danae
Sellaband addict in waiting
Posts: 6
|
Post by danae on Sept 29, 2007 20:08:30 GMT
Fair enough. But I admire the artists who go out there and perform live, and don't sit in their bedrooms clicking buttons all day and part of the night. It's a pity that sellaband can't distinguish between the serious and the amateur musicians.
OK. I appreciated your use of the subjunctive when making a generalising/hypothetical statement, but it still isn't grammatically correct, even with the different nuance from Shakespeare's. Certainly I wasn't thrown by the only one verb, as that's regular in Latin, where it has to be understood a second time.
However, 'furor' is in the nominative, which is impossible, since 'Tartarus' is subject of the verb. Therefore at the very least it needs to be 'tantum furorem'. However to render your statement, I think a partitive genitive after an expression of quantity (neuter accusative), 'tantum', would be elegant, (hence 'furoris' below) and isn't 'tantum...quantum' the usual way of expressing 'as great as...'? 'Contemptionem' in the accusative is surely wrong as it is the subject of 'habeat' too. By using 'tantum... quantum', you are also getting 'furoris' understood a second time. The use of 'tantum..ut' is much weaker for this very strong statement.
I reckon an elegant and grammatical rendering is 'Tartarus non tantum furoris quantum contemptio mulieris habeat.'
|
|
danae
Sellaband addict in waiting
Posts: 6
|
Post by danae on Sept 30, 2007 8:40:19 GMT
Having slept on it, I reckon the word order can be improved to 'Tartarus tantum furoris non habeat quantum mulieris contemptio.'
|
|
|
Post by Lucretia on Oct 2, 2007 16:31:17 GMT
Have to admit I never thought of going the tantum quantum route (note my translation is over 20 years old, so I can't actually remember whether we'd have done tantum quantum at the time) because it is an equal construction, rather than just a possibility. Compare the English "He has as many virtues of his mother as he has sins of his father" - that's a tantum quantum construction in Latin. (Then again I never thought this thread would turn into a discussion of the finer points of Latin grammar with someone who has obviously done quite a bit as well.) Rather I'm following Cicero - compare something like "non fuit tantus homo Sex. Roscius in civitate ut de eo potissimum conqueramur" - tantus homo Sex. Roscius all agreeing, likewise Tartarus non tantus furor to show that hell and fury go together, though I have to admit I did wonder whether to head into the genitive which is obviously a more traditional route. You make the assumption the statement is a strong one though, whereas I prefer subtlety and would rather leave people guessing about how serious they ought to take what I said - remember I said originally this is about possibility, not a definite statement of fact. The essence I am trying to get over in the translation is, "I might get angry and I might not - do you want to find out?" rather than "I am definitely going to get angry so you might as well clear the room now". In both cases we know you don't want to be anywhere near me when I get angry, the difference is in the probability I'm going to get angry in the first place. Since tantus conveys only the idea of relative greatness, it may be used with a following ut to denote a degree, extent, etc. and hence I believe gets over the feeling I want better than the more forceful, equal (and definite) tantum quantum. I can see where your thought about scorn needing to be nominative comes from, but in the ut clause the sentence is left hanging if we use the nominative. We can understand the verb can be used with both halves, but in this case we would also be expecting some (new) object (an accusative) in the sentence after the ut or we think the sentence is unfinished.(expecting "Hell may not have as much fury as a woman's scorn has <something>" with the nominative) Essentially we would need to repeat the fury if we turn scorn to nominative e.g. Tartarus non tantus furor ut contemptio mulieris furorem habeat" because I can't see how you would get the fury understood in both halves of this construction otherwise. Now I wish I could remember back 20 years or so for an example of where my Latin teacher said it was OK to pull that "unnecessary" repeat of the noun out providing you turned your nominative into an accusative so people weren't left scratching their heads about where the object of the sentence had got to. Might have to get out my Lewis and Short and have a hunt for that.
|
|
danae
Sellaband addict in waiting
Posts: 6
|
Post by danae on Oct 7, 2007 18:35:08 GMT
Still think it should be 'Tartarus non tantum furorem ut contemptio mulieris habeat', Lucretia. Can't see it's grammatical otherwise. (ie Tartarus is nominative, subject of 'habeat' understood + tantum furorem in the accusative, object of 'habeat' understood. 'contemptio' is also nominative for the same reason. The sentence is not left hanging, for the 'tantum furorem' is understood again. To me that perfectly replicates what you are after. I'm not sure Lewis and Short will help.
|
|
sergio
Sellaband addict in waiting
Posts: 11
|
Post by sergio on Nov 21, 2007 20:57:35 GMT
Pfff...I wanted to write "I am here!!" but you are talking about Latin syntax...I'd say it in Latin but after your technical discussion before I would be ashamed of writing something wrong. I find a solution in Italian, in the end it is a neolatin language. So So "Ci sono io!" ;D
|
|
yesshead
Somewhat Sellaband addicted
A Garlic a day keeps the Vampires away.
Posts: 206
|
Post by yesshead on Nov 22, 2007 10:08:10 GMT
Hmmm, if we're talking in different languages then I will go for Dutch Nobody will understand it, and it is super easy for me "Ik ben hier" Or should I try in French??? "Je suis ici" (is that correct?? My french isn't as good as it was in High school) With this pile of nonsense I'm just trying to say that I'm still here (when I've got the time) Greets
|
|