Author Topic: Latin question  (Read 8518 times)

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3722
  • Thanked: 1823 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Latin question
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2014, 11:57:53 AM »
How would this sentence be switched to the first person?

Nisi signa et prodigia videritis, non creditis.

It's John 4:48.  "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe."  I would like it to be changed to: "unless I see signs and wonders, I will not believe."  I think I might almost have it, using a similar statement made by St. Thomas, in the first person, from John 20. 

Would it be "nisi signa et prodigia videro, non credam"?
Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus, et posuit super crucem. Erat autem scriptum: JESUS NAZARENUS, REX JUDAEORUM.
 

Offline JuniorCouncilor

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Religion: Catholic as can be
Re: Latin question
« Reply #31 on: August 06, 2014, 08:21:43 PM »
As written, nisi signa et prodigia videritis, non creditis would become nisi signa et prodigia videro, non credo, since creditis is actually present.  However, if you truly want the "I will not believe" to be in the future tense, then your switch to credam is correct.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12758
  • Thanked: 4811 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Latin question
« Reply #32 on: August 06, 2014, 08:57:55 PM »
As written, nisi signa et prodigia videritis, non creditis would become nisi signa et prodigia videro, non credo, since creditis is actually present.  However, if you truly want the "I will not believe" to be in the future tense, then your switch to credam is correct.

Do you know why creditis is in the present?  I was pretty sure it was present but since I did not understand why, I did not want to answer PdR's question.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3722
  • Thanked: 1823 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Latin question
« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2014, 09:20:58 PM »
I don't know much about Latin, but I just realized the Douay-Rheims translates creditis to "you believe not," so I guess it is in the present.  It seems like every other bible translation on Bible Hub has it as "you will not believe," but those translations, I suppose, are not working from the Vulgate.

The credam version of this verse works best for my purposes, since I do want it translate to "I will not believe."
Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus, et posuit super crucem. Erat autem scriptum: JESUS NAZARENUS, REX JUDAEORUM.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12758
  • Thanked: 4811 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Latin question
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2014, 07:13:53 AM »
I don't know much about Latin, but I just realized the Douay-Rheims translates creditis to "you believe not," so I guess it is in the present.  It seems like every other bible translation on Bible Hub has it as "you will not believe," but those translations, I suppose, are not working from the Vulgate.

The credam version of this verse works best for my purposes, since I do want it translate to "I will not believe."

Tenses used for conditionals are different for Latin and English so it is a bit tricky translate them. 
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline LouisIX

  • Oberstleutnant
  • Hauptmann
  • *****
  • Posts: 8971
  • Thanked: 1419 times
  • "Libtard"-in-Residence
Re: Latin question
« Reply #35 on: August 07, 2014, 06:52:15 PM »
Spoken like a true individual of Germanic descent attempting to make sense of Latin.  That's ok.  I'm in the same boat.  We just don't have a tongue for romance.

It's true, we don't.  When an Italian priest celebrates Mass, it is like music to the ears.  When an American priest does, it can, on occasion, be close to painful.

That's ok.  Those of us of the race of Northern Europeans have a certain earthiness which, quite paradoxically, can lend one to contemplation of the ethereal.

It has taken me time to notice the sharp cultural contrasts between the Romans and the Converted Barbarians, but many things now make sense.  We're all Romans in faith, but the cultural Roman's constant talking and flailing of the arms is not always a welcome intrusion on our quietude. 
IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20517
  • Thanked: 6167 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Latin question
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2014, 10:12:19 PM »
Spoken like a true individual of Germanic descent attempting to make sense of Latin.  That's ok.  I'm in the same boat.  We just don't have a tongue for romance.

It's true, we don't.  When an Italian priest celebrates Mass, it is like music to the ears.  When an American priest does, it can, on occasion, be close to painful.

That's ok.  Those of us of the race of Northern Europeans have a certain earthiness which, quite paradoxically, can lend one to contemplation of the ethereal.

It has taken me time to notice the sharp cultural contrasts between the Romans and the Converted Barbarians, but many things now make sense.  We're all Romans in faith, but the cultural Roman's constant talking and flailing of the arms is not always a welcome intrusion on our quietude.

Aye.
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline Ancilla Domini

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1915
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Latin question
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2014, 01:35:03 AM »
Do you know why creditis is in the present?  I was pretty sure it was present but since I did not understand why, I did not want to answer PdR's question.

It is a strange construction, isn't it? The normal concordance of tenses would seem to call for the future, and I can't see that the use of the present adds any significance, so I'm inclined to think it is an error. The original Greek uses a future, πιστεύσητε or pisteusete. As PDR noted, the Reformation and post-Reformation English translations used the Greek text and therefore translate this as a future tense, whereas the Douay-Rheims used the Vulgate and renders it as present. However the New Vulgate corrects this to a future, credetis. So I think that's probably what it should have been. Well, that's my best guess. :)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 03:02:28 AM by Ancilla Domini »
 

Offline Ancilla Domini

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1915
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: Latin question
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2014, 01:37:42 AM »
Spoken like a true individual of Germanic descent attempting to make sense of Latin.  That's ok.  I'm in the same boat.  We just don't have a tongue for romance.

It's true, we don't.  When an Italian priest celebrates Mass, it is like music to the ears.  When an American priest does, it can, on occasion, be close to painful.

That's ok.  Those of us of the race of Northern Europeans have a certain earthiness which, quite paradoxically, can lend one to contemplation of the ethereal.

It has taken me time to notice the sharp cultural contrasts between the Romans and the Converted Barbarians, but many things now make sense.  We're all Romans in faith, but the cultural Roman's constant talking and flailing of the arms is not always a welcome intrusion on our quietude.

Aye.

Y'all are just making me sad.  :'(
 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20517
  • Thanked: 6167 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Latin question
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2014, 07:42:31 AM »
Someone has to disappoint you, AD...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12758
  • Thanked: 4811 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Latin question
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2014, 08:33:10 AM »
Do you know why creditis is in the present?  I was pretty sure it was present but since I did not understand why, I did not want to answer PdR's question.

It is a strange construction, isn't it? The normal concordance of tenses would seem to call for the future, and I can't see that the use of the present adds any significance, so I'm inclined to think it is an error. The original Greek uses a future, πιστεύσητε or pisteusete. As PDR noted, the Reformation and post-Reformation English translations used the Greek text and therefore translate this as a future tense, whereas the Douay-Rheims used the Vulgate and renders it as present. However the New Vulgate corrects this to a future, credetis. So I think that's probably what it should have been. Well, that's my best guess. :)

Thanks.  That sounds reasonable.  I would have expected a future or future perfect in that construction and could not figure out what a present tense was doing there.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline rbjmartin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1355
  • Thanked: 340 times
Re: Latin question
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2014, 05:14:07 PM »
Do you know why creditis is in the present?  I was pretty sure it was present but since I did not understand why, I did not want to answer PdR's question.

It is a strange construction, isn't it? The normal concordance of tenses would seem to call for the future, and I can't see that the use of the present adds any significance, so I'm inclined to think it is an error. The original Greek uses a future, πιστεύσητε or pisteusete. As PDR noted, the Reformation and post-Reformation English translations used the Greek text and therefore translate this as a future tense, whereas the Douay-Rheims used the Vulgate and renders it as present. However the New Vulgate corrects this to a future, credetis. So I think that's probably what it should have been. Well, that's my best guess. :)

I would hesitate to suggest that St. Jerome made a mistake with his Latin, as he is probably one of the most gifted linguists ever to work with the Sacred Scriptures. It could be some sort of idiomatic expression that was proper to his time.