Some general questions

Latin Learning Latin
1

OK, I have some general questions from my Latin work.

The First:
the use of “quanto…, tanto…” As below:

Praeterea, quanto aliquid est magis propinquum uni, tanto minus est multiplicatum, ut in numeris apparet.

How would you translate this? The translators I am looking at simply ignore these in most instances in their English.

Secondly:
The use of vero as below:
Ad tertium dicendum quod formae quae sunt receptibiles in materia individuantur per materiam, quae non potest esse in alio, cum sit primum subiectum substans, forma vero, quantum est de se, nisi aliquid aliud impediat, recipi potest a pluribus. Sed illa forma quae non est receptibilis in materia,

vero is used quite a bit by Thomas, but often it is simply not translated. What would you do with it?

Thirdly:
I am interested in how people would translate the dicendum in the beginning of each of Thomas’ responses to objections. For instance:

Ad secundum dicendum quod ira et huiusmodi attribuuntur Deo secundum similitudinem effectus, quia enim proprium est irati punire, ira eius punitio metaphorice vocatur.

Would you translate this “to the second it must be said…”. The Latinist I was working with a bit said that dicendum implied obligation.

Finally, this may be a refresher type of question, but I am finding myself often mixing up a noun with the adjective formed from that noun (for instance individual vs an individual). As speed of translation is important in my work I am wondering if there are tips for picking out adjectives from nouns.

thanks.
al.

2
<?xml version="1.0"?>
3

vero is often best translated as merely a disjunctive correlative…aka “but”.

4

This is especially the case in medieval Latin, which I gather is the primary concern.

Regarding dicendum, the obligation in question is the argumentative necessity of addressing certain topics, namely, the points of dispute that Thomas is answering.

Here is my attempt to put this all together:

Ad tertium dicendum quod formae quae sunt receptibiles in materia individuantur per materiam, quae non potest esse in alio, cum sit primum subiectum substans, forma vero, quantum est de se, nisi aliquid aliud impediat, recipi potest a pluribus.

Literal: Thirdly, it needs to be said that forms which are receptive in matter are individuated (?) through matter, which cannot be in another, since it is the first substantive subject, but form, however much there is of it, unless something is impeded by another, can receive from many.

Idiomatic: Thirdly, it’s evident that forms, which are capable of being received, are individualized in matter through matter–which cannot itself be in anything else, since it’s the primary thing that exists. But form, no matter much there is of it, can be received by many things, unless something is impeding the other.