---

Find local businesses and services in your area with Yahoo!7 Local. Get started.

C. Marcius Crispus omnibus S.P.D.

>
>
> NOW: THE GAME
>
> Nominative: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS

Vocative: GAI MARCI CRISPE

Accusative: GAIUM MARCIUM CRISPUM

Genitive: GAII MARCII CRISPI

Dative: GAIO MARCIO CRISPO

Ablative: GAIO MARCIO CRISPO

>

Valete optime



Crispus

Cato Aureliano sal.

Salve.

I wouldn't have thought that any of the gods were "bound up in human morality" as They are not human.

Kronus/Saturn ate His children :)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
>
> Of course, the Greek Olympians were also not bound up in human morality so it was perfectly acceptable for them to be adulterous, incestuous, beastial, treacherous, homicidal, and in all other wise amoral . . . but they did drawn the line at cannibalism.
>
>
>
> I think I prefer my Roman and Italian Dii unassimilated with the Greek Olympians.
>
>
>
> Just a personal aside.
>
>
>
> Aureliane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 1:13 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ave,
>
> > So are you saying that alongside the Roman Gods we should add the Greek ones as well?
>
> If you are a poet or a painter, it is more interesting to assimilate the Roman gods to the Greek gods,the Greek matter is richer than the Roman according to the artists. Even the Fasti of Ovid, a true Roman thing, have Greek myths. For example Mater Matuta is assimilated to Leucothea and as Leucothea is the mother of Palaemon and as Portunus is assimilated to Palaemon, then Mater Matuta becomes the mother of Portunus.
>
> > Or does this only apply to Neptune/Poseidon?
>
> Not only to Neptunus/Poseidon. Read, for example, the Eneid. One example among thousands, Volcanus is said the husband of Venus.
>
> For example, (in Eneid VIII 370-373).
> At Venus haut animo nequiquam exterrita mater
> Laurentumque minis et duo mota tumultu,
> Volcanum adloquitur thalamoque haec coniugis aureo
> Incipit et dictis divinum adspirat amorem...
>
> If Volcanus is the Husband of Venus, it is because the Greek Hephaestos is the husband of Aphrodite. (See Odyssey VIII 266-369). But I doubt that the Volcanus worshipped at Rome during the Volcanalia was Hephaestos.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Salve,
I imagine that with enough research you could disentangle the Roman aspects and Greek aspects of the deities, but then that wouldn't be Roman. Remember it was our ancestors that were the ones to combine them in the first place, I'm assuming it wasn't just blind mixing. Secondly you must also realize that the nature of many of the Gods would change, for example Mars would no longer count war under his patronage, Pluto would become a riches god but not an Underworld one, the list goes on and on, it is only by assimalation that the Gods are what we worship today.
Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant
Nero

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
>
> Of course, the Greek Olympians were also not bound up in human morality so it was perfectly acceptable for them to be adulterous, incestuous, beastial, treacherous, homicidal, and in all other wise amoral . . . but they did drawn the line at cannibalism.
>
>
>
> I think I prefer my Roman and Italian Dii unassimilated with the Greek Olympians.
>
>
>
> Just a personal aside.
>
>
>
> Aureliane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 1:13 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ave,
>
> > So are you saying that alongside the Roman Gods we should add the Greek ones as well?
>
> If you are a poet or a painter, it is more interesting to assimilate the Roman gods to the Greek gods,the Greek matter is richer than the Roman according to the artists. Even the Fasti of Ovid, a true Roman thing, have Greek myths. For example Mater Matuta is assimilated to Leucothea and as Leucothea is the mother of Palaemon and as Portunus is assimilated to Palaemon, then Mater Matuta becomes the mother of Portunus.
>
> > Or does this only apply to Neptune/Poseidon?
>
> Not only to Neptunus/Poseidon. Read, for example, the Eneid. One example among thousands, Volcanus is said the husband of Venus.
>
> For example, (in Eneid VIII 370-373).
> At Venus haut animo nequiquam exterrita mater
> Laurentumque minis et duo mota tumultu,
> Volcanum adloquitur thalamoque haec coniugis aureo
> Incipit et dictis divinum adspirat amorem...
>
> If Volcanus is the Husband of Venus, it is because the Greek Hephaestos is the husband of Aphrodite. (See Odyssey VIII 266-369). But I doubt that the Volcanus worshipped at Rome during the Volcanalia was Hephaestos.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

-Maior omnibus spd;
it's really impossible. Remember Campagnia with its Greek colony bordered Etruria. And then there were the Phonecians. So there is Etruscan, Greek and Phonecian influences to add to native Italic.

