Disputatio:Dominus Anulorum/1.1.3

English- That story was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book, composed by Bilbo himself, the first Hobbit to become famous in the world at large, and called by him There and Back Again, since they told of his journey into the East and his return: an adventure which later involved all of the Hobbits in the great events of that Age tht are here related.

Latin- Illa narratio ab capitulam anteriora Libri Rubri concepit, Bilbe ipso scriptus sunt, Foramecator primum in mundum cebrem factus est, scribit, qui a Bilbe Hic et huc Iterum appelatur, quia de itere orienti reversionemque eius dixerunt: quod postmodo omnes Foramecatores in magnam res illius aetatis, quae huc memorantur, amplexus est.

I couldn't find a translation for adventure, but I think I have kept the original meaning. Gratias tibi ago. | Scio (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It could be a good idea to make subpages on your page for the translation work. Feel free to copy-paste the current discussion there.

For this first part, let's focus on "composed by Bilbo himself" because there are a lot of good lessons to be drawn here.

One good rule to keep in mind is that if a verb is passive, and you're translating "by /person X/" then the translation will be "a /persona X/", always. This is just a longer way of saying "ablative of personal agent is always with ab". And remember the a/ab/abs rule.

So if we had "The book was composed by Bilbo", we have a passive verb, and Bilbo is the personal agent, so we should translate it as: Liber a Bilbe scriptus est.

Remember also that the verb must agree with its subject (liber) in gender and number, so it's scriptus est.

Next, if you've got a relative clause -- that is, an entire sub-sentence that describes a word in the main sentence -- then use qui. So for "...the Red Book, composed by Bilbo...", mentally insert the missing relative: "...the Red Book, which was composed by Bilbo..." and so we would have: ...Liber Ruber, qui a Bilbe scriptus est...

And finally, "himself". You have ipse, which is very good. But I'd put it in front of the noun, as demonstrative adjectives, like numbers, typically go in front: ...qui ab ipso Bilbe...

For the next part, let's look at "That story was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book".

I always check with L&S to make sure the word I'm using has the sense I need. So concipio works pretty well, because of sense II. D. But see that our use is passive: "was derived". Concepit would mean that the subject (That story) derived an object (which we don't have). Early on I also had some difficulty distinguishing passive from past.

So clearly "That story was derived..." is: Illa narratio concepta est... Now, what about "from the earlier chapters"? Check the list of ablative phrases. It doesn't fit any of them. The closest could be ablative of separation, but it seems kinda weak. So instead we could use de (down from) or ex (out of). Ex is pretty close. Let's just use that: ex capitulis anterioribus.

"of the Red Book", which as we know is just a partitive genitive, so Libri Rubri as you have.

Putting it all together: "Illa narratio ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri, qui ab ipso Bilbe scriptus est, concepta est."

I'll cover the rest of the sentence later. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The qui before ab ipso is supposed to refer to the capitulis, so if I have it correct...

Illa narratio ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri, quae ab ipso Bilbe scriptus sunt, concepta est.

That is the reason I used sunt instead of est. Overall, do you think the word order is good? | Scio (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Sniffing around the Interwebs, I think you're right. But it should be scripta sunt (capitulum => capitula scripta sunt).

In terms of word order, so far it's okay. One thing I've noticed many writers tend to bracket subphrases, that is, embed a subphrase between two words in a clause, and usually with no commas. So you would typically see something like:

Illa narratio ex capitulis quae ab ipso Bilbe scripta sunt anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta est.

This has the advantage of not forming a pileup of verbs at the end. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

However, you still have the rest of the sentence, so I don't know if that would work. | Scio (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we'll take the sentence bit by bit, and move the verbs where they need to go.

Some more stuff about word order. After neutral word order, you can start fooling with lifting up phrases and sticking them in front, which emphasizes them. We can come up with lots of different variations of the same sentence. So if our neutral sentence is:

Illa narratio ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta est.

That story was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book.

We can also have:

Ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri illa narratio concepta est."

It was from the earlier chapters of the Red Book that that story was derived."

By the way, that's where the myth of never ending an English with a preposition came from. In Latin, it's impossible. But in English, it's a stupid rule and is something up with which I shall not put.

Ex anterioribus capitulis Libri Rubri illa narratio concepta est."

It was from the earlier (rather than later) chapters of the Red Book that that story was derived."

Ex Libri Rubri capitulis anterioribus illa narratio concepta est.

It was from the earlier chapters of the Red Book (rather than some other book) that that story was derived."

Moving the verb to the front emphasizes, or puts our focus on, the verb.

Concepta est illa narratio ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri.

