Translation of the latin word 'sit' in Thomas Aquinas' worksMemento quod <subjunctive>When did the word “ly” enter the Latin language and where did it come from?Translation of the Latin lyrics in Avenged Sevenfold's “Requiem”?Translation of a passage related to the crusadesAugustine, De Civitate Dei, Book XVII, Ch. XVIIs my Latin translation wrong, or is the original wrong?English translation of Erasmus's “Qui sit modus repetendae lectionis”Is this translation of a note in a map correct?What's the translation of this Medieval document?Was the name “Sasan/Sassan” often spelled with a double S in Latin or Greek?Translation needed for 130 years old church document
Improving Sati-Sampajañña (situative wisdom)
If a character drops a magic item that turns on/off, does that item turn off when they drop it?
How to handle DM constantly stealing everything from sleeping characters?
Why did they go to Dragonstone?
A Cunning Riley Riddle
Was the Highlands Ranch shooting the 115th mass shooting in the US in 2019
Further factorisation of a difference of cubes?
Succinct and gender-neutral Russian word for "writer"
Is it nonsense to say B -> [A -> B]?
Thesis' "Future Work" section – is it acceptable to omit personal involvement in a mentioned project?
Is this state of Earth possible, after humans left for a million years?
How to slow yourself down (for playing nice with others)
cropping a message using array splits
Best species to breed to intelligence
Names of the Six Tastes
What is wrong with my code? RGB potentiometer
Detect the first rising edge of 3 input signals
Has there been evidence of any other gods?
Why was wildfire not used during the Battle of Winterfell?
What's the difference between const array and static const array in C/C++
Extending Kan fibrations, without using minimal fibrations
My perfect evil overlord plan... or is it?
Windows OS quantum vs. SQL OS Quantum
What does this quote in Small Gods refer to?
Translation of the latin word 'sit' in Thomas Aquinas' works
Memento quod <subjunctive>When did the word “ly” enter the Latin language and where did it come from?Translation of the Latin lyrics in Avenged Sevenfold's “Requiem”?Translation of a passage related to the crusadesAugustine, De Civitate Dei, Book XVII, Ch. XVIIs my Latin translation wrong, or is the original wrong?English translation of Erasmus's “Qui sit modus repetendae lectionis”Is this translation of a note in a map correct?What's the translation of this Medieval document?Was the name “Sasan/Sassan” often spelled with a double S in Latin or Greek?Translation needed for 130 years old church document
Modern translations of medieval texts frequently translate the Latin verb 'sit' as he/she/it is. However, 'sit' is the subjunctive mood of the verb 'sum'.
In my view it should be translated as he/she/it be as in:
"Videtur quod pater non sit in filio ..." which is frequently translated as "It seems the father is not in the son." Instead I prefer "It seems the father be not in the son."
Comments please.
latin-to-english-translation medieval-latin
asked 9 hours ago
GeneGene
211
New contributor
Gene is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Modern translations of medieval texts frequently translate the Latin verb 'sit' as he/she/it is. However, 'sit' is the subjunctive mood of the verb 'sum'.
In my view it should be translated as he/she/it be as in:
"Videtur quod pater non sit in filio ..." which is frequently translated as "It seems the father is not in the son." Instead I prefer "It seems the father be not in the son."
Comments please.
latin-to-english-translation medieval-latin
asked 9 hours ago
GeneGene
211
New contributor
Gene is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
you are correct that "sit" is subjunctive and that the present subjunctive of be is "be". However, just because Latin uses subjunctive in a given case doesn't mean that an English translation will. They are conceptually similar ideas (some degree of uncertainty/unreality) but not identical.
– eques
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Modern translations of medieval texts frequently translate the Latin verb 'sit' as he/she/it is. However, 'sit' is the subjunctive mood of the verb 'sum'.
In my view it should be translated as he/she/it be as in:
"Videtur quod pater non sit in filio ..." which is frequently translated as "It seems the father is not in the son." Instead I prefer "It seems the father be not in the son."
Comments please.
latin-to-english-translation medieval-latin
asked 9 hours ago
GeneGene
211
New contributor
Gene is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Modern translations of medieval texts frequently translate the Latin verb 'sit' as he/she/it is. However, 'sit' is the subjunctive mood of the verb 'sum'.
In my view it should be translated as he/she/it be as in:
"Videtur quod pater non sit in filio ..." which is frequently translated as "It seems the father is not in the son." Instead I prefer "It seems the father be not in the son."
