Disputatio:Dominus Anulorum/1.3.6

Sententia 1.3.6

Latest comment: abhinc 10 annos5 comments2 people in discussion

Huc illa sententia est:

Lingua Anglica: But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind, and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that heredity and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races.

Lingua Latina: At Hobbites, revera, magiam quicumque nequando commentatus sunt; ars eorum debetur ad professionali arti quae hereditaria est, et valenteque amicitia atque usu non imitabilis est ab maioribus atque magis inconcinnibis gentibus.

I put the verb debetur before ad professionali arti, so that the quae that comes after is next to arti, which it is refering to.

Gratias tibi ago. | IACOBVS.CELSVS (disputatio) 18:29, 10 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply

Something different this time, I'll just comment and see what you come up with as a result. Also, I think you really need to get Traupman's. Your word choices will do much better.

Study: why not studeo?

never: I'm used to seeing numquam.

of any kind: Mini-lesson.

In English, any of these: a man, some man, one man, any man (when indefinite, not when emphatic), becomes, from least definite to most definite, quis, quispiam, aliquis, quidam. Note that the first three are quis/quid while the last is qui/quae/quod. A certain man or a particular man, or just a man when you know the writer has a certain one in mind, is quidam.

Someone may say: quis dixerit or quispiam dixerit.
Some philosophers think: aliqui philosophi putant or quidam philosophi putant (when the writer has certain philosophers in mind)
Some woman or other lives here: quae mulier hic habitat.
Some woman or other, I don't know who, lives here: nescio quae mulier hic habitat.
Without some fear: sine aliquo metu.

When any is emphatic or universal, use quisquam (as a noun), ullus (as an adjective), quivis or quilibet. The first two are used in negative or conditional phrases, and the last two are used in positive phrases (and mean any you like).

Without any fear: sine ullo metu (without any fear at all)
Without any men: sine quibusquam (without any men at all)
With any animal: cum quolibet animale (with any animal you like)
Any man will tell you: quivis tibi dicet.
The hide of any animal: pellis cuiusvis animalis
Not every man here has a home: Non cuivis horum domus est. (Not to any man you wish of these men is a home)
Not a single man here has a home: Non cuiquam horum domus est. (To not a single man of these men is a home)

The difference in the last two is that the first one is just the negative of a statement (not X, where X = any man has a home), while the last one is a negative phrase (no X has a home).

elusiveness: So we have elusive (adj) = fugax, fugacis. It's possible to turn an adjective into a noun by adding -itas, so we could have fugacitas, fugacitatis. But I don't find that word in the dictionary, so it's probably not a good idea to use. Instead, let's just say elusive nature.

professional: peritus/a/um (expert). By the way, beware of the false friend expers, which means lacking in, which is something an expert is definitely not!

that heredity and practice, and a close friendship with the earth: This is not a list of three things. If it were, it would be that heredity, practice, and a close friendship with the earth. It seems to mean that not only heredity and practice, but also a close friendship with the earth. Non solum... sed etiam...

inimitable: inimitabilis

render: reddo, reddere, reddidi, reditus. Be careful though. What you have here is a double accusative. Simplify the sentence to: Heredity renders skill inimitable. Further simplify to less-abstract terms: I render you king. Te regem reddo.

OK, take that feedback and see how you can rework the sentence. --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 22:43, 25 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply

At Hobbites, revera, magiam ullam numquam studuerunt; eorum fugax natura ad arti peritae debetur, quae non solum hereditas et usus sed etiam valens amicitia reddiderunt inimitabilis ab maioribus atque magis inconcinnibis gentibus.

About Traupman's, I am changing jobs, and will need to keep my wallet on as light a load as possible. I found a free dictionary in PDF format, but I would like you to see if it compares to Traupman's. Go to archive.org and search Traupman, and it should come up.

Gratias tibi ago. | IACOBVS.CELSVS (disputatio) 03:30, 28 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cassell's isn't bad. Use that, and we'll see how the word choices change and take it from there.

their elusive nature: The genitive regularly comes after the noun phrase, and in the noun phrase, the adjective regularly comes after the noun. Also, look up elusive in Cassell's (it's under elude). Now look up that word under the Latin section. They seem very different, don't they? I suspect we have a change in the main sense of elusive in the hundred years since that edition of Cassell's came out. Now look up fugax. Makes more sense, right? :( I have the 1968 paper edition of Cassell's. It still uses that sense. Not much critical editing, I guess.

is due to: I compared Cassell's to Traupman's. Cassell's says to be due = deberi, while Traupman's says to be due to = fieri ab (+abl). But then in the Latin section, Traupman's has deberi + dat = to be due to. WTF is going on! Now consider these two sentences:

I am due to give a lecture at 9:00 am.
My sickness is due to your coughing on me.

Clearly we have two different senses of "to be due to" and Traupman's has not differentiated them. Neither has Cassell's. Looking at the general meaning of debeo, it's clear that deberi is closer to the former sense than the latter. But fieri ab is closer to the second sense: to be made, to come into being, to arise, from. So let's use that.

In general, my strategy is to look up the word in the English section, get the Latin, then look up the word in the Latin section to verify that the sense is correct. If the sense is not correct, then try to come up with synonyms and look those up instead.

solely: Modifies due to. See under Cassell's, sole (the section adv).

inimitable: accusative. Remember the discussion about reddo taking a double accusative? This is one of them. Where is the other? Hint: In the relative phrase, mark off each phrase with their case.

by bigger and clumsier races: ablative of means, which doesn't use ab. Remember the main examples: I was killed by a sword. Gladio interfectus sum (abl of means). I was killed by Marcus. A Marco interfectus sum (abl of personal agent).

clumsier: Look up clumsy in Cassell's, and make sure you look up the Latin entries, too, since there are many words to choose from and you need to get the right sense. Also, you don't need magis: the comparative and superlative of a 3rd decl. adj are base+ior and base+issimus, and go like this: lev-is, lev-ior, lev-issimus. --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 20:18, 31 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, here is what I got:

At Hobbites, revera, ullum magicum numquam studuerunt; natura fugax eorum sole fit ab arte perita, quae non solum hereditas et usus sed etiam valens amicitia cum terra reddiderunt artem inimitabilem maioribus ineleganteque gentes.

I could not find a suitable word under "clumsy," so I searched around and found "inelegans;" not perfect, but I believe it will work. How did I do? Is the vocabulary and grammar good? | IACOBVS.CELSVS (disputatio) 05:26, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)Reply