I am recently trying to read Regulus, the Latin version of the Little Prince translated by Augusto Haury, and I met some problems in Chapter 4. It may be somewhat troublesome to make several threads so I put them in this single post for the moment.

Latin text:

Ergo etiam hac de causa pyxidem pigmentorum graphidasque emi. [...] Conabor equidem imagines ipsius quam simillimas exprimere, sed non satis exploratum habeo id mihi prospere processurum esse. [...] Itaque mono haec, modo illa tempto, utcumque successura sunt.

Original French text:

C'est donc pour ça encore que j'ai acheté un boîte de couleurs et des crayons. [...] J'essayerais, bien sûr, de faire des portraits le plus ressemblants possible. Mais je ne suis pas tout à fait certain de réussir. [...] Alors je tâtonne comme ci et comme ça, tant bien que mal.

English version by Katherine Woods:

It is for that purpose, again, that I have bought a box of paints and some pencils. [...] I shall certainly try to make my portraits as true to life as possible. But I am not at all sure of success. [...] So I fumble along as best I can, now good, now bad, and I hope generally fair-to-middling.

• What is the strange word graphida? By translingual comparison, this word is certainly for a pencil (crayon in French), but I find this word in almost no dictionary. Only DuCange gives graphida in a very late usage, as the synonym of scriba, a scribe. Is there any reason for Haury to use this word? In most part of his text, he tends toward a quite classical Latinity, for example, he uses volucris machina for an airplane, instead of a Neo-Latin word like aeroplanum, and he in fact, uses miniatura cerula for a colored pencil in Chapter 1. I have no idea why he uses this weird noun. (If it's worth a further discussion, I will split this to another post.)

• What is the grammatical structure of the non satis ... part? Does habere + perf. ptcp. mean the same as a regular perfect tense?

• What does successura sunt mean? Why future periphrasis? (The English version seems saying something different from the French, and the Latin version is much more paraphrased.)

I am recently trying to read Regulus, the Latin version of the Little Prince translated by Augusto Haury, and I met some problems in Chapter 4. It may be somewhat troublesome to make several threads so I put them in this single post for the moment.

Latin text:

Ergo etiam hac de causa pyxidem pigmentorum graphidasque emi. [...] Conabor equidem imagines ipsius quam simillimas exprimere, sed non satis exploratum habeo id mihi prospere processurum esse. [...] Itaque modo haec, modo illa tempto, utcumque successura sunt.

Original French text:

C'est donc pour ça encore que j'ai acheté un boîte de couleurs et des crayons. [...] J'essayerais, bien sûr, de faire des portraits le plus ressemblants possible. Mais je ne suis pas tout à fait certain de réussir. [...] Alors je tâtonne comme ci et comme ça, tant bien que mal.

English version by Katherine Woods:

It is for that purpose, again, that I have bought a box of paints and some pencils. [...] I shall certainly try to make my portraits as true to life as possible. But I am not at all sure of success. [...] So I fumble along as best I can, now good, now bad, and I hope generally fair-to-middling.

• What is the strange word graphida? By translingual comparison, this word is certainly for a pencil (crayon in French), but I find this word in almost no dictionary. Only DuCange gives graphida in a very late usage, as the synonym of scriba, a scribe. Is there any reason for Haury to use this word? In most part of his text, he tends toward a quite classical Latinity, for example, he uses volucris machina for an airplane, instead of a Neo-Latin word like aeroplanum, and he in fact, uses miniatura cerula for a colored pencil in Chapter 1. I have no idea why he uses this weird noun. (If it's worth a further discussion, I will split this to another post.)

• What is the grammatical structure of the non satis ... part? Does habere + perf. ptcp. mean the same as a regular perfect tense?

• What does successura sunt mean? Why future periphrasis? (The English version seems saying something different from the French, and the Latin version is much more paraphrased.)