A very old and important Roman goddess such as Fortuna, has had a number of influences. She was Roman bringer of good things; from ferre. Fortuna later became assimilated with Greek Tyche, so poets and writers then write about fickle Fortuna. With more time and the Empire, Fortuna in the Greek world becomes Romanized and now is the protector of cities. So there is a reverse trend.
I'm not interested in Greek myth, Romans had myths but they were different, of place such as the founding of Rome or Numa, or Servius Tullius and Fortuna.
optime valete
Maior

>
> Salve,
> I imagine that with enough research you could disentangle the Roman aspects and Greek aspects of the deities, but then that wouldn't be Roman. Remember it was our ancestors that were the ones to combine them in the first place, I'm assuming it wasn't just blind mixing. Secondly you must also realize that the nature of many of the Gods would change, for example Mars would no longer count war under his patronage, Pluto would become a riches god but not an Underworld one, the list goes on and on, it is only by assimalation that the Gods are what we worship today.
> Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant
> Nero
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Of course, the Greek Olympians were also not bound up in human morality so it was perfectly acceptable for them to be adulterous, incestuous, beastial, treacherous, homicidal, and in all other wise amoral . . . but they did drawn the line at cannibalism.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I prefer my Roman and Italian Dii unassimilated with the Greek Olympians.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just a personal aside.
> >
> >
> >
> > Aureliane
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 1:13 pm
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > > So are you saying that alongside the Roman Gods we should add the Greek ones as well?
> >
> > If you are a poet or a painter, it is more interesting to assimilate the Roman gods to the Greek gods,the Greek matter is richer than the Roman according to the artists. Even the Fasti of Ovid, a true Roman thing, have Greek myths. For example Mater Matuta is assimilated to Leucothea and as Leucothea is the mother of Palaemon and as Portunus is assimilated to Palaemon, then Mater Matuta becomes the mother of Portunus.
> >
> > > Or does this only apply to Neptune/Poseidon?
> >
> > Not only to Neptunus/Poseidon. Read, for example, the Eneid. One example among thousands, Volcanus is said the husband of Venus.
> >
> > For example, (in Eneid VIII 370-373).
> > At Venus haut animo nequiquam exterrita mater
> > Laurentumque minis et duo mota tumultu,
> > Volcanum adloquitur thalamoque haec coniugis aureo
> > Incipit et dictis divinum adspirat amorem...
> >
> > If Volcanus is the Husband of Venus, it is because the Greek Hephaestos is the husband of Aphrodite. (See Odyssey VIII 266-369). But I doubt that the Volcanus worshipped at Rome during the Volcanalia was Hephaestos.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
>

Salvete, It is not really impossible. There is a series of posts between me and Cordus about 5 years ago. By legend, Romulus prohibited "greek mythology" because of its immorality. Even the southern Greeks of Italy opposed it for the same reason plus another -- the epic and poetic "theology" of Homer and Hesiod, while the common and unifying knowledge of all Greeks, was also part of a mainland nationalist political hegemony. That is why the myths of "greater Greece" differ from those of Homer. Anyway, in Roman law (need to look at the law sources here, not just the religion sources), interpretatio graeca was permitted only as a private view of the Roman gods. Rich and powerful families who built large public temples could "advertise" on the edifice either Greek myth or their family exploits but Greek myth (as well as philosophy) was banned, by law, to be part of or modify the official cultus.   Greek myth nor philosophy just never were part of Roman public religion. I'll look it up but it may be in those posts from 5 years ago - it is an example of a pontifex maximus that has his views about the gods but that is only as a private person. He legally cannot, as pontifex, speak those views in his public capacity.   Valete, A. Sempronius Regulus   --- On Thu, 9/3/09, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote: From: rory12001 <rory12001@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:01 PM   -Maior omnibus spd; it's really impossible. Remember Campagnia with its Greek colony bordered Etruria. And then there were the Phonecians. So there is Etruscan, Greek and Phonecian influences to add to native Italic. A very old and important Roman goddess such as Fortuna, has had a number of influences. She was Roman bringer of good things; from ferre. Fortuna later became assimilated with Greek Tyche, so poets and writers then write about fickle Fortuna. With more time and the Empire, Fortuna in the Greek world becomes Romanized and now is the protector of cities. So there is a reverse trend. I'm not interested in Greek myth, Romans had myths but they were different, of place such as the founding of Rome or Numa, or Servius Tullius and Fortuna. optime valete Maior > > Salve, > I imagine that with enough research you could disentangle the Roman aspects and Greek aspects of the deities, but then that wouldn't be Roman. Remember it was our ancestors that were the ones to combine them in the first place, I'm assuming it wasn't just blind mixing. Secondly you must also realize that the nature of many of the Gods would change, for example Mars would no longer count war under his patronage, Pluto would become a riches god but not an Underworld one, the list goes on and on, it is only by assimalation that the Gods are what we worship today. > Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant > Nero > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote: > > > > > > Of course, the Greek Olympians were also not bound up in human morality so it was perfectly acceptable for them to be adulterous, incestuous, beastial, treacherous, homicidal, and in all other wise amoral . . . but they did drawn the line at cannibalism. > > > > > > > > I think I prefer my Roman and Italian Dii unassimilated with the Greek Olympians. > > > > > > > > Just a personal aside. > > > > > > > > Aureliane > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@ > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > > Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 1:13 pm > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ave, > > > > > So are you saying that alongside the Roman Gods we should add the Greek ones as well? > > > > If you are a poet or a painter, it is more interesting to assimilate the Roman gods to the Greek gods,the Greek matter is richer than the Roman according to the artists. Even the Fasti of Ovid, a true Roman thing, have Greek myths. For example Mater Matuta is assimilated to Leucothea and as Leucothea is the mother of Palaemon and as Portunus is assimilated to Palaemon, then Mater Matuta becomes the mother of Portunus. > > > > > Or does this only apply to Neptune/Poseidon? > > > > Not only to Neptunus/Poseidon. Read, for example, the Eneid. One example among thousands, Volcanus is said the husband of Venus. > > > > For example, (in Eneid VIII 370-373). > > At Venus haut animo nequiquam exterrita mater > > Laurentumque minis et duo mota tumultu, > > Volcanum adloquitur thalamoque haec coniugis aureo > > Incipit et dictis divinum adspirat amorem... > > > > If Volcanus is the Husband of Venus, it is because the Greek Hephaestos is the husband of Aphrodite. (See Odyssey VIII 266-369). But I doubt that the Volcanus worshipped at Rome during the Volcanalia was Hephaestos. > > > > Vale.. > > C. Petronius Dexter > > >

Salvete,   The ancient Romans believed that the best trust of those who could manage the state were also those who should do the public sacrifices. But, we moderns look at these things from upside down. The best politician was the one who knew the gods. Time, and time again, the person who displayed an ignorance of the religio was rejected in favor of another (all things being fair and equal).   The reason that an accurate view of the Roman gods was essential, in terms of public office, was that the Romans felt those who best knew how to manage the affairs of state were those who knew how to best manage the affairs of the people of Rome in relation to the gods. A good politician, who proves ignorant of the fine points of the gods and the religio Romana that follows the divine lead in what is proper, is not a good choice in any magistrate office. The Romans deeply felt and believed that such a one was not a good politician for Rome -- no matter his or her political skill. The state is dependent upon the religio. It is not a relation of reciprocity but of hierarchical dependence. The state depends upon the religion.   Again, read the laws of ancient Rome, there is a lot of religious content there that can be overlooked,   Valete, A. Sempronius Regulus   --- On Thu, 9/3/09, A. Sempronius Regulus <asempronius.regulus@...> wrote: From: A. Sempronius Regulus <asempronius.regulus@...> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:57 PM   Salvete, It is not really impossible. There is a series of posts between me and Cordus about 5 years ago. By legend, Romulus prohibited "greek mythology" because of its immorality. Even the southern Greeks of Italy opposed it for the same reason plus another -- the epic and poetic "theology" of Homer and Hesiod, while the common and unifying knowledge of all Greeks, was also part of a mainland nationalist political hegemony. That is why the myths of "greater Greece" differ from those of Homer. Anyway, in Roman law (need to look at the law sources here, not just the religion sources), interpretatio graeca was permitted only as a private view of the Roman gods. Rich and powerful families who built large public temples could "advertise" on the edifice either Greek myth or their family exploits but Greek myth (as well as philosophy) was banned, by law, to be part of or modify the official cultus.   Greek myth nor philosophy just never were part of Roman public religion. I'll look it up but it may be in those posts from 5 years ago - it is an example of a pontifex maximus that has his views about the gods but that is only as a private person. He legally cannot, as pontifex, speak those views in his public capacity.   Valete, A. Sempronius Regulus   --- On Thu, 9/3/09, rory12001 <rory12001@yahoo. com> wrote: From: rory12001 <rory12001@yahoo. com> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:01 PM   -Maior omnibus spd; it's really impossible. Remember Campagnia with its Greek colony bordered Etruria. And then there were the Phonecians. So there is Etruscan, Greek and Phonecian influences to add to native Italic. A very old and important Roman goddess such as Fortuna, has had a number of influences. She was Roman bringer of good things; from ferre. Fortuna later became assimilated with Greek Tyche, so poets and writers then write about fickle Fortuna. With more time and the Empire, Fortuna in the Greek world becomes Romanized and now is the protector of cities. So there is a reverse trend. I'm not interested in Greek myth, Romans had myths but they were different, of place such as the founding of Rome or Numa, or Servius Tullius and Fortuna. optime valete Maior > > Salve, > I imagine that with enough research you could disentangle the Roman aspects and Greek aspects of the deities, but then that wouldn't be Roman. Remember it was our ancestors that were the ones to combine them in the first place, I'm assuming it wasn't just blind mixing. Secondly you must also realize that the nature of many of the Gods would change, for example Mars would no longer count war under his patronage, Pluto would become a riches god but not an Underworld one, the list goes on and on, it is only by assimalation that the Gods are what we worship today. > Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant > Nero > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote: > > > > > > Of course, the Greek Olympians were also not bound up in human morality so it was perfectly acceptable for them to be adulterous, incestuous, beastial, treacherous, homicidal, and in all other wise amoral . . . but they did drawn the line at cannibalism. > > > > > > > > I think I prefer my Roman and Italian Dii unassimilated with the Greek Olympians. > > > > > > > > Just a personal aside. > > > > > > > > Aureliane > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@ > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > > Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 1:13 pm > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ave, > > > > > So are you saying that alongside the Roman Gods we should add the Greek ones as well? > > > > If you are a poet or a painter, it is more interesting to assimilate the Roman gods to the Greek gods,the Greek matter is richer than the Roman according to the artists. Even the Fasti of Ovid, a true Roman thing, have Greek myths. For example Mater Matuta is assimilated to Leucothea and as Leucothea is the mother of Palaemon and as Portunus is assimilated to Palaemon, then Mater Matuta becomes the mother of Portunus. > > > > > Or does this only apply to Neptune/Poseidon? > > > > Not only to Neptunus/Poseidon. Read, for example, the Eneid. One example among thousands, Volcanus is said the husband of Venus. > > > > For example, (in Eneid VIII 370-373). > > At Venus haut animo nequiquam exterrita mater > > Laurentumque minis et duo mota tumultu, > > Volcanum adloquitur thalamoque haec coniugis aureo > > Incipit et dictis divinum adspirat amorem... > > > > If Volcanus is the Husband of Venus, it is because the Greek Hephaestos is the husband of Aphrodite. (See Odyssey VIII 266-369). But I doubt that the Volcanus worshipped at Rome during the Volcanalia was Hephaestos. > > > > Vale.. > > C. Petronius Dexter > > >

Ti. Galerius Paulinus omnibus salutem plurimam dicit.
 
I would like to thank all of those who expressed their best wishes and prayers for my Aunt Georgia and my family. She is still with us and while her body is weak her mind is as sharp as ever. A number of family members have been visiting with her and we hope for the best.
　
Curate, ut valeatis

Salvete,
 
 
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam - I will either find a way or make one

 Valete,
 
Ti. Galerius Paulinus
 
 

Salve Paulinus;

2009/9/3 Paulinus scripsit:

>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus omnibus salutem plurimam dicit.
>
> I would like to thank all of those who expressed their best wishes and
> prayers for my Aunt Georgia and my family. She is still with us and while
> her body is weak her mind is as sharp as ever. A number of family members
> have been visiting with her and we hope for the best.
>
> Curate, ut valeatis
>

So it is with the most aged of the elders within my own family.

May the Holy Powers bless her with as good a life from now on as can be had.

benedicte - Venator

Avete;

absit iniuria verbis

let insult be absent

Valete - Venator

Salve,  Cato
 
After checking both my law dictionary ( Barron's) and two on line legal dictionaries I find that the word SHALL can be used to "denote an obligation or direction to do some act" but depending on content can be seen as "permissive, and to mean the same as MAY".
 
Vale,  
 
Paulinus

Salve,  Venator

Very nice  
 
Vale
 
Paulinus

---

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: famila.ulleria.venii@...
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 18:57:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Latin phrase of the day.

 

Cato Galerio Paulino sal.

Salve.

Welcome back and very glad to hear the good news.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ti. Galerius Paulinus omnibus salutem plurimam dicit.
>
>
>
> I would like to thank all of those who expressed their best wishes and prayers for my Aunt Georgia and my family. She is still with us and while her body is weak her mind is as sharp as ever. A number of family members have been visiting with her and we hope for the best.
>
> ¡¡
>
> Curate, ut valeatis
>

Cato Regulo sal.

Salve.

Interesting point of view. I would like to see some source material that supports this. Everything I have read so far shows a reliance on the correct *actions* in regards to the cultus deorum, not a correct "belief" about it. On questions of morality the Romans turned to the philosophers, not the priests.

Cicero, in his "On the Nature of The Gods", writes:

"Did anyone ever give thanks to the gods because he was a good man? No, he did so because he is rich, honored, and secure. Iuppiter is called Best and greatest not because he makes men just, moderate, and wise, but because he makes them healthy, secure, wealthy, and prosperous." (3.87)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Sempronius Regulus" <asempronius.regulus@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>  
> The ancient Romans believed that the best trust of those who could manage the state were also those who should do the public sacrifices. But, we moderns look at these things from upside down. The best politician was the one who knew the gods. Time, and time again, the person who displayed an ignorance of the religio was rejected in favor of another (all things being fair and equal).
>  
> The reason that an accurate view of the Roman gods was essential, in terms of public office, was that the Romans felt those who best knew how to manage the affairs of state were those who knew how to best manage the affairs of the people of Rome in relation to the gods. A good politician, who proves ignorant of the fine points of the gods and the religio Romana that follows the divine lead in what is proper, is not a good choice in any magistrate office. The Romans deeply felt and believed that such a one was not a good politician for Rome -- no matter his or her political skill. The state is dependent upon the religio. It is not a relation of reciprocity but of hierarchical dependence. The state depends upon the religion.
>  
> Again, read the laws of ancient Rome, there is a lot of religious content there that can be overlooked,
>  
> Valete,
> A. Sempronius Regulus

Salve Paulinus;

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Paulinus scripsit:

>
> Salve,  Venator
>
> Very nice
>
> Vale
>
> Paulinus
>

> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 18:57:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Latin phrase of the day.
>
>
> Avete;
>
> absit iniuria verbis
>
> let insult be absent
>
> Valete - Venator
>

I am going to try and keep that phrase in mind as a personal motto
from now on when I compose messages.

gratias - Venator

-Salvete Regule;
fascinating. Sure if the pax deorum pax hominem, then the relations with the gods are paramount. I didn't know about the barring of Greek myth, goodness I'd love to see your correspondance with Cordus.
many thanks! = maximas gratias!
optime vale
Maior

>
> Salvete,
>  
> The ancient Romans believed that the best trust of those who could manage the state were also those who should do the public sacrifices. But, we moderns look at these things from upside down. The best politician was the one who knew the gods. Time, and time again, the person who displayed an ignorance of the religio was rejected in favor of another (all things being fair and equal).
>  
> The reason that an accurate view of the Roman gods was essential, in terms of public office, was that the Romans felt those who best knew how to manage the affairs of state were those who knew how to best manage the affairs of the people of Rome in relation to the gods. A good politician, who proves ignorant of the fine points of the gods and the religio Romana that follows the divine lead in what is proper, is not a good choice in any magistrate office. The Romans deeply felt and believed that such a one was not a good politician for Rome -- no matter his or her political skill. The state is dependent upon the religio. It is not a relation of reciprocity but of hierarchical dependence. The state depends upon the religion.
>  
> Again, read the laws of ancient Rome, there is a lot of religious content there that can be overlooked,
>  
> Valete,
> A. Sempronius Regulus
>  
>
> --- On Thu, 9/3/09, A. Sempronius Regulus <asempronius.regulus@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: A. Sempronius Regulus <asempronius.regulus@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:57 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvete,
> It is not really impossible. There is a series of posts between me and Cordus about 5 years ago. By legend, Romulus prohibited "greek mythology" because of its immorality. Even the southern Greeks of Italy opposed it for the same reason plus another -- the epic and poetic "theology" of Homer and Hesiod, while the common and unifying knowledge of all Greeks, was also part of a mainland nationalist political hegemony. That is why the myths of "greater Greece" differ from those of Homer. Anyway, in Roman law (need to look at the law sources here, not just the religion sources), interpretatio graeca was permitted only as a private view of the Roman gods. Rich and powerful families who built large public temples could "advertise" on the edifice either Greek myth or their family exploits but Greek myth (as well as philosophy) was banned, by law, to be part of or modify the official cultus.  
>
> Greek myth nor philosophy just never were part of Roman public religion. I'll look it up but it may be in those posts from 5 years ago - it is an example of a pontifex maximus that has his views about the gods but that is only as a private person. He legally cannot, as pontifex, speak those views in his public capacity.
>  
> Valete,
> A. Sempronius Regulus
>  
>
> --- On Thu, 9/3/09, rory12001 <rory12001@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
> From: rory12001 <rory12001@yahoo. com>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:01 PM
>
>
>  
>
> -Maior omnibus spd;
> it's really impossible. Remember Campagnia with its Greek colony bordered Etruria. And then there were the Phonecians. So there is Etruscan, Greek and Phonecian influences to add to native Italic.
>
> A very old and important Roman goddess such as Fortuna, has had a number of influences. She was Roman bringer of good things; from ferre. Fortuna later became assimilated with Greek Tyche, so poets and writers then write about fickle Fortuna. With more time and the Empire, Fortuna in the Greek world becomes Romanized and now is the protector of cities. So there is a reverse trend.
> I'm not interested in Greek myth, Romans had myths but they were different, of place such as the founding of Rome or Numa, or Servius Tullius and Fortuna.
> optime valete
> Maior
> >
> > Salve,
> > I imagine that with enough research you could disentangle the Roman aspects and Greek aspects of the deities, but then that wouldn't be Roman. Remember it was our ancestors that were the ones to combine them in the first place, I'm assuming it wasn't just blind mixing. Secondly you must also realize that the nature of many of the Gods would change, for example Mars would no longer count war under his patronage, Pluto would become a riches god but not an Underworld one, the list goes on and on, it is only by assimalation that the Gods are what we worship today.
> > Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant
> > Nero
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, the Greek Olympians were also not bound up in human morality so it was perfectly acceptable for them to be adulterous, incestuous, beastial, treacherous, homicidal, and in all other wise amoral . . . but they did drawn the line at cannibalism.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I prefer my Roman and Italian Dii unassimilated with the Greek Olympians.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just a personal aside.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Aureliane
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@ >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > > Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 1:13 pm
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune is also Poseidon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ave,
> > >
> > > > So are you saying that alongside the Roman Gods we should add the Greek ones as well?
> > >
> > > If you are a poet or a painter, it is more interesting to assimilate the Roman gods to the Greek gods,the Greek matter is richer than the Roman according to the artists. Even the Fasti of Ovid, a true Roman thing, have Greek myths. For example Mater Matuta is assimilated to Leucothea and as Leucothea is the mother of Palaemon and as Portunus is assimilated to Palaemon, then Mater Matuta becomes the mother of Portunus.
> > >
> > > > Or does this only apply to Neptune/Poseidon?
> > >
> > > Not only to Neptunus/Poseidon. Read, for example, the Eneid. One example among thousands, Volcanus is said the husband of Venus.
> > >
> > > For example, (in Eneid VIII 370-373).
> > > At Venus haut animo nequiquam exterrita mater
> > > Laurentumque minis et duo mota tumultu,
> > > Volcanum adloquitur thalamoque haec coniugis aureo
> > > Incipit et dictis divinum adspirat amorem...
> > >
> > > If Volcanus is the Husband of Venus, it is because the Greek Hephaestos is the husband of Aphrodite. (See Odyssey VIII 266-369). But I doubt that the Volcanus worshipped at Rome during the Volcanalia was Hephaestos.
> > >
> > > Vale..
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > >
> >
>

Salvete Omnes,

Welcome back, Censor, and I am glad to learn of your good news, which I hope
keeps getting better.