Comments please.
latin-to-english-translation medieval-latin
latin-to-english-translation medieval-latin
asked 9 hours ago
GeneGene
211
New contributor
Gene is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
GeneGene
211
New contributor
Gene is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
GeneGene
211
New contributor
Gene is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
GeneGene
211
asked 9 hours ago
GeneGene
211
211
New contributor
Gene is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Gene is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
you are correct that "sit" is subjunctive and that the present subjunctive of be is "be". However, just because Latin uses subjunctive in a given case doesn't mean that an English translation will. They are conceptually similar ideas (some degree of uncertainty/unreality) but not identical.
– eques
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1
you are correct that "sit" is subjunctive and that the present subjunctive of be is "be". However, just because Latin uses subjunctive in a given case doesn't mean that an English translation will. They are conceptually similar ideas (some degree of uncertainty/unreality) but not identical.
– eques
7 hours ago
1
1
you are correct that "sit" is subjunctive and that the present subjunctive of be is "be". However, just because Latin uses subjunctive in a given case doesn't mean that an English translation will. They are conceptually similar ideas (some degree of uncertainty/unreality) but not identical.
– eques
7 hours ago
you are correct that "sit" is subjunctive and that the present subjunctive of be is "be". However, just because Latin uses subjunctive in a given case doesn't mean that an English translation will. They are conceptually similar ideas (some degree of uncertainty/unreality) but not identical.
– eques
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The trick is the context.
In this case, you have a subordinate clause with videtur "it seems" and quod "that". This is mostly a mediaeval-Latin construction; in Classical prose I would expect ut or an accusative-plus-infinitive instead.
But in mediaeval Latin, videtur quod generally takes the subjunctive. See this answer by brianpck (and the question itself) for some further analysis. In particular:
The moment we depart from such words and move on to verbs like cogito and (especially in medieval Latin!) videtur, the subjunctive predominates.
On a philosophical level, you could say that the subjunctive is because "it seems" to be a certain way, it isn't necessarily fact. But linguistically, it's easiest just to say "this is a construction that puts its verb in the subjunctive".
In English, on the other hand, the subjunctive is nearly extinct and very rarely used. The English impersonal "seems" always takes an indicative: "it seems like he wasn't here", not *"it seems like he weren't here" or *"it seems like he be not here".
So in this case, I would say "it seems that the Father is not in the Son" without reservation. A phrasing like *"the Father be not in the Son" just sounds somewhere between archaic and ungrammatical to my Modern English ear.
answered 9 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.1k22881
Thank you, I had used the "modern" versions but wanted to be truer to the original, even though it "sounds as you correctly say, somewhat ungrammatical." My quandary also comes from the manner in which the verb to be "esse" and there for 'est', is used. It seems to be that these Scholastic authors employed 'sit' to differentiate from 'est'.
– Gene
8 hours ago
1
@Gene Being true to the original is a good goal, but the grammar of the target language also has to be taken into account. Modern readers won't necessarily understand that *"the Father be not" means the Latin verb in question took the subjunctive, while "the Father is not" means the Latin verb in question took the indicative: it's just a distinction that's not really important in English. If the subjunctive/indicative distinction does become important in the translation, like in a conditional or a main clause, modals like "might" or "should" will get the idea across more clearly…
– Draconis
8 hours ago
1
…than archaic grammar will.
– Draconis
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Gene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10711%2ftranslation-of-the-latin-word-sit-in-thomas-aquinas-works%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The trick is the context.
In this case, you have a subordinate clause with videtur "it seems" and quod "that". This is mostly a mediaeval-Latin construction; in Classical prose I would expect ut or an accusative-plus-infinitive instead.
But in mediaeval Latin, videtur quod generally takes the subjunctive. See this answer by brianpck (and the question itself) for some further analysis. In particular:
The moment we depart from such words and move on to verbs like cogito and (especially in medieval Latin!) videtur, the subjunctive predominates.
On a philosophical level, you could say that the subjunctive is because "it seems" to be a certain way, it isn't necessarily fact. But linguistically, it's easiest just to say "this is a construction that puts its verb in the subjunctive".
In English, on the other hand, the subjunctive is nearly extinct and very rarely used. The English impersonal "seems" always takes an indicative: "it seems like he wasn't here", not *"it seems like he weren't here" or *"it seems like he be not here".
