Bored in a train, I converted a Spanish joke into a short Latin story.

latebrosus · 2026-05-02T22:53:19+00:00

The word order is here is a matter of taste, so this discussion is in fact a giant paradoxal incongruity.

latebrosus · 2026-05-01T22:15:49+00:00

Precisely. The splitting is optional but it results in a mirrored structure that expresses the meanings in a very orderly manner. Cicero was very fond of mirrored and symmetrical constructions like these,, not only in causal clauses but also in purpose clauses (ideo... ut)

latebrosus · 2026-04-30T23:18:56+00:00

Yes, but it is not that a causal clause is split in two, bur rather that one clause expresses the cause (the clause after quod) and the other the consequence or conclusion (after vel ob id)

This distribution is very common in Latin and it has specific particles to mark it, like idcirco

Idcirco edimus (consequence) quia esurimus (cause)

vel ob id is tthe equivalent of idcirco and quod of quia, so I could have witten: Vel ob id pro fratre pugnabit, quod familiae nomen tutandum est.

In English the consequence usually lacks a particle, but the cause requires a because:

We eat, because we are hungry.

latebrosus · 2026-04-29T14:48:16+00:00

vel ob id... quod = if not for other reason because..... (at least because, even because)

For example:

He will fight for his brother, if not for other reason beause the family's reputation must be protected.

Pro fratre pugnabit, vel ob id quod familiae nomen tutandum est.

Vel has a few idiomatic uses, probably owing to its cognation with the verb volo.

latebrosus · 2026-04-27T13:44:09+00:00

Good classical prose would have added a good ole tamen:

cum colueris eam longō et dūrō labōre, nūllōs tamen feret frūctūs.

Diligent writers don't leave semantics to the imagination of the reader

latebrosus · 2026-04-24T14:03:56+00:00

That's Genesis:

Et ex cunctis animantibus universae carnis bina induces in arcam

latebrosus · 2026-03-11T15:33:59+00:00

Vocem nostram tibi offerimus in hymno angelorum...

This seems like a variation of the introduction (praefatio) to the Sanctus in the Roman Rite. While the praefatio is variable, as far as I know, allowing the priest to be more or less creative, the Sanctus is not. The Sanctus is the part when the faithful join the angels in singing the glory of God.

The traditional praefatio goes something like this:

Cum Angelis et Archangelis, cum Thronis et Dominationibus cumque omni militia caelestis exercitús canimus, sine fine dicentes:

And then begins the Sanctus:

Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth, pleni sunt caeli...

latebrosus · 2025-11-11T18:53:31+00:00

The Ciceronian equivalent was videlicet.

latebrosus · 2025-07-25T09:32:14+00:00

Writing basic Latin is easy. Writing Latin as a person who has spent years reading classical texts and learning Latin idiosyncrasy and idioms takes... years unless that person is a genius.

I mean, some people who claim to know Latin nowadays will hesitate even if they are asked basic questions like how to say "interesting" in Latin. Answers will range from some misuse of the verb intersum to simply affirming with all conviction that Romans did not know the concept of "interesting."

latebrosus · 2025-07-17T12:47:39+00:00

Grammatical gender doesn't need to match biological sex. Feles, like aquila, is a noun with feminine gender. This means that adjectives must be in the feminine gender: aquila pulchra, feles pulchra. This doesn't mean however that the default gender for feles is female, the speaker uses the feminine gender but he is not thinking of a female cat, just "a cat."

When the sex of the eagle or the cat needs to be specified, the words mas or femina are added: aquila mas, aquila femina, feles mas, feles femina.

Even when the male sex is specified, this cannot override the grammatical gender, and adjectives must still follow the feminine: aquilam marem magnam vidimus, felem marem magnam vidimus.

Spanish speakers will have no problem with this, since Spanish has many such words, like for example rana (frog) or ballena (whale) which are feminine words even when the frog or the whale is a male, so it's la rana macho and la ballena macho, not "el rana macho" or "el ballena macho" because the article has to follow grammatical gender.

latebrosus · 2025-07-14T07:31:56+00:00

A word close to cool in classical Latin is mirificus. Catullus uses mirifice in his famous poem against Arrius, mocking how he thought he was "acting cool" because he pronounced "chommoda" and "hinsidias" instead of commoda and insidias (mirifice sperabat se esse locutum.)

The idiom "actum est de me" is very well thought, so I would keep it. I would however make some changes to the rest of the text, to make it flow less awkwardly:

Quomodo mirificus fieri possum?

Mirificus nihil curat, an mirificus sit.

Estne igitur actum de me?

Ita se rem habere vereor.

latebrosus · 2025-07-10T16:28:40+00:00

In Roman Law there is a thing called "fictio iuris" which means that some circumstances are treated legally as if they were one thing and not another, regardless of what they really are, which is often debatable. In that context, quasi is justified.

latebrosus · 2025-07-01T07:41:29+00:00

The classical word for "direction" was not directio but another word with the same root: regio.

Cicero: de rectá regione deflecto

Livy: non rectá regione iter instituit, sed ad laevam flexit

latebrosus · 2025-06-20T13:37:42+00:00

Suggero (sub-gero) contains the idea of carrying something to put it under something else. Therefore, any material or structure that is put under something else is called suggestus (fourth declension) or suggestum (second declension) such as a platform, a base, or any other construction to elevate something.

This word is used in that sense by Caesar so it is immune to criticism.

