User talk:Scio~enwiktionary/Dominus Anulorum

Latin translation

As a learning tool, I am translating the Lord of the Rings into Latin. However, I am very inexperienced with the language. I was wondering- would you be willing to check over the little I've translated so far? I am concerned with my word usage, as well as the grammar. Here is the first sentence, to give you an example-

English- This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history.

Latin- Hic liber Hobbites pertinens maxime, et ex paginis lector characteris multus eorum et historiae aliquod eorum cognoscat.

If you would be willing to help, I would be very grateful. | Scio (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Yes, I'd be willing to help! I'm not a great Latinist, but two are better than one. In general, remember that no two Latinists are ever gonna translate the same thing in the same way, so you're always going to get disagreements on word usage and order. Also, don't try word-for-word in-order translations. Get the general sense first, don't be afraid to use a different word if the Latin term is less ambiguous, then add emphasis where you think it should go.

Be sure you have:

• Traupman's Latin/English/Latin dictionary (→ISBN).
• Bradley's Arnold (the Bolchazy edition, →ISBN, is very nicely formatted). The best high-level prose composition book I've ever found.
• Lewis and Short via Perseus and English L&S search. Searches through L&S with English words as well, even though L&S is a Latin-to-English dictionary.
• Whitaker's Words.
• Neutral word ordering of sentences. Stick with the neutral order, and then change it from there to add emphasis.

With that out of the way, I'd make just a few changes to the first translation:

is concerned with -> pertinet (sense II.B) + ad.

largely -> plerumque. Maxime is closer to exceedingly, especially, most particularly.

character -> natura.

from its pages -> ablative of means (by means of its pages) -> paginis (no ex).

Even better, let's try a qui-phrase, by means of whose pages, so we can get rid of the et: paginis cuius lector...

much of -> accusative -> multum.

a little -> paulum, makes a nicer contrast to multum than aliqui does.

You can probably remove the first eorum, since there is already a second eorum which can apply to both natura and historia.

Finally, try to get away from et. Caesar didn't use a lot of them. Just use a comma, and use qui-phrases wherever possible.

So we end up with: Hic liber ad Hobbites plerumque pertinet, paginis cuius lector naturae multum, historiae paulum eorum cognoscat.

Let's try the next sentence! --Robert.Baruch (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Huzzah! I have tried to contact numerous other users, but they either are much to busy (such as admin) or are inactive.

Thanks for the help. Here is the next sentence (this will really be bad, especially the word order)-

English- Further information will also be found in the selection from the Red Book of Westmarch that has already been published, under the title of The Hobbit.

Latin- Litteram multus in electione ab Libro Rubro Occasitinere cognoscat, qui iam proditus cum titulum Hobbit.

Correction-

Plus informatio in electione ab Libro Rubro Occasitinere cognoscat, qui iam proditus cum titulum Hobbit.

However, I don't know if the 'ab' before an ablative 'Libro' is needed. | Scio (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

---

About ab and ablatives:

• Use a before consonants, ab before vowels, abs before h.
• With ablatives, always go through the list to figure out which fits best. Which ablatives to use ab with? Always with place from where (motion), personal agent, sometimes with separation (no motion), never with means. So:

• I flew from New York.

A Novo Eboraco volavi. (place from where)

• I was given the ticket by David.

Tessera a Davo data sum. (personal agent)

• Now I'm away from my friends.

Iam ab amicis meis absum. (separation)

• However, I am not free from that city's nature.

Natura autem illius urbis non libero. (separation, libero is a special case)

• I flew from New York by airplane.

A Novo Eboraco aeroplano volavi. (means)

(will add more later) --Robert.Baruch (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Thank you for the help, especially the wikipedia article; I will study it thoroughly. | Scio (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Another general principle I use is to get rid of words or simplify them first.

More information -> plus. The word information is kind of a generic word, like thing, stuff, event, so it can be left out. Note that it's also accusative (cognoscat = One may know...) and plus is the accusative of plus :/

selection -> pars.

in the selection -> in illa parte = in that part (which has already been published). Demonstrative. Otherwise it's a kind of weak "a selection". However, since we used cognoscat, this becomes ablative of means (one may know more by means of...), so just illa parte.

from the Red Book -> which ablative? None of them! It's actually revealed to be a partitive genitive now that we've simplified selection to part. So Libri Rubri. We could also just use ex + abl ("out of"), but we've got "part" so we may as well use it.

