apologies for being vague. do you think gaius julius caesar fucked that old man (cicero)?
reading Vergil be like whatever you say beautiful man beautiful gay ass twink🤩🤩
Tandem hāc beātissimā noctū perlēgimus Panormitae Hermaphrodītī secundum. Nīl ēdidicimus nisi adagium illud Nāsōnis:
Dōnec eris sospes, multōs numerābis amīcōs.
Panormita enim, quum rēx Alfōnsus arragōnēnsis eum amplius sustinēre nōllet, dē summīs laudibus in opprobrium īnfimum dēlapsus est et Hermaphrodītum suum reicere coāctus est.
Vērum ad dē librō exīstimātiōnem redeō: lēctūne jūcundus fuerit? Fuit, at nōn carminum causā; carmina enim plērumque Mūsīs invītīs pacta videntur. Plūris vidētur fēcisse obscaena atque impudīcitiam quam carminis numerōrumque integritātem, ut nōnnunquam versūs dēficiant sīve ob vocābulum prāvum ūsurpātum sīve ob metrum trucīdātum. Quid igitur nisi carmina oblectāvit? Vocābulōrum obscaenam vim perdiscere (exemplī grātiā: ‘femur’ significāre ‘cunnum’ — cuj tamen adjēcit Panormita significātum mentulae, quī nōn, reor, probātur), et nōscere Panormitae ascēnsum in honōris lūcem, exinde dēscēnsum in īnfāmiam.
Haec sunt omnia quae nunc, multā quidem nocte, excōgitāre possum et verbīs exprimere. Valē.
Das Einheitsfrontlied in Latin
et homo, quod est homo aliquid edendum requirit sic, verba nihil ei sunt qui panem vix edit
sic ad iter ite, bis, ter quod, sodales, vestrum est heus, incede laboris in agmine quod et tu laborarius es
et homo, quod est homo vestimenta vult et soleas quem verba vana non fovent nec belli tympana
sic ad iter ite, bis, ter quod, sodales, vestrum est heus, incede laboris in agmine quod et tu laborarius es
et homo, quod est homo gravem non requirit calceum servosque infra nullos vult nec supra dominum
sic ad iter ite, bis, ter quod, sodales, vestrum est heus, incede laboris in agmine quod et tu laborarius es
et plebes, quod est plebes habet nullum servatorem alium nam salus laborariorum est ipsorum officium
sic ad iter ite, bis, ter quod, sodales, vestrum est heus, incede laboris in agmine quod et tu laborarius es
my total layman's perspective on latin is that meaning seems bizarrely underspecified. its like toki pona. maybe because in the modern age you mostly see like, pithy quotes and mottos which select for shortness? but theres somehting here. like the extremely free word order. maybe itd be more obvious if i knew all the inflections, and the ambiguity is being resolved in there
maybe itd be more obvious if i knew all the inflections
you could not be more painfully monolingually anglophone if you tried
yeah but like. inflections are stupid. this is known. doing grammar structurally is way better
It's the same thing actually. In a language like Latin, inflections specify a tree structure and word order is used for information structure and pragmatics (<- controversial phrasing of an uncontroversial truth; Chomskyans will object but not substantively). "Free" word order is sort of a myth. Conversely languages without inflections either overload word order for pragmatics and information structure (English, to a greater degree Thai IIRC) or handle it with particles (little grammatical words), for instance in West Africa. Even the overloading strategy isn't as ambiguous as it sounds because prosody usually clarifies the bracketing. And in fact the real truth is almost certainly that all languages mix and match these strategies.
There's no way to really formalize the following, at least not yet, but I think it's good to keep in mind as an intuitive guidepost: all languages are basically on the Pareto frontier of communicative capacity. There's lots of things you can do with sound to convey information and languages just slurp them all up, meaning that you always get a mixture of word order, explicit marking (whether inflectional or analytic), prosody, etc. for communicating everything. It's just that some languages use all the segmental structure for content words and others use some of it for constituency (broadly construed) and so on.
Oh, to address the question in the OP: I think it's in large part because you're always seeing it in pithy quotes, but probably also to some small extent because you're at such a cultural remove from the original speakers (and so are all the people formulating those pithy quotes). Like, go back the previous English sentence and think about the dictionary definition of each word. Now imagine you're reading that sentence 2000 years from now, with only a knowledge of English syntax and a dictionary as your guide. Recall also that you have to resolve all the pronoun bindings and implicit referents and so in the correct way, that doesn't come for free! A lot harder to parse, I would imagine.