What happened was that that story was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book.

When you have a participle with sum, we can raise sum up the sentence and to the front of some other phrase. This puts focus on that phrase.

Illa narratio est ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta.

It was from the earlier chapters of the Red Book (and not from somewhere else) that that story was derived.

Est illa narratio ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta.

It was that story (and not something else) that was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book.

Raising sum to the participle puts focus on it. And makes things a bit flowery.

Illa narratio ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri est concepta.

Derived was that story from the earlier chapters of the Red Book.

The participle isn't that far from being an adjective, but by separating the two, we no longer form a perfect passive verb.

Illa narratio est concepta ex capitulis anterioribus Libri Rubri.

That story is derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book.

So put your sentences in neutral word order first. Then get creative if the original sentence seems to emphasize or focus on something other than just relating the facts. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Might be useful to have subpages for each sentence. Then we would have Scio/Dominus Anulorum/1, 2, etc. Easier to keep track of. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

One other thing that we might consider is to move the project to la.wikisource.org. Generally, new translations of works that do not already have adequate translations (and now we know this is one of them!) are allowed on wikisource, not just published works. See, for example, Futuglatus. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a good idea. I just made a user (Scio) on that site; however, I am not familiar with any form of wiki besides wiktionary, so I don't quite know how wikisource works. | Scio (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Easy enough. Start a new page with the title Dominus Anulorum/Ille Hobbit, and put in the titulus2 template (from Futuglatus). Fill in the details. Put in the translations already done, and we can start the Discussion page to discuss the translations. You also might want to go to Preferences and change your language to en, if you're not too familiar with the Latin controls. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is not The Hobbit we are translating- it is The Lord of the Rings, or Dominus Anulorum. I created the page here. | Scio (disputatio) 21:30, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops :/

Which book? And is this the foreward to the first book or the whole series? I lost my copy a while ago. --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 21:44, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the prologue to the whole series. (It is popularly considered a trilogy, but it was actually published as one book over six volumes.)

the first Hobbit to become famous in the world at large[recensere]

Let's isolate the sentence: Bilbo, the first Hobbit to become famous in the world at large, slept. Foramecator primum in mundum cebrem factus est

So this stands in apposition to Bilbo, who is masculine. So we should firstly have Foramecator primus. Also, like demonstrative pronouns, numbers generally go in front, so primus Foramecator.

to become famous: not an infinitive even though there's a "to" in there. It can be converted to a relative clause without loss of meaning: "who became famous". Thus, we would translate with qui: primus Foramecator qui factus est...

famous is generally praeclarus.

in the world. This is one of those phrases that you just have to know must be converted to something else, and Bradley's Arnold holds up "world" for scrutiny: does it mean the whole universe, the globe, the nations of the world, people generally, mankind, life on earth? He also points out "ascend to the throne", which if translated literally would just mean "climbing up a throne". Here it means people generally, so we must use omnes homines, all people. So in the world => among all people => inter omnes homines. As we do in English, we can tighten this up to just inter omnes. So, primus Foramecator qui factus est inter omnes praeclarus.

Now let's integrate this phrase into the sentence we're building. Since this phrase is in apposition to Bilbo, we (a) want to put it as close to Bilbo as possible, and (b) need to put it in the same case (here, ablative):

Illa narratio ex capitulis quae ab ipso Bilbe, primo Foramecatore qui factus est inter omnes praeclarus, scripta sunt anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta est.

To make things simpler, I will have to concede to your opinion on translating Tolkienian words to Latin. It would be easier to just keep it at Hobbit|es, Vestmarch|is, etc.

I suppose I'm ok with that :) --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 22:26, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I have to be done for today. My head is pounding from looking at the screen for so long. | Scio (disputatio) 22:16, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that's just the feeling of neurons reconfiguring themselves! :D --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 22:27, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and called by him There and Back Again[recensere]

The antecedent is chapters, just so I can keep track :)

Called: We have a perfect passive, so appellatus, -a, -um.

There and Back Again: Pretty good, but I'm having trouble with again. It doesn't have the same sense as iterum, which means, essentially, a second time. Wiktionary lists all the correct senses here as obsolete! Is there anything in L&S that will help? Maybe rursus. Sense II. B. is exactly what we need. Also, you want Illuc, so Illuc et Rursus.

So we have: et ab eo Illuc et Rursus appellata sunt. We can use eo because we're referring to something already mentioned. Bradley's Arnold says to think of it like qui, in that it has an antecedent in the current sentence.

Let's integrate it into what we already have. It should go where it is clearest. This phrases is parallel to the phrase "which was written by the same Bilbo", so we put it there, and include the missing relative. I inserted commas because the sentence is getting quite complex now.

