Hey all…new here…need some help with a quote from Marcus Aurelius…from ‘The Meditations’
“Anger cannot be dishonest”
can someone help me with the exact Latin translation??
many thanks!
Zach.
Aurelius wrote in Greek. 
Can you give the citation (chapter and verse, as it were) for the quote? We can go from the Greek to Latin.
Hey sorry…didn’t realize he wrote in Greek…I assumed that because he was Roman, he spoke and wrote in Latin…my bad 
as for a citation…I have no idea…i’ve always liked the quote and wanted to know what it sounded like in the original tongue.
here’s a Latin version of the Meditations I found
http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/pedagogy/latinitas/ma/ma-index.htm
here’s an English version of the The Meditations…this one is weird b/c it does NOT have any instance of the word “dishonest”
http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html
SO YEAH, what would the exact Greek translation be??
Zach
Oh, he spoke Latin, but for whatever reason wrote the Meditations in Greek.
as for a citation…I have no idea…i’ve always liked the quote and wanted to know what it sounded like in the original tongue.
here’s an English version of the The Meditations…this one is weird b/c it does NOT have any instance of the word “dishonest”
Yeah… as I suspected, this isn’t probably a quote by M. Aurelius. There are several collections of quotations about anger on the web, and this one occurs right next to quote by him that sounds much more appropriate to his Stoic leanings, “how much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.” The “anger cannot be dishonest” quote is evidently by George R. Bach. I’d guess somewhere the names got mismatched, with M. Aurelius’ name getting attached to the following rather than the preceding quote.
hmm…interesting…i did a bit of searching and yeah, this quote from M. Aurelius does seem bunk…how the heck can they mix up the names like that!?! haha
well…i do like the above quote you wrote…very much so, in fact
can you help me with a Greek and then a Latin translation??
many thanks for the help thus far
Zach
At a guess:
ira perfida non est
Edit:
That was possibly a simplification of the meaning. The verbial phrase ‘cannot be’ could be (I think) represented by the verb possum, which is itself a verb of incomplete predication, and sum, which can be used as a complementary infinitive. Thus, I revise my original translation:
ira esse perfida non potest
A literal translation of that would be:
Anger is not able to be faithless
or:
Anger cannot be faithless
I believe the meaning is preserved in both translations.
Many thanks, Vastor!
would you be kind enough to give this one a try??
“how much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.”
Zach.
consequenta irae sunt quam plas aegra quam causae eius
A number of caveats present themselves here:
(1) consequens, consequentis (apparently a third declension noun of strange form which Cicero used as a neuter). There also seems to be a noun of similar meaning in the first declension; consequentia, consequentiae. They seem interchangeable to me, so use which ever you prefer. Of course you would also need to change the adjective ‘aeger’ so that it agrees in gender, case, and number.
(2) I use quam’s duplicity of meaning here. In the first instance, it is used as an adverb, to modify the meaning of ‘plas’, almost functioning as a rhetorical interrogative. In the second instance, it functions as a conjunction, linking the equally weighed clauses into a compound sentence.
(3) The demonstrative ‘ea’ is used here as a pronoun (eius). I have yet to study the other pronouns in detail, so I can’t comment on their suitability for this purpose.
You may want to solicit the advice of others as I’m still a beginner myself.
Here’s what I’d do differently:
Plas is not a word. Maybe you were thinking of plus? In which case, you should know that the adjectives are compared with the comparative degree ending, so aegriora. I myself would use gravis rather than aeger.
The neuter plural of consequens is consequentia. In this case, since consequens is a substantive present active participle, I believe (‘the things following’), it can more idiomatically take a direct object: iram consequentia. If you’re using a participle in the main clause, it seems nice to use a parallel structure in the comparison, so I should say causantia (with eam understood).
I think you can only use quam + adjective in an exclamatory sentence if the adjective is positive. In this case, I believe the correct expression would be with quanto as an ablative of degree of difference. Also, the exclamatory bits are best put at the beginning.
So, a better sentence is more or less:
Quanto graviora iram consequentia quam causantia.
According to my dictionary (Whitaker’s words), it’s an adverb with the singular meaning of ‘more’. I specifically disregarded plus. I will have to investigate to see if it’s an error in my dictionary.
As I stated, I’m still a beginner, working through dooge’s text, so I haven’t studied that yet. I did consider ‘gravis’, principally because I’m familiar with the adverb ‘graviter’, but it did not seem fit for purpose.
According to my dictionary, consequens is a consonant stem, and consequentia is a first declension noun with a similar meaning. Again, I would have to investigate further to determine the correct stem of the noun.
I have no idea what you just said, but i’ll take your word for it
quam is modifying the adverb ‘plas’, not the adjective ‘aeger’. So it is arranged thus:
quam + adverb + adjective. Grammatically I don’t see a problem with an adverb modifying another adverb. But this could be some idiom I’m not aware of.
As I stated, I’m still a beginner, working through dooge’s text, so I haven’t studied that yet. I did consider ‘gravis’, principally because I’m familiar with the adverb ‘graviter’, but it did not seem fit for purpose.
Either one will probably do; gravis was just my preference. Aeger means more like ‘diseased’ than a more abstract ‘grievous’. In any event, you can’t say ‘more grievous’ with an adverb, you have to use the comparative. Just for future reference.
That is true. It is a substantive present active participle, formed from consequor. The difference between it and consequentia is that consequens better retains the verbality of ‘to follow’, whilst consequentia is solidly a derived noun. I used consequens merely because it has the neat ability to take an object.
Okay, I see. I parsed the quam as modifying aeger because I mentally deleted the plas. However, though constructions like ‘fortunately swiftly completed’ (adv. + adv. + adj.) sort of work in English (actually, that example isn’t quite idiomatic either), in Latin they don’t really work. At any rate, since I pointed out above that it isn’t correct to express ‘more grievous’ with an adverb, the question is moot.
I didn’t know that, thanks for informing me.
I see. The third declension is still some what of a mystery to be at the moment as I’m currently working through that section in dooge’s.
In some ways, I was trying to emulate the grammatical functions of english with [adverb]+[adverb]+[adjective], but I see now that it is incorrect in latin thanks to your explanation. I tried to find the adverb ‘plas’, but had no luck, so I’m assuming it’s an error in my dictionary.
Note to Zach:
I would disregard my latest translation as it seems to be incorrect in a number places.