***In need of a big favor from a kind person** (Scanning)

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hi everyone, my name’s Jessica, this is my first post. : )

All year in my Latin class I’ve made straight A’s (yipee!!), but one thing I stuggled on was scanning. Thankfully, we never took a grade on scanning until now.

By monday, as one part of a much bigger final exam project, I need to scan and identify the meter of 25 lines of a poem.

It’s frustrating because I see so many people scan something in no time, yet I can’t get past one line.

Finally my question: Can someone please, please scan these 25 lines for me? It’s the first 25 lines of Amores 1.6, we’re doin it as our final poem.

I’m not sure if the best way is to write by hand and scan and send in an email or if there’s an easy way to do it all on the computer, but either way I would love it if someone could take the time out of their day to help me out.

If someone could post here and help me out it would be much appreciated!!

–



1 ianitor (indignum) dura religate catena,

2 difficilem moto cardine pande forem.

3 quod precor, exiguum est: aditu fac ianua parvo

4 obliquum capiat semiadaperta latus.

5 longus amor tales corpus tenuavit in usus

6 aptaque subducto pondere membra dedit;

7 ille per excubias custodum leniter ire

8 monstrat: inoffensos derigit ille pedes.

9 at quondam noctem simulacraque vana timebam;

10 mirabar, tenebris quisquis iturus erat:

11 risit, ut audirem, tenera cum matre Cupido

12 et leviter ‘fies tu quoque fortis’ ait.

13 nec mora, venit amor: non umbras nocte volantis,

14 non timeo strictas in mea fata manus;

15 te nimium lentum timeo, tibi blandior uni:

16 tu, me quo possis perdere, fulmen habes.

17 adspice (uti videas, inmitia claustra relaxa)

18 uda sit ut lacrimis ianua facta meis.

19 certe ego, cum posita stares ad verbera veste,

20 ad dominam pro te verba tremente tuli.

21 ergo quae valuit pro te quoque gratia quondam,

22 heu facinus! pro me nunc valet illa parum?

23 redde vicem meritis! grato licet esse quod optas.

24 tempora noctis eunt; excute poste seram.

25 excute: sic, inquam, longa relevere catena,

2

Sorry, but the purpose of this website is to help people learn. I don’t see how scanning these lines for you would teach you anything. Otherwise, if you actually want help with learning how to scan these lines yourself, please say so.

3

Salve, Jessica! Welcome.

I’m afraid we ought not to do your homework for you, but we can definitely teach you how to scan. Actually there are some others here who recently have wanted to know more about Latin verse and scansion, so this’ll be a great lesson for everybody. Understanding the natural rhythms of Latin speech and poetry is by for the most satisfying, beautiful aspect of the language (that and the trilled 'r’s, of course, my favorite of all consonants).

In any case, these are easy lines to scan, we’ll show you how. :slight_smile:

First of all: what do you know about Latin scansion? Tell me, how do you recognise long and short syllables? Ovid uses a pairing of two kinds of metres fairly exclusively in his poetry; do you know their names and how they scan?

4

omfg

nice picture, but i’m afraid it don’t function like facecock. however, sinistra 4/10 (facerem nilominus)
dextera 5.75/10 a fair performance by the genes

this thread should have been called skany for phanyn

then i would have replied sooner

5

You don’t need to be rude, Episcope. :confused:

6

Well, at least one can’t accuse Episcopus of speaking hastily, Amadeus. It took two months.
Verò, Amadee, te non dicere ferè potest Episcopum properanter scripsisse. Ad considerandam rem duo menses adhibuit.

7

Huh, funny I didn’t notice the date of the original thread. :laughing:

8

Episcopus does, though, make the funniest (and rudest) posts around.
Omnium epistularum jocosissimae quamquam (et maximè rudes) sunt illae Episcopi.

9

Give me a break. That comment doesn’t belong here and should be removed by the moderators as soon as possible. This is a site for learning and helping, not for making up lewd and disrespectful suggestions.

10

Well, I agree. It doesn’t belong. I meant that if you look at Episcopus’s contributions, they’re often differently creative and entertaining. This one was least good, badly timed, not wise and rude.
Concino. Hic non est aptum. Erat minimè bonum, cum malo temporis sensu, indoctusque et improbum. Alias Episcopum cum artifice externo genereque in his paginis contribuisse dicere volui.

11

It may be rude, but I think he’s taking into consideration that this post was made by a user who has yet made no other post, who included a pic of themselves (and another) in less than “formal” attire, asked for a “big favor” from a “kind person” (sounds like a line in a Tennesse Williams play), and who asked people to “please, please” do her homework for her (a request which, I may add, is discouraged in a sticky at the top of the board without adding your own attempts).

I think it’s fair to assume that Jessica passed her Latin class with the “A” she’d been earning all along, and is enjoying her summer on the beaches of Corpus Christi.

12

I still think the Bishop’s reply is beneath Textkit standards, and should not be justified.

13

It should not be justified.
Paradoxically and between the lines, people’s behaviour can benefit from a having a bogeyman around, though. What do you think of the paradox, Amadeus, cdm2003, Essorant and others?

Legitimum non est.
Praeter opinionem autem et indocto modo, fieri potest quod parvus daemon alios se meliùs praebere efficiat. Quid est, Amadee vel cdm2003 vel Essorant vel alie, quod de hoc paradoxo censes?

14

BTW, going by the rule that it’s alright if it doesn’t frighten the horses or children (and I agree), the remarks of Episcopus were out of place. Offensive to many others, too.

Obiter, eâ lege ut legitimum est quod nec caballos nec liberos terret (quocum assentior), non legitimi adnotatus Episcopi. Fuerunt multis aliis quòque taetri.

15

I’m not quite sure I follow, amice. :blush:

16

I mean, take these two scenarios.

Scenario 1. AdeleFromBoston behaves either in a silly manner, or in a wily manner, to try to get other people to work for her. She fails. Antistes whams her in a way so outrageous and shocking that AdeleFromBoston alters her ways (possibly,—certainly, she never asks again). Antistes’s actions, however, cause some readers to be entertained but more to be outraged,—some out of sentiments that seek to protect others; some for reasons of political correctness; some out of personal moral conviction. Did the bad outweigh the good?
On reflection. Probably the bad outweighed the good, yes. Furthermore, when Antistes acted, it was already evident that AdeleFromBoston had got the message. So why did Antistes act? Because Antistes couldn’t resist the opportunity for an outrageous joke (a little bit of vanity there). By revealing this weakness, Antistes tips the balance yet further to the bad.

Scenario 2. God causes the bogeyman to exist, so that children have a choice but, more importantly, so that the negative consequences of doing ill will be apparent. To ensure that responsibility for one’s actions cannot be dodged, however, God must cause the bogeyman’s existence and work to be known. So parents frighten children into doing good, or at least fearing to do wrong, by warning them of the bogeyman. Some children grow up angry at the bogeyman and their parents for frightening them when they were little, and then become angry at God for letting it all happen. Others, of course, grow up good and do good, for fear of the bogeyman. Was the story of the bogeyman good? Did the bad outweigh the good?
On reflection. ??? What do you think?

Disclaimer. Despite the coincidence of events and names (AdeleFromBoston, Antistes, God, bogeyman, parent, child), the events and names in these scenarios are fictitious and no horses were harmed.

Tuâ veniâ, ecce duo scaenaria.

Primum scaenarium. Ineptè AdeleFromBoston gerit, vel modo versuto, quae alios pro suo laborare hortatur. Deficit. Taliter cum impulsu et flagranter Antistes eam invitat, ut AdeleFromBoston viam mutat (cùm non certum est,—dicamus saltem eam non etiam rogavisse). Actione autem Antistitis, nonnulli qui lautio fruuntur sed plus qui, eâ ratione aut alios tueri quaerendi, aut rectitudinis politicae, aut convictionis moralis, furiosi fiunt. Malumne bonum vincit?
Considerantiâ. Malum bonum vincit, probabiliter quidem. Cum Antistes agebat, iam clarum erat AdeleFromBoston regulam fori intellegere. Cur ergo Antistes egit? Quià eum jocum ferocem resistere non potuit (nonne hic vanitatis odor). Hoc impotentiâ apertâ, Antistes libram ampliùs ad malum inclinare facit.