Westmarch -> Neat translation, but more properly occidens + iter, not occasus, because occasus is setting, and west is specifically solis occasus (the setting of the sun). Occiditer, Occiditineris. Adjective form Occiditinicus/-a/-um, or Occiditinense. So since we have of Westmarch, we can use Occiditinensis.

under the title of X -> sub titulo X, where X is in the ablative because it's in apposition to the title, i.e. "under the title, X".

The Hobbit -> Ille Hobbit. Ille also means "that famous", also see Winnie Ille Pu.

So we have, I think: Plus illa parte Libri Rubri Occiditinensis cognoscat, qui iam proditus sub titulo "Illo Hobbite". --Robert.Baruch (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Robert, Timotheus1 seems somewhat interested in this 'project' (I wouldn't have called it a project before, but now I suppose it will take a little more work than a simple hobby); would you mind if he could join in with some input? Instead of taking so much space on your page, I think it would be better to continue this on mine, regardless if Timotheus1 joins or not. (He rates himself as la-3, by the way; you should see his talk page)

Gratias tibi ago for the help; It is much appreciated. | Scio (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I will not be able to read your response until about eleven hours from now, as I have to sign off; I am sorry. Everybody being on different time zones makes it difficult to get things done efficiently. But for now- good bye. | Scio (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

---

One error I made is qui should be quae, since it refers to pars. And there's a missing est in the relative phrase, and I'd put the relative phrase closer to its antecedent:

Plus illa parte Libri Rubri Occiditinensis, quae iam prodita est sub titulo "Illo Hobbite", cognoscat. --Robert.Baruch (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Did you see my post?

If you would rather keep Timotheus1 out of this, it is ruder to ignore him, rather than state your thoughts. If you don't want him to join, just say so! I appreciate your help, but I think multiple latinists working on this is better than one (for truly you are doing most of the work, not me). | Scio (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want you to say okay if you feel it would be better to keep the translating between the two of us. I would only like an answer. Personally, I think you would be a better teacher than Timotheus, and, as I am doing this to learn, I would like this to be between us. I think that Timotheus is probably doing this because it is interesting, but I am not sure if he would be as good at teaching as you, although he seems about as good as latin as you are. However, remember that I would very much like you to decide on your own, guided by what you think best.

Gratias tibi ago. Please forgive me for the bitterness of the previous post; you may not have meant to look like you were ignoring my question. In that case I was in the wrong; however, I will not edit it, as I believe I must take responsibility for my actions, and that I should not hide past actions. | Scio (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I will give you the next sentence at around 15:00 UTC, if I have it translated by then. Thank you very much; you are a great help with learning Latin. I am also translating Commentarii de Bello Gallico; would it be feasable for you to check that, as well? It is a different skill to translate into one's own language, as opposed to translating one's own into another, less familiar tongue. It would be greatly appreciated. | Scio (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way, with or without Timotheus. But my instinct is that this is better one-on-one, otherwise we could just end up getting side-tracked by endless talmudic debates of which is the better word, order, whatever. Nothing against anyone. Granted, Timotheus's Latin is much better than mine. Perhaps we could keep the discussion here, or on your page, and if there's something we just can't figure out, consult Timotheus? What do you think? --50.76.40.134 17:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the Commentarii, sure, I've translated the first part myself, so at least I can help there, until we get into the part I haven't worked with, and then it would be slower progress :) --50.76.40.134 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be good to keep this between us and consult Timotheus when needed. I also think it would be better to move this to my page, if you don't mind.

Also, could you explain to me what the infinitive verb forms are used for? I don't think I fully understand.

I'll make a subpage for this, since it's generally useful! --Robert.Baruch (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Finally, your signature is an IP... I wouldn't know if you forgot to sign in, or are just an anon posing as the real Robert... | Scio (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to sign in :/ --Robert.Baruch (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Here is the next sentence (it is the last of the first paragraph, and is very long)-

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)

---

Next part, see paragraph 1 page 3 on wikisource --Robert.Baruch (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)