Talk:Linquo coax ranis
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Mortis Ergo
[edit ]- Ad logicam pergo que mortis non timet ergo.
- I now go to the logic that does not fear the works of death
Man, that's some tricky Latin. Of course timeo can take the dative (I confess I had never noticed that myself), so ergo could certainly be the Greek ergon. But is it possible it's also punning on the ergo of Logic? I.e. "the 'Therefore' of Death"? --Iustinus 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yes, that's quite possible. I don't have any other opinions to draw on (or even a dictionary at hand), and was just having a stab at it. I think you are probably right. The reason, of course, for our difficulty as mere 21st century fellows is that he had to give internal rhyme to his hexameters, at the price of some obscurity ... And rew D alby 10:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yeah, I had a feeling you were doing this on your own. And yes, I noticed the combination of hexameters and internal rhyme. It's rather impressive, actually. --Iustinus 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
- You are right, Justin, or at least you have a good scholar on your side. See William D. Paden, Jr., "De monachis rithmos facientibus: Hélinant de Froidmont, Bertran de Born, and the Cistercian General Chapter of 1199" in Speculum vol. 55 (1980) pp. 669-685 at p. 670. His translation matches yours, even to the quotes. And rew D alby 15:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- I certainly am a genius when it comes to 6-years-gone conversations which I can scarcely remember ;) --Iustinus (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- You are right, Justin, or at least you have a good scholar on your side. See William D. Paden, Jr., "De monachis rithmos facientibus: Hélinant de Froidmont, Bertran de Born, and the Cistercian General Chapter of 1199" in Speculum vol. 55 (1980) pp. 669-685 at p. 670. His translation matches yours, even to the quotes. And rew D alby 15:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yeah, I had a feeling you were doing this on your own. And yes, I noticed the combination of hexameters and internal rhyme. It's rather impressive, actually. --Iustinus 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC) [reply ]