how would you correctly spell "congruisse"?
Translating surnames into Latin was actually pretty common back in the day. "Kramer" > "Mercator" etc.
I would spell it "congruisse". If I wanted to misspell it, I might choose to do so by spelling it "congruissse", as is done in the article.
2: I know. But so was not using much in the way of punctuation.
Oh, Christ. I hadn't realized the damn thing was *in* Latin, too. It's probably not his that "congruisse" turned up with 3 s's (esses?). I defer to him on how he wants to translate his name. These things -- translations -- will never map perfectly on to one another.
These "living Latin" people are a law unto themselves. Seriously, they have meetings and conferences and come up with new rules.
What's your problem with the "aeterna" sentence, or rather, clause? You're right that it is a substantive -- "eternal things concerning which the Romans are able to teach us a lot" would be my hyperliteral translation.
5: cum rhetorica exigua, moribus infirmis, grammatica inepta et rationis historicae metu congruissse fors non est; eterna de quibus Romani nos multum docere possunt. is, as far as I know, and subbing in the English where uncontested, "it is no accident that it coincided with weak rhetoric, shifting moral values, clumsy grammar and a terror of historical reference, eternal things about which the Romans are able to teach us much". So the Romans can teach us about: weak rhetoric, etc, and weak rhetoric, etc, are eternal.
The English, "during an age of weak rhetoric, shifting moral values, clumsy grammar and a terror of historical references and eternal values that the Romans could teach us a thing or two about.", says pretty plainly that the Romans can teach us a thing or two about eternal values.
That is completely different!
3--
yeah, the version with 'sss' seems like a pretty good misspelling.
okay, my fault for not following. but at least now i understand why 'congruisse' didn't look bad to me.
Oh wait. There is something kind of weird in that sentence. In the Latin version the "aeterna" clause is emphatically not (as in, you don't even need to know Latin, just look at the semi-colon) a part of the list of "bad things." So the Latin phrase would better translate as " . . . and a terror of historical references; eternal matters about which . . .". Weird.
7: We crossed there with my 9. But yeah.
Weird.
That is weird, especially since the Latin makes more sense than the English. Did he mistranslate his own Latin composition?
The English actually makes more sense as "an age . . . that the Romans could teach us a thing or two about" but there's no way the Latin could mean that.
Maybe the English is meant as in 12 and the translation is meant to be rather loose.
The Latin is in fact more plausible than the English, but I would bet that in the mind of someone who writes an NYT op-ed in Latin about how we should all learn Latin, the English seems more plausible than the Latin. I would also bet a fair sum that the English was written first and translated into Latin.
Those Romans, they had some eternal values, yup! Like incest.
11: Yeah. That is exactly right. I wonder if he did write it in Latin first. I find it hard to believe he could fuck up like that. I bet the Times made an editing mistake in not separating the "eternal values" from the "bad things."
I don't see why you think that the English doesn't make much sense, teo.
What doesn't make sense is your proposal in 12; how could the English possibly mean that?
I don't see why you think that the English doesn't make much sense, teo.
It makes sense, it just isn't very logical or coherent. Our age has all these bad things, but it also has eternal values that the Romans could teach us about? What?
What doesn't make sense is your proposal in 12; how could the English possibly mean that?
Easily; what's the problem?
The English and Latin are so very different that there is a flat out mistake by someone somewhere. My bet is that the Times editors screwed up punctuating that list in the English. I mean, disregarding the punctuation in the Latin version -- the "aeterna" cannot be governed by the "metu" like the genitive "rationis historicae" is. 5 will get you 10 they run a correction.
What? No, our age has these bad things:
(weak rhetoric), (shifting moral values), (clumsy grammar) and (a terror of (historical references and (eternal values that the Romans could teach us a thing or two about))).
The Romans can teach us about the eternal values. We, these postmodern days, are terrified of even any mention of them.
It really seems like they must have screwed up the punctuation of one or the other, but it's not clear to me which one. Either way, it's really weird.
19: Ah, okay. I hadn't thought of parsing it that way, but it does make sense.
Easily; what's the problem?
It strains credulity to imagine the "that" reaching that far back.
See, oudemia in 18 gets the story. (There's also a missing word for "values" in the Latin.)
The parsing I meant in 12 was: an age of ((weak rhetoric), (shifting moral values), (clumsy grammar) and (a terror of (historical references and eternal values))) that the Romans could teach us a thing or two about.
As oudemia points out, that parsing obviously doesn't work for the Latin, but neither does the one in 19.
