In response to you, Evan, the beauty for me of the Ecclesiastical-Italian and Nuntii Latini models is because they represent (I believe) fine old and established traditions that are more European than national, and they are alive! I have no difficulty in agreeing it’s better to recommend the restored classical model because there are special present and future advantages in having a unified standard (quite apart from it’s importance for classical studies). However, signing-up to a manifesto that condemned the alternative models as “in error” I couldn’t do because that condemnation, to me, seems more greviously in error (ideologically and historically). That was what my beef was about. It’s a matter of wording but words aren’t trivial.
Evano responsum Adriani. (Just for practice. Happy for corrections.)
Admiror, Evane, modos latine loquendi ut Ecclesiasticum-Italum et quem “Nuntii Latini” voco, quod hi consuetudines vetustas atque probabiles (ut credo) demonstrant, coque sunt consuetudines vivae! Sunt etiam modi proprie europaei, non solum gentiles. Commoditatibus systematis unici praesentibus futurisque numeratis, modus classicus nove correctus satius esse libenter consentio (et disciplinis classicis non minor usus est quem habet, certe). Condicionem autem subscribere quae “errata” modorum aliorum condemnet – id non possum! Sic facere gravius erratum futurum esse puto, --historice et ideologice dicens (ut mihi videtur). Ecce natura complorationis meae. Res dilectorum verborum est, sed verba pollentissima sunt.
I don’t know who won, or if the last word has been spoken. But the heart of discussion is to open the mind. So the victors will be those who have learned something, you could say. For my part, in the future I will treat the ambition to use classical elision in everyday contemporary speech with more respect.
Nescio quis vicisset, necne verbum ultimum edaretur. Verò, anima disputationis animum aperire est. Dicamus igitur victores esse quiqui non nullum discerent. Meâ parte, curam aliorum elisioni classicâ in sermone hodierno futurò verebor.*
(*deligendo huius verbi facetias non volo )
Salve, Kyneto.
Rogavit Amadeus “Who won?” Rogavit Amadeus quis vicisset, nonne?
Apud Allen & Greenough (para 330,331) “Nescio ubi sim, I know not where I am.” “…the verb, which in indirect questions is regularly in the Subjunctive”
Apud Gavin Betts (Teach Yourself Latin, 1986, p.171) “I do not know what he is doing can be nescio quid faciat (indirect question) or nescio id quod facit (adjectival clause, lit. that which…)”.
The way I translated was “I don’t know who won [pluperfect subjunctive because referring to past time], and nor do I know if the last word has been uttered [imperfect subjunctive because referring to the present time --a sentence with ‘has’ in it]”. Is that wrong?
Guys, guys, don’t fight! I was being facetious when I made that remark.
Anywho, in my opinion, “nescio quis vicisset” is to be interpreted as “nescio quis in media pugna vicisset”, whereas “nescio quis vicerit” as “nescio quis post pugnam vicerit”. Am I wrong?
We aren’t fighting, Amadeus. I’m just trying to learn. I was uncertain about the grammar here. Three opinions already. [Sorry, two, because Amadeus agrees with Kyneto.] But I have made the mistake. It should be “Nescio quis vicerit, necne verbum ultimum edatur”. Kyneto is right. Thanks, K. [As an aside, I don’t think you can use “si” to introduce or begin an indirect question.]
Non pugnamus, Amadee! Disco (saltem conor)! Hac de quaestione grammaticae incertus eram. Ecce iam tres sententiae. [Corrigendum: duae, quia Amadeus sententiae Kyneto/Kynetonis assentitur.] Verò peccavisse confiteor. Corrigo “Nescio quis vicerit, necne verbum ultimum edatur.” Rectè dicit Kyneto. Gratias ei ago. [Addendum: ut intellego, de obliquis quaestionibus, cum “si” dictione quaestio obliqua introduci vel coeptari numquam licet.]