I will just add that as a person with no linguistics knowledge but who reads, writes, or speaks Latin every day, it’s pretty much never a problem for me unless I’m translating. Like, when I and a reading group were reading Apuleius and he used the word piāculāris, which is its own antonym, it was immediately obvious what was meant. I have no idea how to translate ‘piacularis’ though, like ‘something that relates to sanctification’, but that obviously doesn’t work in a text, so you’d have to say, like, ‘unholy’ (needs to be sanctified) or ‘holy’ (is sanctified/can sanctify) or idk.
People much smarter and more educated than me say that Latin is very dependent on context, but I think a lot of that is because they’re thinking of how it translates to English, and most of the time English vocabulary is just much more varied and specific according to circumstance so translating from one to the other is difficult. But in understanding a passage, I don’t think you need more context than an English passage generally, although English does like to restate subjects often which might make it slightly easier to understand what is meant from, like, a single sentence-fragment.
Also, I don’t think the inflections really help disambiguate the meaning of specific words more than context necessarily does, though it helps connect the right words to each other despite syntax like this (the end of letter nr. 6 by St. Jerome to some Julianus I read on the Latin Library, no idea what its real citation would be):
me de communi in Christo gloria crebris reddas sermonibus laetiorem.
(reddas being the verb in the 2nd person singular present subjunctive) (I would add an explanation of the function of all the words, but I don’t know how that’s formatted properly to not take up another five paragraphs of space, so colour-coding the related words is all I can do) (as Max points out (I think?) the word order here is actually pretty common-sense and it’s hard for me to imagine how else he could’ve put it that would make sense stylistically and, I guess, syntactically unless he was writing a beginner’s textbook)
I have a new favorite Medieval Times review:
To be clear:
Update: it turns out this Very Trouble Monther is part of a Very Trouble Monther Group, who sent an e-mail to management in a similar vein to the above, albeit after running spell-check.
Now, when I say "sent an e-mail", I mean it quite literally: they typed out their e-mail, then printed it, put it in an envelope, and sent it. My manager has it proudly hung over his desk.
I sincerely wish the Karen Society here had asked for a manager on the spot.
"Certainly, my lady! Would you like this one -"
"-- or this one?"
An illustration showing Pythagoras avoiding faba bean plants.
“Do Not Eat Beans”
1512/1514
Can we un-dead-language-ify latin? Like can I learn Latin with my friends and then we make slang and now Latin is an alive language? Like technically? Just learn Latin and make slang & sayings and now there's new Latin sayings and slang and then bam! People are using Latin as a modern language it's not dead anymore!
Linguists let me know please
I mean, if we call a language dead when it no longer changes, then Latin isn’t really dead. Latin has been changed immeasurable throughout the ages, and any modern Latin writer or speaker owes a debt to various authors from various times — many of which wrote Latin in a way completely foreign to the likes of Cicero or Caesar! Add to this Erasmus and other humanists’ efforts to bring more Greek proverbs into Latin, or the scholastics philosophising using words like liberum arbitrium or, rather weirder, ipsitas. This tradition is kept alive by places like the Neo-Latin Lexicon, which does indeed collect and even makes up modern words for the modern world.
Even when you write or speak Latin, you are doing so in a context, and that context is not the same as an ancient Roman who was raised speaking it as their native language. Therefore the things you say and the ways you say it will necessarily be different. This is evolution! It’s no longer done by communities of native speakers, but it is being done, nonetheless.
