grammar arguement

I’m very new to latin so I decided to buy a couple of books to help the learning process. My dad has studied latin and so obviously thinks he knows everything. While he was looking through one of the books he found a passage of writing:

“Ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera a malo” (post-classical)
Do not lead us into temptation but free us from evil.

My dad said this was wrong as there was only one “nos” and the translation has two "us"s.

Would “Ne nos inducas in tentionem, sed libera a malo” be acceptable or is it incorrect?

Cheers

your dad is clearly a man of principle. the nos of the former half is understood, i.e. as the unstated object, of libera in the latter, and this arrangement is perfectly fine.
the latin is not very nice, however.

~D

cheers for that. So would “Ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed nos libera a malo” be the preferable form?

it is not necessarily superior, just more lucid. the overall latin of the sentence is more what is ugly: the bland use of te(mp/n)tatio; the juxatposition of the long 'a’s of libera and a; the excessive attention paid to the english, giving a rather odd ‘sed’ and rigid word order etc.
in terms of the sentence’s grammar, stet.

~D

That latin made me hurl, the order is like English. Plus the use of ‘a’ appears to me to be clumsy, apart from the overly multitudinous pile thereof an ablative of figurative separation would suffice methinks. Unless there be a physical monster called malus.

Give him a break guys, he said he is very new to latin!

I’m sure he won’t take it personally, as it is a book they are criticizing :wink:

hmm.. inducas/libera?

I mean, I can understand ne, but to change moods?

nos in temptationem non duces, sed a malo (clarification works here for a) liberas.

actually, I don’t like that either. Why does anyone even bother with the Vulgate?

i’m glad you had second thoughts about your suggestion cweb!

~D

If you want something to translate give me a rendering of that which I said in the Agora. I should interest myself in the way qua you render pofforem. :smiling_imp: :smiling_imp: :smiling_imp:

your piece was as interesting as ever, e., brimming over with your customarily curious hyperbata, your passionate predilection for enclitics, and your fervid fanatacism for convolution, all lightly sprinkled with your typical melee of neologism (cf. e.g. sugo ktl.) and archaism (cf. e.g. pofforem for imp.dubj.?).

~D

I was only messing :slight_smile: Do you not recall whiteoctave when you said something similar to me a few months ago? It was when that crazy guy Rhapsody gave us that insane composition for no apparent reason. haha I am not that arrogant, plus they are but ramblings. Because I do not understand your ENGLISH post I can not respond for I do not want to look in any English dictionary. It is but an industrial language used only for raw communication with no beauty. Plus it rapes other languages to produce words like hyperbata.

Words I do not know: hyperbata, predilection, fervid, convolution, melee, neologism, dubj. I also do not know what fickle means, so many stupid fools know it who can not even grasp what the accusative case is after years of instruction, nor do I wish to know, it’s possibly the worst word in existence. Apart from all Hebrew and Welsh words.

I am not ashamed to admit that I am dumb. The thing is though David, you knew that I would not understand you so why say it. hmm…I suppose that’s the case with my latin so never mind.

Speaking of superlatives made up pofforem, it’s the BEST word ever. If any one else has said pofforem I a) did not know and b) salute her/him

I actually tried to parse it yesterday but :confused:

“Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo”

this is from the Pater Noster from the Latin Vulgate Bible so whether you like it or not it is correct in this context. If it came up in normal conversation, which I understand may be fairly unlikely but IF it did, then you could change it to classicaly latin.

Any complaints please contact: thepope@thevatican.com

um, read my last post. I said the same thing. (“Why would anyone want to bother with the Vulgate”) But remember, it’s called the Vulgate for one reason: it’s vulgar Latin. It just sucks.

Its purpose was to deliver a message to the masses of “unsophisticated” and probably mainly illiterate plebes. It was not designed to be a great piece of literature, though its appeal to some (“Why would anyone want to bother with the Vulgate”) obviously lies beyond its simplified and often awkward grammar and syntax.