As an aside I have just published an essay on the composition board. I was reluctant to post it there for fear that no one ventures there very often. In any event I would be interested in whether you think I have followed proper sequencing of tenses. Does anyone read the composition board? Seems rather dead down there.
You’re right, Lucus. Generally, one says “Hilare erat” (no particular subject – neter). But, in fact, I’m referring to “adnotatus”, which is masculine, as “a funny remark” [“Your last remark, it was funny”]. Are both ways not right?
RectÄ— dicis, Luce. Quotidianè “Hilare erat” (sine particulare subjecto --neutro). Verò autem, “adnotatus” genus masculinum habet, ergo “adnotatus hilaris”. Forsitan utrimque verum est, nonne?
accidental post – sorry
Perperà m collocavi – me paenitet
Oops, I looked up “adnotatus” and discovered that, while it is indeed masculine, it’s a 4th declension noun, not 2nd. declension! So I should have written “Adnotatu novissimo evenisti” instead of "“Adnotato novissimo evenisti”.
Hau! Dictionem “adnotatus” in dictionario spectavi. Cum masculini generis quidem sit, inveni, nomen quaternae et non secundae declinationis est. Ideò, me scripsisse oportuit “adnotatu novissimo evenisti” (“adnotato novissimo evenisti” locó).
So back to Evan’s pronunciation. This will be my last comment on the matter. Somehow or another details often escape me. So as I began to listen to the adler lessons although I was struck by the novel pronunciation of CUI (which evan himself has now clarified) I didn’t really notice many other aspects about his pronunciation which have since been established during our discussions as being desirable for those wishing to speak as the ancients did.
Partly as a result of these discussions I have decided to work to try to fully adopt the classical pronunciation and intend on using Evan, whose pronunciation I first questioned, as my model. From listening to the Adler lessons I think I am beginning to imitate the nasalization of the final “m”. However, one area that I am unsure about is the question of elision. Please forgive me; I know this was extensively discussed but I am still unsure how and when to apply the rules of elision. If one of you could kindly just very briefly review the principles of elision, I will be forever grateful. Sorry to seem like such an idiot. Like I said, too frequently important information just passes over me. Eventually though I get it.
You were twice wrong, then, Luce. But who’s counting, really? I make so many mistakes I should be exhausted, but not too exhausted to rely on your help.
Ergo bis erravi, amice. At, certò, nemo talia numerat. Tot peccata depono ut videatur res deploratae esse. Eò tantùm erro, quantùm auxilio tuo credo.
Hi, Lucus. Well, I do think explaining is silly. Nevertheless, as a practice exercise in Latin that may benefit me more than anyone else (especially if you will help by noting mistakes), I will. I say you made two mistakes (thanks for the “erravisti” correction, by the way) because firstly you suggested “hilaris erat” was a mistake and then, after I had corrected myself about something else, you said you had believed “adnotato” just had to be neuter. [Altering the line to “Adnotato novissimo evenisti. Sanè, hilare erat.” to make “hilare” agree with “adnotato” is to make two mistakes: “hilare” will be wrong and “adnotato” will be wrong.] Your saying “gotcha!” seemed to be unfair because I had gotten myself regarding “adnotatu”. You sounded like you had just sprung, and I was wanting to say “please stop frightening me by jumping out of bushes”.
Salve, Luce care. Quod quaeris me explicare frivolum est, ut opinor. Verumtamen, ut exercitatio in me ostendendo latinè sit, explicabo, et proinde fortasse ego saltem sapientior fiam (maximè cum auxilio tuo), etiamsi nemo alius. Dico bis errares (sincerè corrigendo “erravisti” tibi gratias, incidenter) quod primùm cum “hilaris erat” me erravisse admonuisti. Deinde, post alibi me errorem correxisse, dixisti te dictionem “adnotato” generis neutrius esse credere. In dicendo “te cepi!”, te inaequus esse putavi, quia ratione “adnotatu” me ipse captus eram. Mihi videbatur te quasi ad meum salivisse, et tibi sic queritari volebam: “desinas me timere in saliendo ex arbusculis”.
)