So, what do you guys think, what is the best translation of the phrase “Dat rosa mel apibus.”?
Specifically, do you think it’s better to assume that the ‘a’ in “rosa” was short, or that it was long? If it was short, then it means “A rose gives honey to the bees.”. If, however, the ‘a’ was long, then it would be ablative, and the subject of the sentence would be hidden, so it would mean “Somebody (presumably God) gives honey to the bees through a rose.”.
Let’s hear your thoughts!
I say rosa is nominative.
Where did you get this picture? It’s beautiful - if it’s from a book or a larger collection of emblems, I’d love to know.
You can read more about the picture here.
Occam’s razor, known in modern times as the K.I.S.S. principle, suggests that rosa is nominative. If someone really wanted to say “He gives bees honey by the rose” then I think something like per rosam mel apibus dat would work better. Also, the commentary you referenced seems to take it with rosa as the subject, and my guess is nobody has ever done otherwise.
By the way, why is the Agora so inactive? Though, it’s still better than FaceBook. Facebook banned me for “hate speech” when I posted there what I think about the Massacre of Vukovar and it doesn’t let me sign up under my own name any more.