The Roman way of thinking out a thought is just very different from the Gothic. English uses a lot of empty spaces, filling voids with inference and relying on the sturdiness of each word. Latin would find those words cumbersome and instead makes everything explicit in tight, versatile words that give a more continuous flow.
Going back in time I might translate
DEBELLOGALLICO
as
Of The War With Gauls Made.
Maybe PO means materialization, and PI is really a conjugation of the same root. So that POPVLVS refers to materalization. I don’t want to make definitive statements about PV but it could look something like this:
PO materialization
PV material that occupies
LVS Those who are of
Looking now at TEMPO which can only mean materialized time, or time over a material reality.
QVIEOTEMPOREPRINCIPATVMINCIVITATEOBTINEBAT
This is a really nice example of Roman grammar. Not which in that time, but which that temporal civic principality obtained.
Easily you could just write TEMPOREPRINCIPATVMCIVITATE as a single word if you were doing the word separation game.
I won’t be able to have it like that in my candidate translation though because I give higher priority to not using the same Latin word used in the original for pedagogical reasons. We are asking how English would say it, not how English would copy it.
Still, if my first priority was preserving the grammar (which nonetheless is a pretty high priority), I might give it like that.
TEMPOREPRINCIPATVMCIVITATE
Look that motherfucker up in the dictionary.
Oh shit I overlooked the IN didn’t I.
So fine, so it wouldn’t be temporal civic principality, but that temporal principality in civility (civility the entity, not the attribute).
PRIN
CI
PA
TVM
CI is work, but without a worker. That is, something coming to be. Incipient. Coming first, you know, materially. CIPA is the working into materiallization. FI is done but CI is worked. FER v CER. Make vs work.
First comes into materiallization.
Interesting to consider in light of Newton’s PRINCIPIA. PA is maniufest, patent. Standing, which = materializing. We don’t know or care how he came to be there, we know he is there, by virtue of being material. To refer to the material already implies name, representation.
That which stands. 2020202020
So if PA is materially manifesting…
What is MA?
Material, mother, maximum.
As for AC, I believe AC to be ascending and OC to be descending.
I’m trying to put off the inevitable conclusion that what is conjugated is the letter, and not the syllable.
I shouldn’t say conjugated. Modified.
It just doesn’t hold as consistently. But every time I look under the hood of a syllable I find kindred syllables on the same letter.
It would explain H, H is a letter for vowels.
The main impediment to this theory is IV, which is clearly a root. Ah, but is V a vowel? The weeds.
It’s ascending (and descending), but also towards. There is an approaching, similar to PER.
Is it as stupidly simple and new agey bullshit as pa is active and ma is passivE? Both refering to matter? I mean the word for matter is MA TER I A. Mother is MA TER.
I have a feeling MA is going to be a problem for a long time.
Meanwhile we have shit to translate. We’ll just steamroll through.
Please consider whether a post that reads only, “Hm.” adds anything to this thread.
1 Like