Hot answers tagged

12

I wrote a longer answer to this on the English language stack exchange, but in the migration process it got deleted. Shorter answer: the quote is "ne sis frustra" from Plautus's play Miles Glorius and is a pun on "ne si frusta". Wikipedia synopsis: [Pyrgopolynices] is ambushed by Periplectomenus, and his cook Cario. The two men begin to beat him for ...


12

To expand a little on Joonas's answer, the nominative singular ending in Latin was originally /os/ for all masculine nouns of the second declension, which developed to /us/ as part of a more general sound change of /o/ to /u/ in certain positions. (Somewhat confusingly, Latin /u/ in turn corresponds to /o/ in a number of Romance languages. It's thought that ...


11

I found an article that gives some excellent examples of this usage as well as practical tips for how to recognize it: Thomas Nelson, "The Third Qui, and Six Ways to Recognize It, or 'Who Happens, Maecenas?'" Nelson begins by noting that there are three kinds of qui. The first two are ubiquitous, and found in the L&S entry for the first meaning of qui: ...


11

It is servŏs in both instances, not servōs. The old form of the nominative has the ending -os instead of the later -us. What you see is indeed the singular nominative, but not in the form you are used to.


10

It's not as succinct as 'Just kidding,' but I think that what Plautus uses at Amphitruo 919–920 has a nice ring to it: si quid dictum est per iocum, non aequom est id te serio praevortier. If anything has been said in jest, it isn't fair for you to take it seriously. Obviously, te could be changed to vos to suit the audience. Or you could shorten ...


9

From the Scholia Graeca in Comoedias Aristophanis, we find the following definition of βομβάξ: βομβάξ - παρεμβολοειδής ἐστι τοῦτο ἐπίρρημα καὶ σημαίνει διασυρμόν. βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν. βομβάζειν γὰρ δηλοῖ διασύρειν, τωθάζειν, σκώπτειν, καὶ χλευάζειν, λοιδορεῖν τε. Translation: βομβάξ - an interjection said in response to something, ...


8

We have no idea who wrote the argumenta for Plautus' plays. Fontaine 1996 notes: The acrostic argumentum prefixed to Gorgylio that spells out CURCULIO suggests that the paradigm [of Latin names for characters] had shifted in antiquity. However, because we do not know when these acrostic argumenta were written and because it remains possible that ancient ...


8

The commentary that I have for the Menaechmi, by P. Thoresby Jones (Oxford U. Press), has this note for the line: Samiae: i.e. fragile like earthenware. Samian ware was the commonest crockery used at Rome; cf. Stich. 694; Cic. pro Mur. 36,75. Definition 3 for Samius in Oxford Latin dictionary states this: 3 (applied to a cheap, brittle type of pottery ...


7

In this case, servos (with a short o) is actually an archaic nominative singular, not an accusative plural. (Compare to the Greek nominative singular ending -ος.) You'll find this happens a lot in Plautus. And you are right that he says quem patrem to agree with the case of the previous statement. If someone says, "Dedi aliquid filio meo." the ...


6

The object is pro imperio vobis quod dictum foret (a relative clause in which the relative pronoun quod is postponed though logically belonging before pro imperio): literally, "even though he knew that you would do that which would be said to you in command". Riley translates the first four lines thus: "My father has sent me hither to you to entreat, ...


5

To answer your second question (since brianpck has already given an excellent answer to the first), quī is etymologically an ablative. The paradigm of the interrogatives quī, quis is a bit odd in that it combines third-declension forms (quis, quem) and first-/second-declension ones (quā, quō). This quī is originally a third-declension ablative form ("by ...


4

The passage in Plautus seems to be the one and only attestation for "bombax" in Latin. The dictionary definition "an exclamation of real or affected surprise" fits it very well.


4

The meter is unfortunately not helpful here, as both with the i and without the i fit the anceps in that foot of the iambic senarius. But the manuscripts do weigh in. From Alex B.'s link: hepatiarius E3. G. Valla. he patiarius E. (u s. v.) J. epatiarius B. epatarius F Z. apatarius Guyetus ab ἀπατᾶν ducens. The manuscript tradition is therefore in favor of ...


3

If you want to keep the idea of understated or grudging respect, a good choice might be non male dictum (not badly said) or non male dixisti (you've spoken not badly), the understated counterpart of the more common bene dictum (well said). Both phrases are used with the connotation of "made a good point." Varro, On Agriculture: Non male ... Diophanes ...


2

'Fair enough' is a phrase that implies its speaker's reluctance in giving assent. It can cover a range of situations, but it finally it's an agreement to concede a point and to move on. I would say that the simplest equivalent is an unqualified habeas. Another possibility is (con)cedo. The difficulty with this phrase, I think, stems from the fact that ...


1

As long as we want to convey that we've been talked into something, we may do it with persuadeo. One must be careful though: the expressions mihi persuasum est and persuasum habeo usually mean "I am convinced that...", not "I've been convinced": see here. However, Seneca does start one of his letters to Lucilius with Quid non potest mihi ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible