Print

Print


I personally would use 'saluete' because "bene venisti" still sounds out of place to me.

Quoting Pete Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>:

> Thank you to everybody who's contributed so far. Second draft is
> 
> bene venisti ad linguificium, orationem per interete de linguis
> exstructis eisque qui eas creant.
> 
> Further comments?
> 
> --
> Pete
> The Fantastical Devices of Pete The Mad Scientist -
> http://fantasticaldevices.blogspot.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:33
> Subject: Re: Correct my Latin
> 
> On 22/03/2014 12:01, BPJ wrote:
> > To begin with it's certainly "linguificium"
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > if not "glossopoësiam". "Ficatum" means 'stuffed with
> > figs' y'know!
> 
> 	:)
> 
> > Since everything Greek is fair game in Latin I feel
> > glossopoea/glossopoësis/-sia, glossopoëta and
> > glossopoema to be felicitous terms.
> 
> If a Greek-derived form is preferred, I would argue for
> _glossopoeia_.
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Glosso/Glossopoeia.html#derivation
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > "Bene ueniti" doesn't sound right, or at least not
> > Classical, though I'm too far from my books to look it up
> > ATM
> 
> It's not right in any sort of Latin! Mainly because
> _veniti_ (or _ueniti_) ain't Latin.
> ============================================================
> 
>  On 22/03/2014 12:18, François Rémond wrote:
> > I would think it is syntaxically correct,
> 
> No, it isn't. There are several syntactic errors.
> 
> [snip]
> > More idiomatically, One could say something like :
> >
> > - bene veniti estis --> bene venistis (a form of
> > greeting attested in medieval latin charts)
> 
> The perfect participle of _venire_ is, in fact, VENTUM -
> and, as the verb is intransitive, the perfect participle may
> be used *only* impersonal constructions, e.g. ad castrum
> ventum est - they/people/we [etc.] came to the camp.
> 
> If you want to use "you are welcome" i.e. You have come
> well/ vous êtes bien venus - the indeed it is 'bene
> venistis'. I have no doubt it does occur as a greeting in
> Medieval Latin.
> 
> The Classical Latin is _salvete_.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > - I'm not sure the comma would be sufficiently
> > significant in latin grammar in the sentence
> > "linguificatum, orationem per interrete...", to mean
> > "Conlangery *which is* the Podcast...".
> 
> Comma is OK.
> 
> [snip]
> > - For the last part of of the sentence, I think the
> > natural latin form would be more synthetic : Why not try
> > something like " et de creatoribus eorum" instead of "
> > et de hominibus qui eum creant" ?
> 
> _hominibus qui ..._ is not natural. It sounds as though you
> want to single out only humans who create languages :)
> 
> The idiomatic Latin is simply: eis qui ...
> 
> But _eum_ is completely wrong. It's singular masculine;
> _lingua_ (language) is feminine, and we want the plural.
> the pronoun should be _eas_.
> ============================================================
> 
>  On 22/03/2014 13:10, Siva Kalyan wrote:
> > My attempt:
> >
> > Tē salvēre jubēmus, quī ad nostr?s ?r?ti?nēs dē fictūr?
> > lingu?rum e?rumque fict?ribus auscultandum vēnistī.
> >
> > Literally: "We bid you to be healthy, (you) who have
> > come to listen to our speeches about the invention of
> > languages and about their (i.e. the languages')
> > inventors."
> 
> This is nice, and is not obviously Latin "translationese" :)
> 
> But in the _ad+gerund(ive) construction, we need the
> gerundive here as the verb is transitive, so:
> .... quī ad nostr?s ?r?ti?nēs ... auscultand?s.
> 
> _Tē salvēre jubēmus_ could, of course, be simply _salve_ :)
> 
> It should be noted that in Siva's version "you" is singular.
>  Peter's version implies he wants "you" to be plural. If so
> then amend it thus:
> 
> V?s salvēre jubēmus/ Salvētē,
> quī ad nostr?s ?r?ti?nēs dē fictūr? lingu?rum e?rumque
> fict?ribus auscultand?s vēnistis.
> 
> -- 
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
> [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
> will always interfere with language".
>