[LargeFormat] OT: Latin translation

[Stuart Phillips]

You're right, of course. Standard classical Latin refers to a written
language and except for some phrases in graffiti and quotations in plays
(e.g Plautus) we have little or no idea of the spoken language. We often
don't know HOW a Latin speaker would express a certain idea in speach or in
writing- the corpus of texts is quite small, compared for example to Greek
texts.  Most non-Romans continued to speak their own languages and would
have little or no knowledge of Latin, except for the more educated classes.
----- Original Message -----
From: "philip.lambert" <philip.lambert@ntlworld.com>
To: <largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] OT: Latin translation


> Was there any such thing as standard classical Latin? I can't believe a
> Dacian auxiliary would have been understood by a Roman on Hadrian's Wall.
I
> can't always understand an Englishman from up there (the border of
Scotland)
> when he speaks English and this is a small country.  I know for example
> there were a whole family of related languages in Mesopotamia (Iraq)and
you
> might think knowing one meant you could understand another but it isn't so
> easy.
> PL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Phillips" <stuart.phillips@rcn.com>
> To: <largeformat@f32.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] OT: Latin transliation was View Camera Magazine
> ad info ques?
>
>
> > <In classical Latin, this would translate literally as, "Go <forth in
> > splendor or return unto your hearth."
> >
> > Rather "iti domun" is a very late, almost medieval,  form (classical
"ite
> > domum"),  as is "Facio" in the sense of "go" ! A first century  soldier
> > would be puzzled indeed.
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat