CONLOQVIVM

cmw

00:14

@Adam If you look closely at the title page, you'll see below "Harper..." it says "Oxford at the Clarendon Press." Harper and Brothers was the American publisher, while Oxford was the British counterpart.

It was published simultaneously by both houses, I believe.

Adam

00:26

@cmw Ahh, didn't look that closely. The condition isn't really practical for frequent use, but might be interesting to someone for collecting because of the age.

cmw

Pretty rough shape for $100.

I haven't bought an antique book in years, so I don't know if that's worth it.

But I've spent less on older back in the day.

Adam

We have plenty of old books, but they were all bought in thrift stores and the like and were super cheap.

cmw

Same: thrift stores and especially small used book stores.

It's been more difficult in NY to find that, though.

Adam

One of them on my desk is actually Latin for Beginners by D'ooge. I think it's first edition?

cmw

Nice.

My pride and joy is a Latin-Greek dictionary published in the 1750s/1760s. Don't have it on me, so I can't check the exact date.

It's this one, but an earlier printing: google.com/books/edition/…

Adam

00:35

That is wild.

It's also wild whenever I watch some random BBC documentary and they're touching these 500 year old books with bare hands

assuming it's the actual book, anyway

cmw

@Adam For my epigraphy class in college, I had access to Columbia's rare books room. Nah, you really do need gloves for that stuff! It might have been a prop, but if not, that's not good at all. The hand's oils can discolor the pages.

Although, a brief touch here or there won't hurt, so maybe they just don't get that many people in documentaries touching them to make a difference.

Adam

I could also see them scrubbing their fingers with alcohol 10 seconds before the camera rolls.

biblio.com/book/…

This one seems in better condition for the same price

cmw

01:01

The binding on that one is loose.

Hard to tell.

Adam

Only one photo makes it hard to tell

cmw

right

Adam

01:32

Seems like it's about twice the price for what appear to be better copies

Well, and higher, but that's way out of what I'd want to spend.

Cerberus

04:42

@cmw Yeah, so I would say it depends on how rare the book is.

Books from four centuries ago are often not rare.

I have some that cost maybe €40 apiece.

It took me some time to find both volumes of a certain edition of DRN.

But I touch them whenever it pleases me!

I find that, sometimes, musaea and libraries are a bit too careful.

Adam

@Cerberus I ended up buying that 60s copy of L&S. I passed on the 19th century one; it was just too beat up to be worth the money. I want to be able to actually read and use it

Cerberus

05:33

@Adam Well done!

I actually only have a PDF copy of L&S.

And I think one in a common dictionary format, which can be used with Golden Dictionary etc.

Canned Man

13:44

Would anyone care to (and have the time to) provide some assistance to a beginner in Homeric Greek?

I am trying to translate the following:
θεαὶ θαλάσσης εἰσὶ φίλαι ψῡχῇς πολλῇς, φίλαι γάρ εἰσιν.
I think a correct translation is:
The goddesses of the sea are dear to many souls, for they are loved.
What has me stumped, is the repeated _phílai_. I take it to be a simple predicate adjective the first time, and the repeated as a predicate participle the second time. Am I completely off here? I feel as though there is something I am misunderstanding here.

Of course, if you believe this should rather be asked as a question, I am very happy to do that.

Canned Man

14:17

And there is one more thing that has me pondering:
τίς οὐκ ἔχει κᾱλὴν ψῡχήν;
How can we know what this question actually is about? As I understand it, the interrogative pronoun can mean both who, which and what, and the verb can mean both has and holds. There seems to me to be multiple meanings to this question then. At surface level, it is simply ‘Who has a good soul?’, but probing deeper, it could be ‘What has a good soul?’ or ‘What holds a good soul?’, both questions that seem to probe at some deeper philosophical problem. Is there any way to understand from a simple phrasing such as thi…

Adam

15:22

@Cerberus Thanks! If there's any spine damage then my wife will be able to patch it up some. She's fixed some books before carefully using bookbinding glue.

I might ask for the OLD later this year as a birthday or xmas gift (which means I'm just using that as the excuse to buy it for myself).

Cerberus

15:36

@CannedMan Tis is m/v, m by default, so it cannot mean "what".

There being no accompanying noun substantive, I think it should simply be translated as "who"?

Is there a reason why you didn't translate "ouk"?

Is it some special, particle-like use?

I would simply read it as a standard rhetorical question: "who doesn't have a good/beautiful soul?". Answer: of course everyone does.

But I have no idea what the context is.

@CannedMan Hmm where did you find this? It doesn't look Homeric?

It's hard to say without context what the purpose of the second philai is.

The first one could indicate something slightly specific, they are dear to many souls, the second a very general aspect of their nature, for they are friendly/loving?

cmw

18:35

@Adam You're a single point away from that 6k mark!

@CannedMan I'll second Cerberus' question: where did you find that? It doesn't look like a good composition to me.

Kind of reminds me of a classroom example.

Adam

@cmw so close!

Adam

20:03

How would you gents read this: Speculum Praeteritorum / Posterus Praesentis.

cmw

20:20

Mirror of the departed / the future person of a present person

Not sure what you're saying with the second phrase.