Illa narratio ex capitulis, quae ab ipso Bilbe, primo Hobbite qui factus est inter omnes praeclarus, scripta sunt, et quae ab eo Illuc et Rursus appellata sunt, anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta est.

since they told of his journey into the East and his return[recensere]

This is an explanation of why the book was called There and Back Again. It is the cause of the title, and Latin has a ready-made clause for causes. It uses qui + subjunctive.

Again, since the subject is chapters (that is, the chapters were called that way because...), qui will be in the neuter plural, so we have: Quae.

told: subjunctive, but what tense? You'd think perfect because told is a past-tense verb, but subjunctive tenses are a special case. Their tense is always relative to the main (or superphrase) verb's tense, and there's a table which tells you what tense the subjunctive should be based on that. The superphrase verb of this phrase is called, which is in the perfect (passive) tense. Now, when did the verb in this sentence happen relative to called? Probably before, since the chapters had to tell of the story before the story was named. Although sometimes not :) Let's just say before, and so the table says we must use the pluperfect subjunctive: dixissent. Note that this is just the perfect infinitive + the standard endings.

So, quae de itinere in Orientem et reversione eius dixissent.

Note that we use in + acc because we're using into, not inside, which would be in + abl. Also note itinere and reversione are both abl because de. Eius comes last because it applies to both parts.

Integrating into our sentence as close as it can get to its antecedent:

Illa narratio ex capitulis, quae ab ipso Bilbe, primo Hobbite qui factus est inter omnes praeclarus, scripta sunt, et quae ab eo Illuc et Rursus appellata sunt quae de itinere in Orientem et reversione eius dixissent, anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta est.

Because we've got so many relatives, sometimes quippe (of course) or ut (as) is put before the relative to indicate it's a causal clause. So let's do that:

Illa narratio ex capitulis, quae ab ipso Bilbe, primo Hobbite qui factus est inter omnes praeclarus, scripta sunt, et quae ab eo Illuc et Rursus appellata sunt ut quae de itinere in Orientem et reversione eius dixissent, anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta est.

adventure[recensere]

I suppose iter would be weakly an adventure. Adventure, of course, comes from adventurum which just means a thing about to arrive, which has the wrong sense, so that doesn't work. But an adventure is a daring journey -- that is, the journey isn't doing the daring, but the people are, so we convert to journey of daring -- so perhaps we could just use iter virtus. We wouldn't use iter audaciae because audacia and its cognates are all generally negative words. --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 23:08, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

an adventure which later involved all of the Hobbits in the great events of that Age that are here related[recensere]

I think you've got it almost nailed here.

iter virtus quod postmodo omnes Hobbitibus in magnas res illius aetatis, quae huc memorantur, amplexum est. (magnas because res is plural, amplexum because iter is the subject of involving, and it is neuter).

Now we're putting this in apposition to journey (iter), which was in the ablative, so we have to keep that: itinere virtus quod...

Where do we put this phrase? We could try inserting it as close to itinere as possible, but since we're repeating the word, we probably don't have to.

Integrating:

Illa narratio ex capitulis, quae ab ipso Bilbe, primo Hobbite qui factus est inter omnes praeclarus, scripta sunt, et quae ab eo Illuc et Rursus appellata sunt ut quae de itinere in Orientem et reversione eius dixissent, anterioribus Libri Rubri concepta est: itinere virtus quod postmodo omnes Hobbitibus in magnas res illius aetatis, quae huc memorantur, amplexum est.

And done!

Wow! That was a lot. I am beginning to learn more; however, could you explain to me the uses of the infinitive forms of verbs? That would be helpful.

So, does 1.1.3 stand for first chapter, first paragraph, third sentence? If so, the next sentence would be 1.2.1.

Lastly, which I suppose should be first, I cannot find anything in error in that translation; I will add this to the translated book. Thank you. | Scio (disputatio) 15:03, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I may have found a mistake- anterioribus should refer to capitulis, not Libri Rubri. And so, moving anterioribus to capitulis, we have-

Illa narratio ex capitulis anterioribus, quae ab ipso Bilbe, primo Hobbite qui factus est inter omnes praeclarus, scripta sunt, et quae ab eo Illuc et Rursus appellata sunt ut quae de itinere in Orientem et reversione eius dixissent, Libri Rubri concepta est: itinere virtus quod postmodo omnes Hobbitibus in magnas res illius aetatis, quae huc memorantur, amplexum est.

Sententia Quorta[recensere]

Illa sententia quorta huc est. | Scio (disputatio) 22:30, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]