VeganDrew Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Finally, Latin is good for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I've had some good chuckles reading the two pages on this thread. I love you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Cool. But I'm doubting anyone fluent in Latin would get that translation without googling. It's hard albeit it impossible to infer words that don't exist and have no context. I feel like many times there are famous Latin quotes, and then people who don't know the language but are looking at a translation, try to harvest parts of the original text out. And then you get stuff like this. There are obviously completely coherent ways of writing something with that meaning.Well, the quotation is older than google, so obviously somebody understood it. It's the title of a fairly famous poem and is the motto of a few old Roman families. I'm going to have to go with consistent usage across centuries on this one. So now you force me to google it. The only place the text appears like we've been talking about is over the home of Philipp von Boeselager's house, one of the men who was in on the Hitler assassination plot. At least, that seems to be the source of the incorrect adaptation of the text, which has obviously cropped up elsewhere. I'm betting the German man didn't know his Latin too well. In all other places I've seen via google, it's written differently so that's it's actually coherent. Like etiamsi omnes ego non . Which might make sense as etiamsi means "even if." So lets look at this once more: "Et Si Omnes Ego Non" -- And if all not I.Etiamsi omnes non ego. -- Even if all, not I. I wonder which one was written by someone who studied Latin for a day in their life. I can't believe we've talked about this for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 The only place the text appears like we've been talking about is over the home of Philipp von Boeselager's house, one of the men who was in on the Hitler assassination plot. At least, that seems to be the source of the incorrect adaptation of the text, which has obviously cropped up elsewhere. I'm betting the German man didn't know his Latin too well. In all other places I've seen via google, it's written differently so that's it's actually coherent. "Et Si Omnes Ego Non" -- And if all not I.Etiamsi omnes non ego. -- Even if all, not I. I wonder which one was written by someone who studied Latin for a day in their life. I can't believe we've talked about this for so long. You might want to check the Vulgate. And Ernest Myers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 If you cite something properly, I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 If you cite something properly, I will.Why is Google so hard for you? Are you that afraid of finding out that you're wrong? Matthew 26:33 in the Vulgate. And the poem by Ernest Myers is called, strangely enough, "Etsi omnes, ego non." It's kind of hard to miss those two sources if you're actually paying attention to the search results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 It's not up to me to do YOUR work. If YOU reference something, then YOU should say what that reference was. This is how discussion works. Furthermore, Etsi is not the same as et si. I know what you're thinking, but there's just a space between them! In the vulgate, it's ETIAMSI. Let's go back to what I already said: Like etiamsi omnes ego non . Which might make sense as etiamsi means "even if." So lets look at this once more: "Et Si Omnes Ego Non" -- And if all not I.Etiamsi omnes non ego. -- Even if all, not I. I wonder which one was written by someone who studied Latin for a day in their life. And the other guy I already mentioned as well, and discussed him, but I didn't take into account that he wrote the sentence differently than what we were discussing (working under the assumption that you had basic reading comprehension skills), as did the vulgate. I've already explained all of this, and yet you had to continue on, and patronize me, and spell things out--which pretty much makes you an idiot, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's not up to me to do YOUR work. If YOU reference something, then YOU should say what that reference was. This is how discussion works. Furthermore, Etsi is not the same as et si. I know what you're thinking, but there's just a space between them! Explain the difference as it applies to this circumstance. In the vulgate, it's ETIAMSI. No, it's not. http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=1&c=26 That's the Clementine. The Stuttgart Vulgate is the same. http://www.bibliacatolica.com.br/09/47/26.php The Nova Vulgata is also the same. http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-matthaeum_lt.html From St. Jerome's original translation through present day, those are the only accepted versions of the Vulgate. Please include a link to the one you're looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Perhaps I had my dictionaries mixed up. You're talking to an atheist mind you. Anyways, the vulgate does not say "Et Si Omnes Ego Non" according to the links you provided. It says, in Matthew 26:33: "respondens autem Petrus ait illi et si omnes scandalizati fuerint in te ego numquam scandalizabor" Going to cite me anywhere else that would back me up? Why can't you grasp that some non-latin speaking hack just looked at some latin text and a translation and crappily ripped out a chunk of latin that he hoped would fit together. If you told ANY person alive fluent in Latin to write "Even if all, not I" not a single one would write "Et si omnes ego non." Now seriously, yes or no, would you challenge me on that? Because that's really the crux of it. Now I must say, I really love the emoticons on this forum. I can't hardly contain my usage of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Perhaps I had my dictionaries mixed up. You're talking to an atheist mind you. As are you. But I don't see what that has to do with being unable to Google properly. Anyways, the vulgate does not say "Et Si Omnes Ego Non" according to the links you provided. It says, in Matthew 26:33: "respondens autem Petrus ait illi et si omnes scandalizati fuerint in te ego numquam scandalizabor" Going to cite me anywhere else that would back me up? If it backed you up, it would say "etiamsi." Stop changing your argument. Why can't you grasp that some non-latin speaking hack just looked at some latin text and a translation and crappily ripped out a chunk of latin that he hoped would fit together.Yes, hacks like St. Jerome and Ernest Myers. I think I'm done with you. You're too maddeningly obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I never changed my argument. Go back to the beginning where I talked about context and how it was most likely that someone who did not know Latin was looking at original text and a translation and tried to rip text out and stick it together with the hope that it would make sense. That's how these things happen. You obviously do not know Latin at all. This is NOT debatable. You are wrong, I am right. Period. Take this to any person who has studied classical languages, and you'll get what I'm telling you. I've never ended a discussion like this before, but you really are a total idiot, and I want you to know that. An unintelligent moron. How can you be so stupid as to not only be wrong, but then to ARGUE once it's been explained to you by someone who is actually fluent in the language? And all you say is google it? And everything your precious google turns up has supported me. You are, and I really mean this, a complete idiot. I'm flabbergasted that someone could be SO stupid that even when they're GIVEN the answer, they still can't figure it out. Unreal. Before you respond, I'd like to repeat one thing: this is not now, nor was it ever arguable. There's no two right answers, there's no grey area, there simply is a basic sentence that has a meaning that you cannot wrap your little mind around even when I LITERALLY spell it out for you. I'm just astounded by your stupidity. Truly. I have NEVER before in my life ended a discussion, debate, argument of any kind in personal attacks; but here, I am hoping that you will be shamed into thinking first the next time such a situation arises, so that some other poor soul will not waste their time dealing with you as I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegan Joe Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum." Edited October 8, 2009 by Vegan Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganEssentials Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 You've successfully managed to keep a dead language alive in it's own special way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I just want to say that Joe, that is a lovely fruit basket in your avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 You've successfully managed to keep a dead language alive in it's own special way Careful. Addai's probably going to argue that it's not a dead language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addai Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 More likely that you will say something else retarded because you fail to think critically or just care to argue, which will lead me to spelling things out like I'm talking to a child for another two pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now