So in this case, I would say "it seems that the Father is not in the Son" without reservation. A phrasing like *"the Father be not in the Son" just sounds somewhere between archaic and ungrammatical to my Modern English ear.
answered 9 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.1k22881
Thank you, I had used the "modern" versions but wanted to be truer to the original, even though it "sounds as you correctly say, somewhat ungrammatical." My quandary also comes from the manner in which the verb to be "esse" and there for 'est', is used. It seems to be that these Scholastic authors employed 'sit' to differentiate from 'est'.
– Gene
8 hours ago
1
@Gene Being true to the original is a good goal, but the grammar of the target language also has to be taken into account. Modern readers won't necessarily understand that *"the Father be not" means the Latin verb in question took the subjunctive, while "the Father is not" means the Latin verb in question took the indicative: it's just a distinction that's not really important in English. If the subjunctive/indicative distinction does become important in the translation, like in a conditional or a main clause, modals like "might" or "should" will get the idea across more clearly…
– Draconis
8 hours ago
1
…than archaic grammar will.
– Draconis
8 hours ago
add a comment |
The trick is the context.
In this case, you have a subordinate clause with videtur "it seems" and quod "that". This is mostly a mediaeval-Latin construction; in Classical prose I would expect ut or an accusative-plus-infinitive instead.
But in mediaeval Latin, videtur quod generally takes the subjunctive. See this answer by brianpck (and the question itself) for some further analysis. In particular:
The moment we depart from such words and move on to verbs like cogito and (especially in medieval Latin!) videtur, the subjunctive predominates.
On a philosophical level, you could say that the subjunctive is because "it seems" to be a certain way, it isn't necessarily fact. But linguistically, it's easiest just to say "this is a construction that puts its verb in the subjunctive".
In English, on the other hand, the subjunctive is nearly extinct and very rarely used. The English impersonal "seems" always takes an indicative: "it seems like he wasn't here", not *"it seems like he weren't here" or *"it seems like he be not here".
So in this case, I would say "it seems that the Father is not in the Son" without reservation. A phrasing like *"the Father be not in the Son" just sounds somewhere between archaic and ungrammatical to my Modern English ear.
answered 9 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.1k22881
Thank you, I had used the "modern" versions but wanted to be truer to the original, even though it "sounds as you correctly say, somewhat ungrammatical." My quandary also comes from the manner in which the verb to be "esse" and there for 'est', is used. It seems to be that these Scholastic authors employed 'sit' to differentiate from 'est'.
– Gene
8 hours ago
1
@Gene Being true to the original is a good goal, but the grammar of the target language also has to be taken into account. Modern readers won't necessarily understand that *"the Father be not" means the Latin verb in question took the subjunctive, while "the Father is not" means the Latin verb in question took the indicative: it's just a distinction that's not really important in English. If the subjunctive/indicative distinction does become important in the translation, like in a conditional or a main clause, modals like "might" or "should" will get the idea across more clearly…
– Draconis
8 hours ago
1
…than archaic grammar will.
– Draconis
8 hours ago
add a comment |
The trick is the context.
In this case, you have a subordinate clause with videtur "it seems" and quod "that". This is mostly a mediaeval-Latin construction; in Classical prose I would expect ut or an accusative-plus-infinitive instead.
But in mediaeval Latin, videtur quod generally takes the subjunctive. See this answer by brianpck (and the question itself) for some further analysis. In particular:
The moment we depart from such words and move on to verbs like cogito and (especially in medieval Latin!) videtur, the subjunctive predominates.
On a philosophical level, you could say that the subjunctive is because "it seems" to be a certain way, it isn't necessarily fact. But linguistically, it's easiest just to say "this is a construction that puts its verb in the subjunctive".
In English, on the other hand, the subjunctive is nearly extinct and very rarely used. The English impersonal "seems" always takes an indicative: "it seems like he wasn't here", not *"it seems like he weren't here" or *"it seems like he be not here".
So in this case, I would say "it seems that the Father is not in the Son" without reservation. A phrasing like *"the Father be not in the Son" just sounds somewhere between archaic and ungrammatical to my Modern English ear.
answered 9 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.1k22881
The trick is the context.
In this case, you have a subordinate clause with videtur "it seems" and quod "that". This is mostly a mediaeval-Latin construction; in Classical prose I would expect ut or an accusative-plus-infinitive instead.
But in mediaeval Latin, videtur quod generally takes the subjunctive. See this answer by brianpck (and the question itself) for some further analysis. In particular:
The moment we depart from such words and move on to verbs like cogito and (especially in medieval Latin!) videtur, the subjunctive predominates.