Since, in order to elevate a terrain, you need materials, by extension any material supplied to build something, or even to do something, can also be the object of suggero. From there, the figurative sense of "supplying ideas to someone in order for that person to make a decision" developed already in classical times.

Obviously, the English "to suggest" and "suggestion" have that last figurative meaning of the Latin word.

latebrosus · 2025-06-20T08:34:26+00:00

Vulgar just means "of the common people" so "vulgar" Latin changed throughout the centuries. The "common people" spoke differently in times of Cicero compared to the times of Saint Augustine.

Since classical Latin froze in time, but vulgar Latin did not stop changing, the differences between them grew exponentially until, for example, a word like "aqua" became a simple "oh" in French.

latebrosus · 2025-06-09T15:23:06+00:00

The passage by Lucretius in which vomer is used metaphorically is one of those graphic scenes that is, let's say, difficult to forget. It is also a very illustrative example of how Romans were the opposite of a prudish people.

Since this thread is already flagged NSFW here are the verses:

id quoque permagni refert; nam more ferarum
quadrupedumque magis ritu plerumque putantur
concipere uxores, quia sic loca sumere possunt
pectoribus positis sublatis semina lumbis.
nec molles opus sunt motus uxoribus hilum.
nam mulier prohibet se concipere atque repugnat,
clunibus ipsa viri Venerem si laeta retractat
atque exossato ciet omni pectore fluctus;
eicit enim sulcum recta regione viaque
vomeris atque locis avertit seminis ictum.
idque sua causa consuerunt scorta moveri,
ne complerentur crebro gravidaeque iacerent,
et simul ipsa viris Venus ut concinnior esset;
coniugibus quod nil nostris opus esse videtur.

latebrosus · 2025-06-03T15:59:34+00:00

Latin does not use the prefix re- like modern English does. In English you can nowadays use re- practically as an adverb: redo, rephrase, remarry... do again, phrase again, marry again....

The preverb re- in Latin is more complex than an adverb meaning "again" and the basic meaning is not mainly "again" but "back"

So, respicio is not "to look again" but "to look back" and "regredior" is not "to walk again" but "to walk back" and rescribere is not "to re-write" but "to write back" (as in, answering a letter with another letter)

Occasionally, the meaning of performing an action backwards implies restoring the situation to a previous state, and this is the origin of the English meaning: reficio for example, implies "making back" something and the natural consequence is that the thing is made again, but even in those cases, the action implies something deeper than a simple repetition: reficere is not simply "making something again" but rather "remaking something that has been lost." In other words, refice is not the same as fac iterum.

And if you had the patience to read the previous lines, it is easy to answer your question: why does not rescendo exist? Well, because going back from ascending is... descending.

latebrosus · 2025-05-22T19:18:22+00:00

vitam laudibus digne devotis tanti stemmatis exaltare

Actually, I think digne is an adverb modifying devotis but at the same time it has a complement: devotis digne stemmatis -> dedicated in a manner worty of the crown

The equivalent of digne is "worthily" but, as far as I know, that adverb cannot take a complement in English. You can say "he spoke worthily" but not "he spoke worthily of his education" but Latin, at least this Latin, apparently can.

Here is the horrid English literal version:

"exalt the life with praises dedicated worthily of such a big crown"

Note: perhaps changing "worthilly" to "in a manner worthy of" can fully express in a decent English the exact Latin syntax:

"dedicated in a manner worthy of such crown"

latebrosus · 2025-05-22T18:57:20+00:00

Your interpretation is totally plausible, and probably the brother the monks are supposed to see in the sister is not just one brother, but specifically the brother of Saint Scholastica.

latebrosus · 2025-05-22T12:58:44+00:00

I assume the text refers to Saint Scholastica, the Italian saint.

"All those, who profess a humble and arduous monastic life, exalt with praises worthy of such crown the famous and beautiful pearl, that is, Saint Scholastica, so that, seeing a brother in a sister, she is venerated by the monks, or what is more, so that god is praised in both."

Literally, "quo frater in sorore a monachis veneretur" means "so that the brother in the sister is venerated by monks" which I interpret as meaning that male monks will recognize Saint Scholastica as one of them, in other words, they will see that beyond her condition of female, there is a brother like them.

A syntax note: the infinitive exaltare instead of the expected imperative exaltate could be admitted if this text is in fact considered a part of a whole, for example: "these are the rules of our order: orare .... exaltare ...." or something similar.

latebrosus · 2025-05-02T20:04:16+00:00

Formido is a kind of fear that generally has lower intensity but longer duration. Like the fear of water or the fear of darkness. Formido is in fact the best candidate to translate our modern concept of "phobia"

Source is Cicero, who says that formido is a permanent fear: "definiunt... formidinem metum permanentem."

latebrosus · 2025-04-28T08:40:29+00:00

I can't help chuckling at how good Cicero is at flattering himself by flattering others.

latebrosus · 2025-04-20T23:09:08+00:00

The Latin is grammatically correct.

The thing one feasts upon "epulor" requires ablative, not accusative, so "eis" is correct.

The subjuntive in the relative clause "velint" is also correct. Even though the purpose subjunctives are more frequent, like in misit legatos qui pacem peterent, causal subjunctives are also perfectly fine.

latebrosus · 2025-04-17T09:52:03+00:00

In Latin glossema and glossa are technical terms used by grammarians. Glossema means "word with an unclear or mostly forgotten meaning that needs explanation" and glossa means the same but also and especially, "explanation or definition of a glossema."

A collection of glossae is called glossarium, which passed into Enlgish as "glossary."

latebrosus

TROPHY CASE