Generally, however, excessive novelty is frowned upon in Latin communities (at least the ones that I can stomach), but the fact remains that it can’t be avoided entirely. The use of the ablative supine is noticeably greater in Neo-Latin communities than in classical texts, and so is the disparity between use of vel and aut. Discere often acquires a fourth principal part, something it didn’t have in ancient times (as far as I’m aware). Pellicula (‘little pelt’) now means movie or video. The syntax and vocabulary a person uses can sometimes tell you which era of literature they’ve engrossed themself in the most. These things may all seem like mistakes, and that may be true, but for those who end up studying 20th-21st century Latin literature hundreds of years from now, it’ll all just be a part of this era’s peculiarities :)
some part of me genuinely believes trans women have a statistically-detectable innate superiority at making electronic music
@cryptotheism said:
It's the same ephemeral quality that makes us inherently superior bronze age oracle-priestesses.
okay so i was reading this article about trans-ish bronze age religious figures and i googled some of he terms and like. what is going on with the the gala
Originally specialists in singing lamentations, gala appear in temple records dating back from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC.[1] According to an old Babylonian text, Enki created the gala specifically to sing "heart-soothing laments" for the goddess Inanna.[2] Cuneiform references indicate the gendered character of the role.[3] Lamentation and wailing may have originally been female professions, so that the men who entered the role adopted its forms. Their hymns were sung in a Sumerian dialect known as eme-sal, normally used to render the speech of female gods,[4] and some gala took female names.[5]
Homosexual proclivities are implied by the Sumerian proverb which reads, "When the gala wiped off his anus [he said], ‘I must not arouse that which belongs to my mistress [i.e., Inanna]’ ".[6] In fact, the word gala was written using the sign sequence UŠ.KU, the first sign having also the reading giš3 ("penis"), and the second one dur2 ("anus"), meaning that might be a pun involved.[7] Moreover, gala is homophonous with gal4-la "vulva".
In spite of all their references of their effeminate character (especially in the Sumerian proverbs), many administrative texts mention gala priests who had children, wives, and large families.[8] In addition, some gala priests were women.[9]
"penis-anus priests"...
also the stuff we have on the galli is really interesting, their place in roman society seems so weird and ambiguous
Here's a sneak peek at a digital painting of emperor Nero that I am currently working on! ✌
enough "trans girls code" "trans girls wear long socks" "trans girls watch anime" redditor behaviors. where are my trans girls who can recognize different brands of paint by smell
Hello Ct may I perchanse you a question what is a ray of light because I’m reading Al kindi and I asked you what he meant earlier on anon and that made me more confused. Would thou happen to know where I could whet my whistle on this subject perchanse? Big thankies!!!!!!!!!!!
Ps are you still taking offerings because I offer this incredible high I am on right now
I'm fairly certain he means ray of light as in how we think of light nowadays. In the same way that "if you shine a green light on a thing it makes the thing green" he kinda theorized "if you shine the light of mars on something it makes it more war-y"
Okay I understand that part but my issue is how exactly. Is he picturing the planets as say flashlights pointing at the earth?
Pretty much yeah
Thoughts and words also emit rays! Al-Kindi uses rays to account for sight, sound, and literally every other phenomenon in the universe.
I think it will be helpful to clear up a few specifics about the stars before I try to explain how thoughts and words emit rays.
You know how you can put a red lens on a flashlight, and then light will be red? Or how you can use a semi-opaque lens to dim a light? If the stars and planets are flashlights, imagine that their elemental composition is like a lens that changes how it affects the Earth.
The "light" is the sustained essence of God. And because monotheism is a REALLY BIG DEAL in Islam, Al-Kindi is very careful not to imply that there is more than one light. But that gives him a big problem--if all the stars emit the same light, then why would it matter which star is where in the sky at any given moment? How can you combine astrology with monotheism? Al-Kindi's solution is to say that there's one (1) light but that each star and planet has a unique elemental composition. The light changes AS comes through the planet's elements to Earth.
The stellar rays are the "efficient" cause of literally everything on Earth. They are how God controls our world, and they never stop shining down on us (because the stars never stop being above us).
Okay, now here's where things get complicated. In Islam, humans have a primordial nature called "Fitra", which is our resemblance to God. (It's not unlike the concept in Genesis that we are "made in his image.) Al-Kindi incorporates this idea into his cosmology by saying that we are a "microcosm" of God. So, God controls the universe through the stars, and we can control our imaginations through rays.
If you imagine a house inside your head, you wouldn't say the house "exists". You would say you're thinking about it. For Al-Kindi, that's complete nonsense. The way that the world "exists" and the way that thoughts in your head "exist" are exactly the same. He isn't just using the same word in two different ways. Al-Kindi believes they're genuinely one Being. (Over in Christendom, St. Anselm does some very silly stuff with the imagination and the word "exist" in his Proslogion)
Now imagine that house has a cat inside it. You would probably say you just imagined a cat, but for Al-Kindi, you actually changed part of reality. He explains that by saying you sent rays to make a cat appear. It's the same light as the stellar rays, only this time, it isn't being filtered through the elements of a planet--this time, the light is being filtered through YOU.
