i.e. I don’t use it when I translate.). I want to know how people use the grammar book as a reference.
I really appreciate you answering me very sincerely, and kindly.
Take care of me when I post a question again later.
I usually don’t post a question here. I just take a refreshment of mind when I get stuck in translation, and later re-attack the problematic part. With a refreshed mind, I can very often resolve easily the problem which was problematic before, without any referencing.
I studied English grammar intensely till high school. That experience helps me with Latin. I translate Latin into Japanese using the method of translating English into Japanese.
Using a grammar book in translating anything is probably the most unnatural thing in the world. Native speakers seldom consult a grammar book when they talk or compose, and rely instead on their knowledge of the language in practice to spot what sounds wrong. A professional writer, of course, will have the style guides and so on which, once read, require only occasional revisits to check specific points that he or she suspects are in there. Using a grammar book is a particularly academic way of thinking. Teaching languages through grammar at least is more easily assessible or testable, because you are asking students to spots rules and exceptions and then talk about the rules and exceptions. It’s not quite the same as talking about the language itself. It’s more about convenient marking.
I use the grammar book as a reference when I find a construction that doesn’t make sense to me and I search in the grammar book for a similar construction or relationship between words that is unfamiliar to me. Otherwise I don’t use a grammar book at all, although others might use it much more or much less. As I said, I used Allen & Greenough as a book to read that would help me expand my awareness of grammatical constructions. Then I use it as a reference only to support an argument for interpreting a sentence in a particular way. I do use its index of words and subjects, mind you. I have to say it doesn’t exhaust me to do so. Lewis & Short (online and on paper) and the Oxford Latin Dictionary are wonderful reference tools, of course, but they aren’t designed to cause you to reflect on word types and sentence construction per se. By the way, have you read it (Allen & Greenough) like a book or do you just use it as a tool to dip into? If you read it like a book first, you will thereafter use it differently, I think, and in a better way, because you’ll at least have a better idea of where to find something that rings a bell. So in answer to your question, how can you utilize the grammar book so easily, I think I can say simply that I have read it and I liked it, and so dipping into it after that to search for answers is never a chore. Maybe you know all the grammatical possibilities already, and so you don’t need to check to resolve ambiguities in your interpretations.
Oddly enough, I ended up finding grammar books an end in themselves for the study of Latin by reading (or trying to read) grammar books in Latin, just as a schoolchild before the 18th century would have been obliged to do.
Finally, I think your approach is best. You said it yourself that, with a fresh mind, you very often resolve the problem without any referencing. What could be better and more natural? I think people who love grammar books (and I am one, I admit) can become trapped within the mind-set of scholasticism (which is alive and well in universities). We should let go a bit more and follow your method, although your method doesn’t work all the time, I think, with prose which isn’t clearly written. A lot of Latin has been written in the past by people brought up on grammar books!
I think I’m going to pick up a copy of A&G and try to read through it on your recommendation.
I’m always impressed when people bring particular grammatical questions to the forum. I must read differently than most people, or possibly more sloppily, because I aim to read large quantities of Latin for comprehension. I run into troublesome sentences, but I usually move on after I’ve gathered their meaning. My hope is that this inductive approach will help me out when I often get frustrated if I try to figure out every stray point of grammar. Am I mistaken, and should I try to read more slowly?
Commendatione tua, librum Allenis Greenoughisque sumam et adusque legere conabor.
Semper miror cum aliqui punctum grammatici specialem in hoc forum quaesat. Mihi differenter (vel pravior) quam plurimos legere oportet, quia lego ut quantitatem ingentem latinae intellegam. Sententias difficiles invenio, sed interpretationibus intellectis, procedere solitus sum. Spero technicam hanc inductivam me adiuvaturus esse, quia saepe me frustro cum omnis punctum devium grammatici vel etiam omnis sententiam intellegere coner. Errone? Tardior mihi legere oportet?
If that’s a serious question, Thesaurus, I couldn’t say, You know what you need. Personally, I think nothing that motivates you is bad. And personally, I often do what you do. The answer varies, I think. In the end, though, you can’t avoid the work that must be done, but the trick, I think, is to find how to make that work less burdensome and that means finding the motivation. By the way, you taught me “adusque”. Many thanks!
Si sincerè rogas, responsum non habeo. Tu ipse quod tibi opus est iam novisti. Credo nihil quod te suscitet evitandum esse. Enimverò, quod facis, ego idem frequenter facio. Explicatio variabit, annon? In fine, autem, oportet sudorem factum esse. Ars est res suscitantes invenire per quibus labor minorabitur. [Hic fortasse grammatice erro! Utrum participium futurum activum in hoc loco aptum sit, apud Allen & Greenough explicationem invenire fallo quae me satiat.] Obiter, “adusque” adverbium me docuisti. Multas gratias! [Corrigendum pusillum, tuâ veniâ: “omne punctum”, nonne.]
Thank you for your kindness. And you’ve given me a lot of advice, and an idea of how people are usually doing with grammar book.
Like you did, I am reading Allen & Greenough’s bit by bit slowly like a book, to prepare for the future reference. But I haven’t read even one third of it. In reading and translation, I am just using my knowledge of basic Latin grammar with the aid of the knowledge of English grammar. (Yes, I have a lot of gramatical possibilities in my mind, due to my experience in English grammar.)
I, too, skip the problematic part and read on to find the context, which might give me a key to solve the problematic part. I sometimes skip the problematic part unsolved, since I tell myself constantly that what is important to me for the present is just read a lot and have experience.
Suntne tibi libri grammaticae latine scripti?! Vbi eos inuenire possum? Tandem scis si thesauri lingua latina - linguae latinae seruati sunt ex tempore?
So at the present I don’t use the grammar when I translate texts. Could you tell me how you do reference?
). Of course, I only retain vague memories of details but that’s a good start, I feel. When I first looked at your sentence to be translated I saw the first part as ablative of instrument, but whether the second part should be read as [accusative + infinitive = equivalent to an “ut” clause] always makes me pause in reported speech. Your translation made sense, so I stopped thinking about it and concentrated on your question. And that brings me to the point: the grammar book is less useful in doing a translation than in checking a specific question about word forms and construction types, but to me the question to think about was the use of the gerundive, which I’m coming to love because it’s so frequently employed. And it’s easier to check a grammar for a word-form than for a specific word. It just so happened Allen & Greenough talk about words such as “idoneus” in the context of “dative of gerundive”. The only thing I did right was to think about the gerundive. What I did wrong was to forget about an original feeling and not question your translation (which made sense, after all). Then, without looking at the context of the sentence, I chose to speculate wrongly about the author’s intention, and that tended to reinforce the original misinterpretation. It didn’t help that I brought into the interpretation some extraneous things (about rationalism) that used to concern me in previous research. I looked at the original passage by Augustine in Latin and that helped. Thinking about the gerundive and the dative of the gerundive didn’t resolve whether all the initial words were dative or ablative. It finally helped to look at an English online translation (I don’t have the work in English). I don’t think that is “cheating”, and, as long as the translator is wiser than either of us, Junya, we both then learn, but we both learn more by resorting to that near the end, wouldn’t you say. When you agree that the translation by Maurice Dodds makes more sense, you then begin to see reasons why the words at the end of the sentence are self-contained and it’s less likely that they are determining the cases far removed at the start (as long as there’s a better reading).