Secundum scaenarium. Deus parvum daemonem esse facit, ut liberi optent et, quod gravius est, consequens malum faciendi acclaretur. Ne responsabilitem actionum vites, Deum ostendere oportet faciem factaque parvi daemonis. Eò, de parvo daemono admonendo, parentes terrent ut liberi bona faciant vel malum saltem fugiant. Nonnulli liberi qui, dein adulti, daemoni irati sunt et parentibus quoque qui terruerant. Denique deo irascuntur qui omnia permiserat. Certè alii sunt qui boni augescunt et benè faciunt, ob daemonem metuendum. Bonane erat fabula parvi daemonis? Malumne bonum vincit?
Considerantiâ. ??? Quid censes?

Abdicatio. Coincidentia eventuum nominumque nihilominùs, commenta haec scaenaria et nullus caballus erat qui injuriam passus est.

17

A quick note, amice Adriane, totally tangential (but what isn’t tangential at this point in this thread?):

scena, not “scaena,” which was an Imperial hypercorrection. It is a borrowed word from Greek σκηνή.

Also consider: “plodere,” not “plaudere.”

Although these hypercorrections are Classical, we are beyond Cicero, and our Latin is recentior, which takes advantage of all modern, Mediaeval, Greek, and foreign vocabulary naturally developed since Caesar.

18

Thanks, Lucus. I appreciate what you say, truly. I’m just writing, though, in accordance with L&S and OLD.
OLD says Accius and some others occasionally favour scena but scaena is more classical Latin, due to a vowel shift from the Greeks caused by the Etruscans. L&S go further and say scena is used “falsely”, and “scaena” is correct.
L&S favour “plaudere” and put “plodere” into second place classically. OLD is this time the more severe and says “plaudere” is correct and “plodere” is “dubious”.
You used to favour Classical usage and argued vehemently against modern alterations, and not that long ago.
Surely it would be totally silly of me to start pronouncing all borrowed words in English in accordance with the languages they were borrowed from. The English language would become unrecognisable. So why twist things with Latin? I don’t agree with your experiments in English spelling, but I know where you’re coming from, although I would object if you suggested everyone else would be better writing “exsist” for “exist”, say.

Gratias, Luce, tibi ago. Quod dicis sincerè existimo. Scribo autem apud et L&S et OLD.
Dicit OLD “scaena” classicum esse, etsi Accius et alii quidam litterae “scena” favent. Dicit etiam mutationem vocalum dictionis Graeci viâ Etruscae linguae in Latinum intravit. Insuadibiliores L&S qui adnuntiant orthographiam “scena” falsam esse.
Similiter, L&S “plaudere” suprà “plodere” classicè favent et OLD, nunc vehementior, “plodere” orthographiam dubiam esse declarat.
Usum classicum anteà praeferebas et vehementer modernum abdicebas, et sic nuper.
Nonnè ineptum sit si anglicè omnis verbum mutuum apud linguam fontem sonem? Linguam anglicam non recognoscas. Cur ità linguam latinam intorquebis? Ad experimenta orthographicae tua anglicè non assentior, sed te intellego. Etsi non tecum consentiam si alios similiter facere suggeras, ut exempli gratiâ “exsist” pro “exist” scribi requiras.

19

BTW, How did you know I would say “plaudere”, were I to use it, Luke? It’s true, but I didn’t in this thread.
Obiter, Luce, quomodò scivisti me “plaudere” dicere, si quidem eo utar. Verum est, sed in hoc filo non usus sum.

20

Salve, adriane:

Seems to me that someone’s been analyzing things a little too much. :wink:

Anyway, here are my two cents:

Reprehending somebody’s behavior is not a bad thing in itself, but you do have to have the right intentions and deliver in the proper form. The Bishop’s comments seem reprehensible to me because they lack the right intention (judging from what I can see, but obviously I could be wrong here) and the proper form. I highly doubt the girl changed for the better because of his comments. If she changed at all, my guess would be that she changed in spite of Episcopus’ words. So, I don’t see how the bad could outweigh the good here.

Scenario 2. > God causes the bogeyman to exist …

If God is God, id est, the highest Good, the fountain of Goodness, then He cannot be the cause of evil. Good can come out of evil, sure, but evil is never desirable nor justifiable.

Disclaimer. > Despite the coincidence of events and names (AdeleFromBoston, Antistes, God, bogeyman, parent, child), the events and names in these scenarios are fictitious and no horses were harmed.

Sure, sure, whatever you say. :laughing:

Vale!