| Author |
Message |
|
Oliver Wiegand
Location: Germany Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Posts: 22
|
 Posted: Tue 11 Sep, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
As a reference for ancient letters here is a link to a picture of the ancient Trajan's Column in Rome with the shape of the capital letters.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopa...olumn.html
The old ancient latin alphabet is:
A B C D E F (G) H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X. Always in CAPITAL LETTERS ! And the Romans used no spaces between the words on inscriptions.
| Andy Ferrato wrote: | also i've seen it as SEMEL IN ANNO LICET INSANIRE on the internet too, is this a notable differance?
sorry if i'm sounding pedantic but i don't want to get something tattoo'd on myself permanently just to have some oxford student tell me i'm an idiot in 5 years. Plus you guys are are too intelligent, to not wring you of as much information as possible. |
My latin is quite rusty, but in my opinion "SEMEL IN ANNO LICET INSANIRE" is the correct order of words.
Last edited by Oliver Wiegand on Tue 11 Sep, 2007 10:02 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
 |
|
Mick Czerep
Location: Poland Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Sep, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you mean the black letters, not the brown ones, then no problem. Latin-latin, as said above, used mostly capitals for official writing.
Cheers
Mick
Sordes ocurrit
|
|
 |
|
John Cooksey
|
| Posted: Tue 11 Sep, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andy Ferrato wrote: | Would i be correct in applying something like this...
http://www.sweb.cz/ls78/images/tajrmalph.gif
to the phrase SEMEL IN ANNO INSANIRE LICET or am i over simplifying...
also i've seen it as SEMEL IN ANNO LICET INSANIRE on the internet too, is this a notable differance?
sorry if i'm sounding pedantic but i don't want to get something tattoo'd on myself permanently just to have some oxford student tell me i'm an idiot in 5 years. Plus you guys are are too intelligent, to not wring you of as much information as possible. |
Word order means little in Latin. Classical authors and poets adjusted it, typically, for "sound" and "flow".
I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Sep, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Latin is an inflecting language--what matters is the inflection, not word order. So "Brutus Caesarem tuit" and "Caesarem Brutus tuit" both means "Brutus kill(ed?) Caesar" while "Caesar Brutum tuit" and "Brutum Caesar tuit" both mean "Caesar killed Brutus"--just to make a very crude set of examples.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruno Giordan
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Sep, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andy Ferrato wrote: | Would i be correct in applying something like this...
http://www.sweb.cz/ls78/images/tajrmalph.gif
to the phrase SEMEL IN ANNO INSANIRE LICET or am i over simplifying...
also i've seen it as SEMEL IN ANNO LICET INSANIRE on the internet too, is this a notable differance?
sorry if i'm sounding pedantic but i don't want to get something tattoo'd on myself permanently just to have some oxford student tell me i'm an idiot in 5 years. Plus you guys are are too intelligent, to not wring you of as much information as possible. |
No, position of the secondary verb or adjective or of any other case is almost meaningless: in classical latin the main verb is usually found at the end of the phrase.
So i used it in order to be a bit more highbrow than by saying LICET INSANIRE.
Same stuff anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic