Bad Latin Book Title - am I wrong?

I’ve just come across a book of demonology which the author is calling ‘Stellas Daemonum’ which he imagines to mean ‘The Orders of the Daemons’.

To me it seems that ‘stellas’ can only be either a second person singular indicative active of an obscure verb ‘stello stellare’ or, it’s the accusative plural of stella, stellae.

I’ve consulted every dictionary I have including the Lewis & Short regarding this and it just confirms what I think.

Is there any way at all that ‘stellas’ can actually be a plural nominative? Maybe some quirky, obscure medieval usage?

At first I thought this might be a google translate sort of error, but google translate actually renders “ordines daemonum” which is certainly better. Whatever the source, it’s just wrong, and no, there is no way it could be a nominative plural.

Many exorcists report that the Devil hates Latin. That apparently includes Latin grammar.

That’s actually impressive for google translate! It must be improving slowly. Thanks for confirming what I was already 99.99999% sure of.

:smiley: I suspect he hates pretentious pseudo-intellectuals who write about his minions in detail, use Latin for a title to impress everyone but are too lazy and ignorant to get the most basic grammar right, even more.

Hi all, just to note in passing that e.g. the OCT title of Plato’s Republic on the dust jacket is in the accusative, Platonis Rempublicam. Check out the image here:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/plato-respublica-9780199248490?cc=au&lang=en&

There it is situated in a sentence as an object (recognouit, instruxit). When the OCT gives the title outside the sentence context however (e.g. stamped on the cover), it’s in the nominative: Platonis Respublica.

Perhaps worth checking with the author whether some verb is implied? Maybe a mystical verb. Or maybe it’s a mistake.

Cheers, Chad

Quite a few OCTs on my shelf follow this unfortunate pattern: “Sophoclis fabulae recognoverunt . . .” Oxonian Latinity is apparently not what it used to be, though we can give the benefit of the doubt to opera and orationes. Interestingly, OUP’s online cover image for Stefec’s edition of Philostratus’ VS reads “Flavii Philostrati vitae sophistarum recognovit . . . Stefec,” but my hard copy reads “vitas” (and continues “ad quas accedunt Polemonis Laodicensis declamationes quae exstant duae,” missing from the online cover).

Speaking of bad OCT covers, I saw this recently:

For the book under discussion, I expect that the author is simply prepping everyone for the natural sequel: “ultra stellas daemonum”

What’s wrong with it? The title is best undestood as neuter accusative plural and the object of the verbs.

This article on “The Latinizations of the Modern Surname” demonstrates the problem clearly…but only if you go through to the very end.

https://archive.org/details/journalofphilolo33claruoft/page/76/mode/2up

Since no one got this, the relevant part of that (very interesting) article on surname Latinization:

Now compare to our unfortunate OCT cover. They’ve finally fixed it, I think, but it seems to have been a problem for years.