Since this is not exactly my area of expertise, I will quote Rex Wallace (Wallace 2011).
He argues that the earliest Latin inscriptions were written from right to left and from left to right (p. 22). He mentions three examples of right-to-left inscriptions in Latin: the Vetusia inscription (ET La 2.1) and the Fibula Praenestina (CIL I².3). Not everyone ...
It is called the interpunct.
Empty space to separate words as we do now is not a universal phenomenon.
Just as well the Romans might ask why we leave space between words instead of putting a dot in between or spelling all the words together.
The dots mark word boundaries, but I am not sure if they are added more for legibility or similarity to ancient ...
In classical times the seven-day week was unknown; obviously, there could be no named days of the week to use as reference points. Months at least were of specified lengths, but the actual date was described by a clumsy method which depended on three datum points within the month itself. These points were the Kalends, Nones and Ides, which occurred in that ...
We do in fact have a couple.
The best little collection of Old Latin inscriptions is found in Warmington's old Loeb, Remains of Old Latin IV: Archaic Inscriptions. It's a tiny bit out of date, but otherwise holds up well as an anthology of old inscriptions with a very good translation to go along with it.
Thumbing through quickly, I noticed a couple ...
Divus is a term used to refer to Roman deities or highly esteemed individuals (e.g. emperors). L&S give some classic Latin quotes, and you can also see books about Divus Augustus, Divus Titus, Divus Claudius, and etc.
Now, as many things in Christianity inherited from Roman customs and language, it seems divos was also used for saints....
This inscription does not use spacing to separate words. (Word division was often not marked consistently, or not marked at all in Roman inscriptions.) The second and third lines actually say "IN DEO VIVAS". "IN" is a preposition (meaning "in"), "DEO" is a noun ("god/God") in the ablative case, and "VIVAS" is a verb ("live") in the second-person singular ...
I'd guess it's the symbol for 6, originally digamma, but later taking on an S-like shape. (It's a bit hard to make out, but I think the last two cells contain ΙΑ and ΙΒ, indicating a series of 1 to 12.)
Here is a literal translation:
John Duns Scotus, OFM, who in his Oxford lectures represented that famous line of David, "the Lord is my light," is commemorated by this stone placed by his brothers after seven hundred years in AD 1966.
OFM is the abbreviation (still used today) for Ordo Fratrum Minorum, "the order of friars minor," i.e. Franciscans.
Varro mentions the possibility:
De Lingua Latina 9.75.4ff.
obliquos non habere ut in hoc Diespiter Diespitri Diespitrem, Maspiter Maspitri Maspitrem. ad haec respondeo et priora habere nominandi et posteriora patrici esset casus. ut ovis, et avis. sic in obliquis casibus cur negent esse Diespitri Diespitrem non video, nisi quod minus est tritum in ...
Short answer: no. At least since Post-Classical Latin, and quite possibly from earlier.
One may or may not believe the quote attributed to Julius Caesar when he calls Brutus fili mi despite the fact their relationship was aquired by adoption. Nevertheless, it is a sign that at some point later, it was considered valid and no one saw it as a mistake.
The Via dei Fori Imperiali was built at the initiative of Mussolini. At the time it caused some controversy about the care for archaeological and sacred Catholic sites, as well as the displacement of residents on "one of the most densely populated areas" of the Urbs.
Among the ancient sites affected, there were the four fora that give the via its modern ...
According to Sandys's Latin Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions, "D.D.P." stands for:
decreto decurionum publice
The last "P" is sometimes replaced with "P.P." or "PEC PUB": pecunia publica.
A decurio was a public official who, among other things, collected local taxes and was responsible for certain public works.
This is ...
I haven't completely figured out the book's layout, but it appears that it contains both volumes IX and X. In any case, the numbering starts over at index #160 (pg. 4), and the entry you're looking for is at index #230 (pg. 74):
Portavi lacrimis madidus te nostra catella, quod feci lustris
laetior ante tribus. Ergo mihi, Patrice, iam non dabis oscula
Sumelic is right. I just want to add a few things. First, the expression in Deo vivas and related (e.g. vivatis in Christo, "may you live in Christ") seem to be of common use among Christians of the period. For instance, it's also found in a ring saying "Antoni vivas in Deo" (it appears reversed):
Other examples are cited here and here.
The source of the image states that the person died the 17th of September. The inscription says instead that he died the 15th of October. What is KAL. to do with it? Is some sort of calendar correction?
This is how the Roman calendar works.
The day is ante diem quintum decimum Kalendas Octobres, "on the fifteenth day before the first of October".
With the ...
I have searched the entire Loeb Classical Library, Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina and Keil's Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum. Believe me, this is quite representative.
No, such forms are not attested and the only extremely rare occurrences are three grammarians, Varro, Priscian, aka Priscianus Caesariensis (5-6th centuries AD) and Pompeius (Maurus) (5th ...
This headstone is in Latin. Your transcription is quite good, but the text includes several abbreviations, which I've filled in below with brackets:
D[EO] O[PTIMO] M[AXIMO]
MORTALIT[ATIS] SUAE MEMOR
REIP[UBLICAE] MEMMING[EN] SENAT[OR]
MDCCVI DIE XXIV APR[ILIS]
MONUMENT[UM] HOC ...
With some help from this description, which contains a few errors, here's what I think it says:
Templum hoc r[e]novatum
est [l]ateribus denuo et integre
regnante serenissimo do[mi]no do[mi]no
principe Georgio Rakoci
Anno do[mini] 1640
This temple [i.e. church] was completely and newly renovated with bricks during the reign of ...
I don’t think there is any attestation of a direct prohibition of the no smoking type for the classical period. The closest I could find is CIL VI, 2357, from Rome, but it is not a prohibition, it is a kind request:
HOSPES AD HUNC TUMULUM NI MEIAS OSSA PRECANTUR
TECTA HOMINIS SET SI GRATUS HOMO ES MISCE BIBE DA MI
NI=ne, SET=sed, MI=mihi
Passerby, the ...
Based on preliminary research, it seems safe to say that divus - and not sanctus - was the preferred choice in Neo-Latin.
You are not the first person to come up with this observation - sorry to disappoint you:
from Thompson (1997) comments to Erasmus:
While Freeth's 2006 paper (with the good transcriptions) isn't freely available, his 2012 paper (analyzing the text in more detail) is!
The inscriptions are engraved in skilfully executed serifed capital letters very similar to the lettering of inscriptions on stone from the last three centuries BC. The letter forms are most characteristic of ...
As L&S put it, in their classic textwall style (entry for in, II.C.2):
Of the object or end in view, regarded also as the motive of action or effect: “non te in me illiberalem, sed me in se neglegentem putabit,” Cic. Fam. 13, 1, 16: “neglegentior in patrem,” Just. 32, 3, 1: “in quem omnes intenderat curas,” Curt. 3, 1, 21: “quos ardere in proelia vidi,...
I agree with Rafael's answer. Here are some specific classical examples to support this:
Filius can refer to an adopted son
Filiorum neque naturalem Drusum neque adoptivum Germanicum patria caritate dilexit, alterius vitiis infensus. (Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum Tiberius 52)
And an example from Gaius the jurist (2nd c. AD):
Adoptiui filii, quamdiu ...
A Google search gives results for both Domino and Deo Optimo Maximo. However the former offers results for both, suggesting it is a variation of the latter.
Deo Optimo Maximo,
in turn, has its own Wikipedia article and seems to be the preferred form. According to the article,
Deo optimo maximo, often abbreviated D.O.M. or Deo Opt. Max., is a Latin ...