Wait no. We cannot have a terror of eternal values. Or am I not getting your parentheses system? "Aeterna" ain't genitive. Also, look at the word order in the Latin, with it coming fully after the "congruisse fors non est." There is no way, in the Latin, that it is part of that list. Different clause.
We're parsing the English, not the Latin.
Oh ok. You weren't talking to me in 19.
Surely you can't do that? Surely? The only ways I could accept something meaning that would be: "an age that the Romans could teach us a thing or two about, of ..." and "an age of ..., an age that the Romans could ...".
My Latin isn't great, but if the Church can develop words for 'banana' and 'computer', surely 'artem' can be extended to 'professionalization of politics.'
29: It's grammatical (though somewhat awkward) for me. YMMV.
My undergrad specialty in Latin America would seem to be of service here, yet I am at a loss. Clearly a sign I attended a low-rent public U.
...I know that there are plenty of capable Latinists hanging around,; too many, in fact, to enumerate.
Just for the sake of completeness, the parsing that I was having trouble with was:
an age of ((weak rhetoric), (shifting moral values), (clumsy grammar) and (a terror of historical references) and (eternal values that the Romans could teach us a thing or two about)).
That doesn't make any sense, but ben's parsing in 19 does and is probably what Mount meant.
26, 28: My latin's not that bad.
surely 'artem' can be extended to 'professionalization of politics.'
I object, in principle, to "ars" meaning both profession and professionalization. If there isn't a handy analogical scheme to go from "ars" to something meaning "professionalize", use a phrase like "the becoming a profession of politics". (Fiendum artem reipublicae? Here I really am uncertain.)
My undergrad specialty in Latin America would seem to be of service here, yet I am at a loss.
It does serve to nicely illustrate the point that seems to escape these spoken-Latin types, which is that Latin is in fact still spoken, in several dialects.
We could figure out if the problem is with the English or the Latin by looking at more than one paragraph of the essay. If we wanted to.
You had better fucking believe my mileage varies.
36: Yeah, I was very confused then. Sorry.
I leave these spoke Latin types entirely to their own (incendiary) devices.
39: I -- congenially! -- refuse to do that, but feel nearly certain the problem has to be with the English since the Times editors could easily fuck that up through editing, but simply wouldn't know enough to mess with the Latin in the same way. Also, the Latin makes more sense.
I can't understand a single thing in this thread and it's still more entertaining than the debate over what gun to buy for Gary.
I still think the English makes just as much sense as the Latin and is probably what Mount actually thinks.
Why should we think that a terror of historical references, or weak grammar, are things about which the Romans have much to teach us?
44: Because he is a dork that thinks the Romans can teach us everything. Just pragmatically, the editors wouldn't dare touch the Latin (I'd bet), and thinking, not unreasonably that wacky Latin man could think what the English version ended up saying, substituted an "and" for a semi-colon that isn't strictly grammatically correct.
But that kind of dork is precisely the kind who would think that what the Romans have to teach us are the eternal values that would help us cope with the bad things that plague us today!
And if you replace the "and" in the English with a semicolon, what you get is a claim that bad grammar, shitty rhetoric, and terror are eternal values. That makes no sense.
That is, you have to account not just for the change in punctuation, but the shift from "aeterna", eternal things, to "eternal values".
And if you replace the "and" in the English with a semicolon, what you get is a claim that bad grammar, shitty rhetoric, and terror are eternal values. That makes no sense.
But that's (almost) exactly what the Latin says! And it's totally clear and unambiguous!
bad grammar, shitty rhetoric, and terror are eternal values
Must all values be positive?
O tempora! O mores! Oy vey!
What the Romans have to teach us is that cruel tyranny works. (For values of "works" that I find unacceptable.)
Oh and that roads & aqueducts are good.
Crucifixion?
47: Okay, fair enough, but why is he even talking about weak rhetoric etc. if he doesn't think the Romans can help us with it?
But that's (almost) exactly what the Latin says! And it's totally clear and unambiguous!
It is not even close to what the Latin says, and (JM) "terror of historical examples" is not a value.
46: Well, you're right and this is just baffling. The English and the Latin are fully different, but both make sense in their own way. So there is a big mistake here, but just what is elusive. I mean, the Latin is deliberately different from the English. It makes its own sense and is not simply a mistake in translation. I guess it is possible that the Times editors added "values" as a substitute of something more neutral on the idea that they knew what he meant.
It is not even close to what the Latin says
Okay, the Latin says they're "eternal [things]" rather than "values," but the rhetorical structure is exactly the same.
