r/latin

I want to stay sharp on my Latin over the summer before I start my PhD and I would love some suggestions on what to read! (I don't really care about genre or time period as long as it's not a Latin translation of a modern work) Bonus points if it is funny! Lucian is my favorite Greek author, and although there are plenty of Latin authors that I enjoy (Livy and Sallust come to mind), I don't think I've read any that I find as funny.

*EDIT: the title is supposed to say “confusion” not “confusing”

I want to start this off by saying this is my first ever post so I don’t really know how this works AND I’m a German learning Latin for university, so I only know the grammatical terms in German but they should be fairly similar in English I suppose, but I could not find a German Subreddit for Latin, so I’m sorry if this might be confusing to English speakers!

My question is regarding the following sentence:

“Per nuntium nobis a rege pecunia datur”
I would translate it to something like: “The money is given to us from the king through the messenger” (German: “Das Geld wird uns vom König durch den Boten gegeben”)

But I thought when something is happening THROUGH someone or something we use the ablative form? But then again “per” is an accusative preposition, so the noun is declinated with the accusative eventhough THROUGH means ablative?
So I guess what I am asking is could you just leave out the preposition and use the ablative to express the same thing? Like: “nuntio nobis a rege pecunia datur”, or do we only use the ablative for things and we need the accusative preposition “per” for people?

Sorry if this is not making any sense, my latin exam is in 20 days and I’ve been trying to cram everything into my brain 🥴

I don't claim to be knowledgeable in phonotactics, but anyway... As far as I know the cluster /dr/ only occurs in Latin in loanwords, largely Greek. The apparent exception is quadra and derivatives like quadruplex, quadrivium and so on, which prima facie derive from quattuor. Does anyone know why quadra and so on is an exception? Could it be another loanword that has influenced other words?

Having trouble with this part as I’ve had with the 3rd. The Principle parts and stuff is very confusing.

Salve. I'm currently working my way through the Lingua Latina text books. And was inspired to prototype a point-and-click style web app in a similar style. Here's the project: https://jabza.github.io/via-latina/

The premise is you've been sent back in time to Ancient Rome during your summer holiday, and must find your way home.

Here are some of the more original ones (not taken from somewhere else ).

"Ad Victorian" the main brotherhood of steel, war-cry in the fallout franchise.

"Supra et ultra" UC vanguard oath, from starfield.

Also saw "ad astra per aspera" several times but that's not that's an original one.

Is penis a typo in the following: ...quicquid habebant secum argenti in conspectu persequentium in aquas subjectas effundunt penis. If a typo, what would be the correct one? Thank you.

Ante aliquot diēs colloquium Latīnum, quod "Adeodatus sīve Dē Nātūrā Deī librī V" īnscrībitur, in lūcem ēdidī. In eō duo virī inter sē disputant dē rēbus philosophicīs, litterāriīs et theologicīs. Sī cui vestrum tāle opus arrīserit, vēnāle iam est in tabernīs librāriīs amazōniānīs multārum gentium.

https://preview.redd.it/wh58d6vax2bh1.jpg?width=985&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=676515b6568d95f8e59fbbe5194b7c8c2a2135d8

Is it the term for something that never happened, something that always happened

Or both depending on context

Like "semper invicta" means something that was never defeated in combat or a fortress that never felt to the enemy

But when I say "semper tyrannis"

It apparently means "alwais against tyrants" ( at least according to google) can I have more example or a explanation(yes I learned my awfully basic latim manly trough mottos and oaths in games and other fictions being repeatedly screamed dogmalitilic at me sorry if that offended you all)

I've heard this claim repeatedly that pre-Carolingian Latin wasn't simply read out loud by "applying sound changes of the local dialect to the text", but by also changing the wording in several contexts. For example they supposedly substituted complete prepositional phrases for nominals when the case they were in had died out from the vernacular language. So the word {casarum} could've been read out loud as "de cásas" or even as "de įllas cásas" instead of simply as "casáro".

Is there any concrete evidence for such practices?

Salvete omnes! I was wondering if anyone had good recs of where to find texts/resources to learn Latin as a kind-of beginner? I took two semesters of Latin last year in uni (I am now entering 2nd year but can't fit the other Latin classes into my schedule 😭) and found it really interesting, but I feel like I didn't retain anything from it due to some health issues causing absences and a prof who didn't really teach us the language either (she was more interested in showing the culture of the Romans rather then the actual language)

I feel like it would be good to keep learning because I definitely want to enter grad school at some point, and the job I want does have offerings for Latin teachings, but I feel like I dont really know where to start anymore. I have a copy of "Learn Latin from the Romans" by Eleanor Dickey for those two semesters, would it make sense to just start from there and see what I can do?

Any help/advice/anything would be appreciated, and thank you very much :))

I've been studying Latin one way or another for the past fifteen years or so and have gotten to a pretty high degree of reading proficiency, such that I can crack open most things and comfortably tackle it without needing to look up much (obviously I have my weak spots and genres I'm less accustomed to, so this is not meant to be taken as an absolute indicator of skill. I'm just trying to convey an overall impression).