Sounds also emit rays. Just like each planet has its own elemental composition, every word has its own particular combination of rays. Now, for most languages, the TYPES of rays and the MEANINGS of words have basically no correlation. But sometimes there are happy little coincidences. All sounds emit rays--not just words. The hiccuping noise I make when I see a really good Seinfeld bit is spewing rays all over my TV set, even though I'm not saying anything. Again, Fitra (human godlikeness) is a big deal. We can imbue our words with special meanings. Spoken prayers and magical incantations affect the world THROUGH the special types of rays that they emit. Al-Kindi makes a big deal of saying you really have to mean it, though.
SPEEDRUN GUIDE TO THE METAPHYSICS AND MAGICAL THEORY OF JOHN DEE:
This Dee section is beguiling me. Comprehending it is one thing, figuring out how to explain it to a novice is another, so I'm gonna do my best here, and see how I'm doing.
ENOCHIAN MAGIC HAS THREE PILLARS, THEY ARE:
- Heptarchic Magic
- The Watchtowers
- The Thirty Aethyrs
HEPTARCHIC MAGIC Is Dee's take on the Solomonic/Medieval-Grimoire School of thought. It pulls many structural elements from the Solomonic school of thought, as well as proto-spiritualist elements like Scrying. However, it differentiates itself by focusing on conversing with angels rather than demons. The heptarchic mage wishes to understand the sublunary world, and assist in the divine plan.
THE WATCHTOWERS are how the angels administer the sublunary world, and the angels that administer the sublunary world. They are the method by which knowledge of the sublunary world is passed to the magician, and what demarcates the Sublunary world in terms of comprehension. That which is beyond the watchtowers is the realm of mysticism alone.
THE THIRTY AETHYRS are the frontier beyond and between the Watchtowers. They are Dee's take on the Merkhava/Hekhalot/Gnosticate mysticism of late antiquity. They are differentiated by being primarily mystical in nature, focusing on the experiences of the magician rather than the potential boons granted. They are gateways to understanding of the celestial plane (in the Agrippa sense).
The mortar holding all these bricks together is Enochian, Dee's conception of the primordial language of divinity, which can be quickly but incompletely be summarized as the source code of the universe. Enochian's importance is that it facilitates communication with the angels, which itself is the foundation of the entire system.
Thank you, Theoi, for letting me know of this version of Theseus’ conception that vaguely makes it sound like Poseidon and Aegeus had a threesome.
It’s definitely not explicit, and I think it’s fair to assume that even if they didn’t do it at the same time, it was roughly around the same time. I mean, how often do you stay the entire night at a temple? Not knowing the myths Hyginus is drawing from, I would say the threesome reading sounds most plausible to me. Anyway, here’s the Latin:
Neptunus et Aegeus Pandionis filius in fano Minervae cum Aethra Pitthei filia una nocte concubuerunt. Neptunus, quod ex ea natum esset, Aegeo concessit.
Customer at work wore this for his first trip to the aquarium
piscis quisquis meum in conspectum venit metui veram signifcationem discat ego enim praenuntius sum mortis
subaqueorum pernicies arundinem veram certamque in abyssum aquaticam iacio homo spretus indifferente terra solacium invenit in mari amicum modo vermem habeo in hamo se convertentem torquentemque nitentem ut superet inanitatem mortalem sterilem quae permeat mundum solus sum vacuus sed piscor
Passing this ask game on: List 5 things that make you happy, then put this in the askbox for the last 10 people who reblogged something from you. learn to know your mutuals and followers.
Tot ēnumerāre gaudiī fontīs difficile erit (nē pauciōrēs neu plūrīs dīcam) 😰
Ōrdine omnīnō cōnfūsāneō: familia, librī, religiō, amor ergā amīcōs amāsiamque, cēreus odōrus, penna (quōrum ultimōs herī ēmī; alterum ut sacrārem, alteram ut scrīberem! (ast adhūc prāvissimē eā scrībō 😄))
something about classical studies in the early to mid 20th century really made those professors insane