On a philosophical level, you could say that the subjunctive is because "it seems" to be a certain way, it isn't necessarily fact. But linguistically, it's easiest just to say "this is a construction that puts its verb in the subjunctive".
In English, on the other hand, the subjunctive is nearly extinct and very rarely used. The English impersonal "seems" always takes an indicative: "it seems like he wasn't here", not *"it seems like he weren't here" or *"it seems like he be not here".
So in this case, I would say "it seems that the Father is not in the Son" without reservation. A phrasing like *"the Father be not in the Son" just sounds somewhere between archaic and ungrammatical to my Modern English ear.
answered 9 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.1k22881
answered 9 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.1k22881
answered 9 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.1k22881
answered 9 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
20.1k22881
20.1k22881
Thank you, I had used the "modern" versions but wanted to be truer to the original, even though it "sounds as you correctly say, somewhat ungrammatical." My quandary also comes from the manner in which the verb to be "esse" and there for 'est', is used. It seems to be that these Scholastic authors employed 'sit' to differentiate from 'est'.
– Gene
8 hours ago
1
@Gene Being true to the original is a good goal, but the grammar of the target language also has to be taken into account. Modern readers won't necessarily understand that *"the Father be not" means the Latin verb in question took the subjunctive, while "the Father is not" means the Latin verb in question took the indicative: it's just a distinction that's not really important in English. If the subjunctive/indicative distinction does become important in the translation, like in a conditional or a main clause, modals like "might" or "should" will get the idea across more clearly…
– Draconis
8 hours ago
1
…than archaic grammar will.
– Draconis
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Thank you, I had used the "modern" versions but wanted to be truer to the original, even though it "sounds as you correctly say, somewhat ungrammatical." My quandary also comes from the manner in which the verb to be "esse" and there for 'est', is used. It seems to be that these Scholastic authors employed 'sit' to differentiate from 'est'.
– Gene
8 hours ago
1
@Gene Being true to the original is a good goal, but the grammar of the target language also has to be taken into account. Modern readers won't necessarily understand that *"the Father be not" means the Latin verb in question took the subjunctive, while "the Father is not" means the Latin verb in question took the indicative: it's just a distinction that's not really important in English. If the subjunctive/indicative distinction does become important in the translation, like in a conditional or a main clause, modals like "might" or "should" will get the idea across more clearly…
– Draconis
8 hours ago
1
…than archaic grammar will.
– Draconis
8 hours ago
Thank you, I had used the "modern" versions but wanted to be truer to the original, even though it "sounds as you correctly say, somewhat ungrammatical." My quandary also comes from the manner in which the verb to be "esse" and there for 'est', is used. It seems to be that these Scholastic authors employed 'sit' to differentiate from 'est'.
– Gene
8 hours ago
Thank you, I had used the "modern" versions but wanted to be truer to the original, even though it "sounds as you correctly say, somewhat ungrammatical." My quandary also comes from the manner in which the verb to be "esse" and there for 'est', is used. It seems to be that these Scholastic authors employed 'sit' to differentiate from 'est'.
– Gene
8 hours ago
1
1
@Gene Being true to the original is a good goal, but the grammar of the target language also has to be taken into account. Modern readers won't necessarily understand that *"the Father be not" means the Latin verb in question took the subjunctive, while "the Father is not" means the Latin verb in question took the indicative: it's just a distinction that's not really important in English. If the subjunctive/indicative distinction does become important in the translation, like in a conditional or a main clause, modals like "might" or "should" will get the idea across more clearly…
– Draconis
8 hours ago
@Gene Being true to the original is a good goal, but the grammar of the target language also has to be taken into account. Modern readers won't necessarily understand that *"the Father be not" means the Latin verb in question took the subjunctive, while "the Father is not" means the Latin verb in question took the indicative: it's just a distinction that's not really important in English. If the subjunctive/indicative distinction does become important in the translation, like in a conditional or a main clause, modals like "might" or "should" will get the idea across more clearly…
– Draconis
8 hours ago
1
1
…than archaic grammar will.
– Draconis
8 hours ago
…than archaic grammar will.
– Draconis
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Gene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gene is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10711%2ftranslation-of-the-latin-word-sit-in-thomas-aquinas-works%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
you are correct that "sit" is subjunctive and that the present subjunctive of be is "be". However, just because Latin uses subjunctive in a given case doesn't mean that an English translation will. They are conceptually similar ideas (some degree of uncertainty/unreality) but not identical.
– eques
7 hours ago