Adam

@cmw Interesting! I was going for Mirror of the past / Future of the present.

cmw

You probably want to make them into abstract nouns rather (e.g. praesentia) than substantives.

Heading home, be back later.

Adam

@cmw Ahh! Here is our friend Cicero using praesentia to talk about the present.

Vale!

Adam

21:15

Updated for slightly different meaning: Speculum Saeculi Praeteriti / Visum Saeculi Futuri

Cerberus

22:24

@cmw Hmm but wouldn't mirror of the past also be a valid translation?

> Subst.: prae-tĕrĭta, ōrum, n., things gone by, the past: "sevocatus animus a contagione corporis meminit praeteritorum, praesentia cernit, futura praevidet", Cic. Div. 1, 30, 63; id. Fat. 7, 14: "monet ut in reliquum tempus omnes suspiciones vitet: praeterita se fratri condonare dicit", Caes. B. G. 1, 20: "invidiam praeteritorum contemptu praesentium demere", Just. 21, 5, 10.—

Prov.: "praeterita mutare non possumus", Cic. Pis. 25, 59 init. —

cmw

@Cerberus That wouldn't necessarily be the natural reading when juxtaposed with praesentis.

Cerberus

Right, the neuter singular, [temporis] praesentis, probably makes little sense outside of grammar?

cmw

But then to keep the parallel you would likely want temporis praeteritum.

Caesar's inconcinnitas is acceptable because they're two separate clauses.

Cerberus

I'm not sure I understand that, but I agree with you and Adam that praesentia seems like a better noun.

So praesentia is usually neuter plural, but occasionally feminine singular?

Adam

So Posterus Praesentiae?

Cerberus

22:32

Posterus is masculine?

You could use posteritas?

Although I don't know what "future of the present" means...

Adam

@Cerberus That might be better since it's less ambiguous, or at least it seems like that from the definitions.

cmw

@Cerberus If it's the participle, it's neuter plural; if it's the abstract noun, it's feminine first declension.

Adam

@Cerberus Honestly? Not that much; it just sounded good in relation to the first half.

Cerberus

@cmw Yeah, and so both are used.

With a similar meaning.

But the neuter plural is probably much more common.

@Adam Haha OK.

You wish to give your readers food for thought.

Adam

@Cerberus Very much so, especially since there are no lyrics. The title and the music is all someone has to develop an idea.

cmw

22:37

@Cerberus I don't know the stats on it, but praesentiae is used ten times and praesentiam is used 36 times, so it's a healthy amount.

Cerberus

Ah, I see.

@cmw Oh, that is more than I thought.

I wonder whether the latter usually means "presence" or "present".

cmw

@Cerberus Oh, you know what, I think you're right on that!

Praesentium it is, then.

Cerberus

Although the two are fairly close in meaning; all you need is a little bit of metonymy.

@cmw Praesentium, right?

cmw

Typo.

Cerberus

I figured.

> in phrase in praesentia (sc. tempora), for the present, at this time, under present circumstances: "hoc video in praesentia opus esse", Cic. Att. 15, 20, 4: "providere quid oneris in praesentia tollant", id. Verr. 2, 3, 1, 1: "quae in praesentia in mentem mihi venerunt", id. Fam. 4, 5, 1; id. Fin. 5, 8, 21; Liv. 31, 22, 8; 33, 27, 10; 33, 28, 6; Tac. Agr. 31; 39; Suet. Tib. 22; id. Claud. 4; Ter. Phorm. 5, 2, 14; Plin. 12, 3, 7, 14.—

Very rarely in praesentia, at hand, on hand, on the spot: "id quod in praesentia vestimentorum fuit, arripuit", Nep. Alcib. 10, 5; cf.: in re praesenti, inf…

I wonder whether these in praesentia's are all truly accusatives.

Esse in + acc.: is that common in general?

I see many in re praesenti's, and all the in rem praesentem's seem to be with verbs of movement, like venire.

So shouldn't those esse in praesentia's also be ablatives?

cmw

22:53

@Cerberus I think that's how I always understood it, but maybe it's a short A in poetry.

Cerberus

@cmw Ah, OK.

So L&S suggest it's neuter plural, but I wonder why.

cmw

@Cerberus Worth an investigation.

Cerberus

Indeed!

> {Ge.} argentum inventumst Phaedriae; de iurgio siletur;
provisumst ne in praesentia haec hinc abeat: quid nunc porro?

Ack, the -a is elided anyway.

Or so I praesume; I'm not up to date on comedic metre...

The other quotations in L&S seem to be prosaic.

cmw

23:22

@Cerberus That's very weak evidence that it's a long A.

If it were short, you'd have long-long short-short, which fits nicely in dactylic hexameters.

But long-long-short-long is impossible, so it would always have to elide.

Cerberus

23:42

@cmw But ehh is this a dactylic hexameter?

cmw

@Cerberus No, no, I mean the fact that it's never found in dactylic hexameter is (albeit very) weak evidence of it not having a short vowel at the end.

Cerberus

Ahh OK.

Makes sense.

cmw

Of course, there might be much better evidence that suggests it is neuter plural.

As my old professor used to say, "Needs more study!"

Cerberus

Naturally!

As it is written in every conclusion of every academic article...

cmw

@Cerberus Absolutely. I'm pretty sure there's a law about it. :P

Transcript for