51: presumably he thinks that the reading of Cicero, say, will improve our rhetoric, but not because Cicero teaches us about impoverished rhetoric.
It's not so simple as moving some punctuation around, at the least.
I guess it is possible that the Times editors added "values" as a substitute of something more neutral on the idea that they knew what he meant.
This sounds reasonable to me.
I think we're in agreement that both the English and the Latin make sense and express the same underlying sentiment, but in unaccountably different ways.
I don't think they express the same sentiment.
58: Yeah, it's my bedtime, but dollars to donuts some editor fucked with the English.
59: Yes, I think they're different, too. Maybe I will email the guy.
OK, I am a giant dork, but I just want to emphasize that there is a precision and deliberateness that would have to go into his translation into Latin that forces me to think that the Latin version has to be "what he really means." Combine that with the ease with which editors could transform the English version and we start, I think, to get at the problem.
I don't think they express the same sentiment.
So what's the difference?
So is this a case of Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur or does this guy actually has something interesting to say, dodgy grammar and all?
I don't like artem reipublicae whatever it's supposed to mean: it needs a gerundive, such as artem reipublicae ducendae, or it doesn't mean much.
Is he trying for classicism? Because if so, he's missing badly. ...considerare excitat would do in neolatin, but if he thinks he's being Ciceronian he needs a subjunctive clause. I'm not at all sure what the rest of that sentence means, but I'm inclined to agree with those who suggest it actually says that the ills he describes are the eternal verities we can learn from the Romans (true enough, historically, but that's another question). It's incredibly awkwardly phrased - sticking est at the end of a long sentence betrays absolute lack of familiarity with normal usage, and I suspect he was told at the age of 11 that the verb goes last and has regarded it as an unalterable rule ever since (it's a guideline, and it doesn't apply to esse anyway).
Pah!
I understood the quibus to refer to rhetorica/mores/grammatica/metus, rather than aeterna; i.e., "about these things (rhetoric, etc.) the Romans can often teach us things of enduring value." But yeah, I see no way to get from the English version to the Latin, or vice versa, however it's construed.
And transfero 'translate'/translatio 'translation' may be less common, but it's good classical (my lexicon cites examples in Cicero and Quintillian).
66: I like that, potchkeh, but then the word order is weird, I think. But honestly, we're reading a guy named Harry and not a guy named, say, Marcus Tullius, so why should his word order mean a thing to me? Ugh. I'm a Hellenist. I don't have to read Latin anymore.
Seventeen year-old Latin student, much amused, dropping by to wonder if anyone had read the rest of the article in Latin?
Because "cur bonum est?" for "why is this a good thing?" and especially "cur non linguam Latinam in lingua Anglica legas?" for "why not just study all this in English?" don't sound like awkward English out of clearly composed Latin to me.
69: I haven't read the whole thing, but based on your excerpts there, I'd say you were right. Wow. Good catch. Those both seem really (oddly) clumsy to me.
Oudemia, is your surprise at the clumsiness based on prior familiarity with the author?
I'm disappointed that this comment thread isn't being conducted in latin. The roman have much to teach us about venal gimmickry, clearly.
Comments in Latin mocking people who advocate the use of Latin would be richly ironic even by our standards.
72: Not really -- more my naiveté, I guess. The guy has a cottage industry in "living Latin" books. If I were going to put my name on a chunk of Latin prose in the NYTimes -- even moreso than English prose -- that thing would be proofread and double checked six ways to Sunday. But "cur bonum est" for "why is this a good thing," while not wrong, is ham fisted and lacking grace -- a Wheelock Ch. 1 sentence.
71: Romani ite domum.
You made my day!
but, but, but ... the Romans, of all people, professionalized politics, with a career track and everything.
I liked me Latin classes, but this is ridiculous.
Just wondering: magistra = Mrs. Syphax?
78: ita vero.
77: You're right, the cursus honorum is the epitome of the professionalization of politics. It would appear that Henricus Mons hasn't read Cicero's Thoughts on Political Campaigns when he waxes nostalgic about the politicians of Rome. Further, while some of today's political speeches are characterized by inept grammar, they are not necessarily devoid of rhetorical devices, particularly hyperbole, litotes, and anaphora.(Personally, I'd like to see a bit more preterition, but that's just a personal preference.) As for "rationis historicae metu" , I would argue that the current administration has done an excellent job of (misusing) historical references to further their own misguided objectives.
Magistra, what of your great love of zeugma?
I adore a well-placed zeugma myself.
82: Oh, definitely a second vote for preteritio. I'm not even going to go into how great I think preteritio is.