need help on Cassell example

[hlawson38]

s.v. qualis -e, Cassel’s dictionary

ut res non tales, quales ante habitae sint, habendae videantur

My translation guess:

how such things, as before would have been believed, would seem unworthy of belief [ today]

What should “ut” mean here?
Does “non” govern “habendae videantur”, without governing “habitae sint”?
What about “habendae”? Should it have the normative meaning?
I’m not confident of the meaning I have suggested for the habeo-forms.

[Junya]

Hi.

As I now carelessly read it, i think it might be meaning

"because such things as were not experienced before, seem to be experienced from now "



I cannot consult dictionary for this problem now, for, my condition is not right now. I want to post answers in this forum more, to contribute to this community, but I don’t have enough energy to do it. I’m sad.

[Carolus_Raeticus]

Salve hlawson38!

Can you provide a bit more context (i. e. a bit more of the text before and after the section quoted by you)?

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

[adrianus]

@Cicero

Affectio est quaedam ex tempore aut ex negotiorum eventu aut administratione aut hominum studio commutatio rerum, ut non tales, quales ante habitae sint aut plerumque haberi soleant, habendae videantur esse; ut ad hostes transire turpe videatur esse, at non illo animo, quo Ulixes transiit; et pecuniam in mare deicere inutile, at non eo consilio, quo Aristippus fecit.

[hlawson38]

Concerning the context, asked for by Rheticus

This is an example in Cassell’s latin dictionary, for the word “qualis -e” (p. 493)

under section “(2) relat. correlated to talis (such) as …” The quotation is attributed to Cicero.
I
I tried a web search, thinking that if I could find the place in Cicero, and an English translation, I could dope this out for myself. While I didn’t find anything helpful, a real Latinist might do better.

Thank you for the reply.

[adrianus]

@http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11080/11080-8.txt

Affection is a certain way of looking at circumstances either with reference to the time, or to the result, or management of affairs, or to the desires of men, so that they no longer appear to be such as they were considered previously, or as they are generally in the habit of being considered. “It appears a base thing to go over to the enemy; but not with the view which Ulysses had when he went over. And it is a useless act to throw money into the sea; but not with the design which Aristippus had when he did so.”

[adrianus]

@Cassell's

ut res non tales, quales ante habitae sint, habendae videantur

=
whenever things would seem [that they] ought to be considered not such as previously they would have been considered (literally // verbatim)

“ut” A&G §542 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+542&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001)

(Note, I think “whenever” is more faithful than “so that” because this is not a clause of purpose, I believe.
Nota, anglicè “whenever” praeferendum est anglicè “so that” collocationi quod “ut” conjunctio finalem clausulam hîc non introducit, ut opinor)

[hlawson38]

Thanks to Adrianus for finding the context, and for the translation.

[adrianus]

No problem, hlawson38 // Libenter, hlawson38.

Affectio est quaedam ex tempore aut ex negotiorum eventu aut administratione aut hominum studio commutatio rerum, ut non tales, quales ante habitae sint aut plerumque haberi soleant, habendae videantur esse; ut ad hostes transire turpe videatur esse, at non illo animo, quo Ulixes transiit; et pecuniam in mare deicere inutile, at non eo consilio, quo Aristippus fecit.

I would render the above original piece like this: Sic locum supra citatum verto:

Affection is a sort of reinterpreting of things due to circumstance[s] or to the outcome or handling of affairs, or to people’s intention[s], whenever it might appear that they [the things] should be considered not in the same way as they formerly were, or typically are, considered; whenever going over to the enemy appears to be dishonourable but not in that frame of mind with which Ulysses went over; and throwing money into the sea seems pointless but not with the intention with which Aristippus did it.