I've even attended and started up conversation groups both in my local area and as much as possible whenever I'm abroad. When it comes to speaking, I would say I'm decent, but certainly not anywhere close to what you can marvel at on YouTube.

Some time in the last year or so, however, I've had this strange indifference to cracking open anything Latin. It had always been my goal to become a good composer of Latin prose, but lately I find myself completely satisfied with my reading ability.

And any time I try to read anything in Latin for pleasure, I find I can't really hold my attention on it for more than a page or two before putting it away and turning to something else altogether.

Have any other long-time students of Latin found the verve for the language fading?

I should say this is rather unique for me. I've had times where I look at Latin less frequently, and these will usually last for a month at most before I find something else to pull me in.

But it occurred to me today that I haven't looked at anything in Latin for weeks now, maybe even a few months, beyond some of the plaques I've read while travelling on holiday or in museums.

PS I'm sure the flair is incorrect, but I didn't catch anything exactly relevant.

howdy, Latin Reddit. I was homeschooled and learned some Latin as a kid alongside our classical, literature-heavy curriculum, but I never really embraced my language studies and my retention is *very* limited. I’d like to start fresh as an adult and prepare to (hopefully) assist my future children in learning the language as one of the pillars of their education.

Any advice on the best approach? I‘m envisioning starting with a natural method resource and then movIng into more precise “textbook-grammar” resources.

if I go that route, best to start with LLPSI or Most’s NM? Both?

Appreciate any advice to get me rolling!

Gratias tibi ago pro munere.

Gratias tibi ago quod munus mihi dedisti.

Is "quod" the correct conjunction in the second sentence, if I want to thank someone for an action expressed by a verb? And is "dedisti" in the right mood, or should it be subjunctive? Cicero has "Tibi ago gratias quod me omni molestia liberas." Is this the only construction, or are there others?

I want to start with saying that I am not a language purist at all, I don't think how "pure" a language is in words or vocabulary matters or that there even is a true concept of a language being pure, I don't mind any of the Latin influence on English either, (except maybe island and scythe being misspelt due to false etymological beliefs, no, that's just a joke), so with that being said, what I actually have an issue with is social perception of language, rather than words.

I feel like the roots of English are often understated and at times even undermined to give way to Latin. That at times it seems as though people want English to be more associated with Latin than it is, at expense of it not being a romance language becoming almost, slightly obscure, or merely a technicality.

I want to learn Latin, but at the same time I find it a bit hurtful that there is this somewhat common perception that English owes almost everything to Latin. That its own native roots (which are obviously Germanic, but I'd rather not emphasize), just consists of little more than filler words and without Latin, English would be nothing, as all the important words are from Latin, and thus also it has no history of its own as its native roots are just discarded socially. To most lay people, it seems like Latin is more relevant to the history of English than Old English itself. There's always people mentioning what a great help Latin is to learning how English works, they never say that about Old English.

I don't know how to handle this and lost my enjoyment for language learning.

I recently decided that I wanted to learn Latin by myself. The problem is that I couldn't find a good study plan and a good tect book to do it.

Can anyone please tell me the correct order of the arguments to study in order to achieve a good comprehension of latin?

I'm reading a 9th-century Breton charter (in the Cartulary of Redon) and I'm puzzled by the meaning of Franci.

The charter comes from a Breton-speaking area, close to the Romance frontier. Several people are designated as Franci, yet most of them bear unmistakably Breton names (Hobrit, Uuruual, Antruual, Omni, Gurgost, Junuuocon, Tutuuallon, Iarnuuant) and seem to be local landholders or notable members of the community.

My first instinct was to read Franci as "Franks" in the ethnic sense, but the onomastics make me hesitate.

In Carolingian and 9th-century charter Latin, could Franci already function primarily as a legal or social designation (i.e. "free men", or people subject to Frankish law) rather than an ethnic one? Or would an ethnic interpretation still be the default?

The charter :

> Noticia in quorum presentia qui subtertenentur quomodo venerunt monachi, Conuuoion abbas et Cumdelu prepositus, in mallo publico ante missum Nominoe, nomine Dreuuallon, interpellantes Fetmer propter campum illorum nomine Camdonpont, quem habebat raptum et malo ordine exaratum atque feminatum (sic); et venerunt in ratione, et non dedit Fetmer fidejussores testificantis (sic) omnibus quod inique et mendaciter egisset Fitmer rapere ipsam terram; et testificaverunt .XIII. Franci, hi sunt: Hobrit, Uuruual, Burg, Antruual, Omni, Gurgost, Junuuocon, Tutuuallon, Roenhebet, Fitbert, Iarnuuant, Risbert, quod plus esset et supradicta terra ex tigranno Acum, in Lancon, quam ad couuenran Fitmer; atque juraverunt in altare sancti PETRI quod sic esset verum, et judicaverunt scavini quod igni erant supradicti viri ad testificandum et ad jurandum; hii sunt scabini: Branoc, Tiarnan, Arthuiu, Catlouuen, Uuorocar, Benedic, Uuathin.