Yes, one way of referring to Latin is "lingua Latina" or just "Latina", but there's an old custom of using adverbs to refer to use of languages. So Latine is "in Latin" or "Latinly" (and there are similar adverbs available for other languages).
Interestingly, the language adverbs are also used in a construction with scire (to know) or intellegere: "Latine scit" (he or she knows Latin), "Graece intellegit" (he or she understands Greek). In English we would definitely think of this as needing a direct object, but Latin allows it as an adverb, to understand "in a Greek way" (perhaps it would make sense to think of it as something like "in a Greek manner" or "from a Greek perspective").
yep totally understand, had four years of latin in the 80s, some Greek, and many more. it's interesting to see how an idea gets phrased slightly differently across even related languages, i have to admit.
I think the image shown at the top right is the entire text that was discovered: because if you count all the lines (including even the ones where no mortal can see actual letters), you get 30. I admire the experts who can make sense out of it. Words are not separated by blanks. The first line in the second column may start with «ΚΑΙΤΟΙ ΠΩ…» ‹and yet wh…›. Below that perhaps «Η ΜΕΙΖΟΝ …» ‹or greater›. Further below even I can read clearly a «ΦΑΙΝΕΤΑΙ» ‹he / she / it appears›. Even further down I read «ΚΑΙ ΔΙΑ ΤΟΥΤΟΥ» ‹and through / per / via this›.
Not understanding Greek, I ran that through Google Translate (Greek -> English) just to see what it might say.
> AND THIS … THE MAJOR … BUT THE BOTH … ARE MEANING … PEUSIS PAN GAR SEEMS.. OBVIOUS.. SPECTRA … OF SONGS SO … MAJOR … AND THEREFORE … NOT EVEN EARS .. NO LANGUAGE
What form of Greek would that be? (I don't know much more than "ancient Greek" vs "modern Greek".)
I think the Greek doesn't read «ΠΕΥΣΗ ΠΑΝ ΓΑΡ» but «ΠΕΥΣΗΙ ΠΑΝ ΓΑΡ» with «Ι», and «ΠΕΥΣΗΙ» = «πευσῃ» could be the 2nd sg. of the future of «πυνθάνομαι» ‹learn›. «ΠΑΝ» would be ‹all, every(thing)›, «ΓΑΡ» ‹namely, because (postponed)›. ‹… you will learn, everything namely …›? I don't know. – The «ΦΑΙΝΕΤΑΙ» ‹seems, appears› is on the next line, after some missing words.
Respect! even if I can't agree with every detail, e.g. «ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΤΩ» would require the «Υ» and the «Τ» to be quite different from the «Υ»s and «Τ»s in clearer cases, e.g. in the «ΚΑΙ ΔΙΑ ΤΟΥΤΟΥ» we both read as such. So I would stick to «ΚΑΙΤΟΙΠΩ…».
Ah, you're right. "30 verses" made it sound like more than what you can see on that image. Luckily most of the papyrus is very legible! even if fragmented...
> Not sure about the first syllable of "poplitibus"
Lewis and Short doesn't mark that o short or long. This also occurred with vexo, which I assumed was because the first syllable of anything starting with vex- is necessarily long (because the 'x' is two non-liquid consonants).
In the case of poples, 'l' is a liquid and a short vowel could be revealed by the syllabification po-ples (or po-pli-), but I guess this is never attested? This verse can't answer the question because the syllable is allowed to be long.
or even determined to be long? The descriptions of the Alcaic strophe I found specify the first syllables of the first three verses as anceps but the first syllable of the fourth as long. Skimming the other odes in the third book, I havenʼt found another example where that would be doubtful. Maybe the hiatus candidates Trōica in 3:3, Pīeriō in 3:4, but fīet in a Sapphic strophe of 3:14 is certainly long.
But how is it long:
- probably not by position, because of muta cum liquida after the vowel. (An example for V.pl instead of Vp.l is capta virum puerosque ploret in 3:3.)
- the vowel length seems to be unclear, as indicated by Lewis / Short. I thought the etymology might help, but Walde / Hofmann tell that the etymology is unknown – and that a certain Muller Ait. W. 351 (?) is wrong to argue for a long o because it is clearly attested as short in verses by Accius and Lucretius.
reply