Vale et Valete,
C. Maria Caeca

Salva sis Hortensia,

> I'm not interested in Greek myth,

It is sad. Greek myths are very very interesting about the human nature. And the base of Iliad and Odyssey, the best books never written, the base of Theatre and arts, and also the democracy. The council between the Olympians are best for the democracy than the authority of a king god unic as the god of the christians. I ever read the Metamorphoses of Ovid with mixed feelings.

> Romans had myths but they were different, of place such as the founding of Rome or Numa, or Servius Tullius and Fortuna.

They are poorly interesting. The Romans themselves had forgotten their own myths to adopt the richer Greek ones. So we know the Roman "myths" not by poets or theatre or painting or sculpture, but by quotes and little allusions by some Roman scholars.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Cato Petronio Dextero sal.

Salve.

I'm finding Beard & North quite interesting. One of the first concepts they're dealing with is this very mix of traditions in the Roman religion; they talk about the influences of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Carthaginians:

"Recent work, especially archaeological, has cast doubt on the idea of an early, uncontaminated, native strand of Roman religion...Roman religion was an amalgam of different traditions from at least as far back as we can go...Roman religion was always already multicultural." ("Religions of Rome" Vol. 1, p. 12)

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Salva sis Hortensia,
>
> > I'm not interested in Greek myth,
>
> It is sad. Greek myths are very very interesting about the human nature. And the base of Iliad and Odyssey, the best books never written, the base of Theatre and arts, and also the democracy. The council between the Olympians are best for the democracy than the authority of a king god unic as the god of the christians. I ever read the Metamorphoses of Ovid with mixed feelings.
>
> > Romans had myths but they were different, of place such as the founding of Rome or Numa, or Servius Tullius and Fortuna.
>
> They are poorly interesting. The Romans themselves had forgotten their own myths to adopt the richer Greek ones. So we know the Roman "myths" not by poets or theatre or painting or sculpture, but by quotes and little allusions by some Roman scholars.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

In a message dated 9/3/2009 7:21:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, birdart44@... writes:

The performance and brutality of Roman soldiers varied greatly and while some define them as a militia falls short of the truth if a soldier served a long time in one of Caesers legions he was well trained and commanded and lack of discipline would have been dealt with severely .Under the good commanders Roman rule was brutal where they thought brutality was required.The bloodshed violence and brutality in Gaul against the druids came directly from Caesers orders and the same went for Pompeys legions.

 

 

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what you are saying there are no legiones before Iulius Caesar?

 

Q. Fabius Maximus

A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

    I am pleased to report that Avitus has at long last reviewed the corrections of the Sermo Latinus I exams from this past academic year, and all surviving students have passed the course.  This is a fine achievement, and all are to be congratulated.  With luck, I shall (simple future, first person singular) be able to make the corrected examinations available to the students within the next few days.   This is a very time-consuming procedure, which must moreover take second place to the ongoing registration of new students in our classes, a procedure which requires at least three or four messages per student.  

    We have, or have had, students from all over the world in our classes.  Many are native speakers of languages other than English (or Spanish, the other language of instruction in Sermo), and some are physically challenged.  They have succeeded; so can you!

    Registration is now closed in Grammatica Latina II, but continues in Grammatica Latina I, where I hope to find some more students, for a certain Annaeus Regulus indicated that he had the text, but has not confirmed this with me, and two or three others had indicated interest in the course.  We are also continuing to register students in Sermo I, where many, even most, are not citizens.  Grammatica I will begin on this coming Monday, US Labor Day, and the two separate Sermo courses will begin September 21st.  We may possibly be able to offer the combined Sermo course beginning on September 14th, but Avitus must provide the instructional materials and verify the dates, and he is off on another trip.  These matters, and that of the SL II exams, must await his return.  

Valete.  

 

M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Diis bene iuvantibus simus.

Hodie est die pristine Nonas Septembres; haec dies comitialis est: ludi Romani magni committuntur

Ludi Romani Magni

"O Jupiter Capitolinus, to You I pray, I entreat You, who the Roman people have named Optimus after Your kindness and Maximus after Your great power." ~ M. Tullius Cicero, De Domo 144

The Ludi Romani, in honor of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, was said to have first begun in the time of Tarquinius Priscus. According to legend, Tarquinius Priscus had vowed a temple for Jupiter on the south mount of what was then the Saturnine Hill. It was Tarquinius Superbus, however, who began the temple's construction. Discovery of a skull at the construction site gave the mount its name, Capitolium, a name that then came to identify the Temple of Jupiter O. M., Juno Capitolina, and Minerva. The Tarquini were expelled before the temple was completed, and it was not until 508 BCE, on the Ides of September, therefore, that the temple was finally dedicated by Consul Marcus Horatius Puvillus (Livy 2.8). It would have been on that anniversary date, the New Year's Day of the Early Republic, that games would have been first introduced in some unknown year, a year soon after 191 BCE when the ludi were vowed. The number of days for the Ludi then expanded over time as the Capitolium grew in greater importance. The ceilings of the Capitolium interior were gilded in gold following the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE; this was a likely time for the ludi to have been expanded. Catulus gilded the bronze tiles of the roof some time between 79 and 60 BCE, causing some controversy in doing so, and may also have expanded the ludi further . Dionysius of Halicarnassus recorded the ludi as he saw them between 30 and 8 BCE. The occasion was marked by a great procession escorting Jupiter from His temple of the Capitolium through the Forum and Velabrium to the Circus Maximus. The procession was composed of the City's youth, troops of dancers and musicians, athletes and sacerdotes, displaying the sacred vessels of the temple and images of the Gods. The games included horse races and chariot races, boxing and wrestling, as well as other athletic and theatrical competitions.

AUC 562 / 191 BCE: Vow to hold the Ludi Romani Magni

"Then at last the consuls balloted, and Greece fell to Acilius, Italy to Cornelius. When this was settled a senatus consultum was passed in the following terms: 'Whereas the Roman people have at this time ordered that there be war with Antiochus and with all who are under his rule, the consuls shall on this behalf issue orders for a public intercession and M. Acilius shall vow Great Games to Jupiter and gifts and offerings to all the shrines.' This vow was made by the consul in the following formula, as dictated by P. Licinius the Pontifex Maximus: 'If the war which the people has ordered to be taken in hand against King Antiochus be brought to such a close as the senate and people of Rome desire, then all the Roman people shall celebrate in thy honour, Jupiter, Great Games for the space of ten days, and oblations of money shall be made to all thy shrines in such wise as the senate shall decree. Whatsoever magistrate shall hold these Games, whensoever and wheresoever he shall celebrate them, may they be deemed to be duly and rightly celebrated and the oblations duly and rightly offered!' Then the consul proclaimed special intercessions to be offered for two days." ~ Titus Livius 36.2

"Before beginning the games the principal magistrates conducted a procession in honour of the Gods from the Capitol through the Forum to the Circus Maximus. Those who led the procession were, first, the Romans' sons who were nearing manhood and were of an age to bear a part in this ceremony, who rode on horseback if their fathers were entitled by their fortunes to be knights, while the others, who were destined to serve in the infantry, went on foot, the former in squadrons and troops, and the latter in divisions and companies, as if they were going to school; this was done in order that strangers might see the number and beauty of the youths of the commonwealth who were approaching manhood. These were followed by charioteers, some of whom drove four horses abreast, some two, and others rode unyoked horses. After them came the contestants in both the light and the heavy games, their whole bodies naked except their loins. This custom continued even to my time at Rome." ~ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 7.72


AUC 696 / 57 BCE: Marcus Tullius Cicero returns from exile to Rome.

"My arrival in the neighbourhood of the City was the signal for every soul of every order known to my nomenclator coming out to meet me, except those enemies who could not either dissemble or deny the fact of their being such. On my arrival at the Porta Capena, the steps of the temples were already thronged from top to bottom by the populace; and while their congratulations were displayed by the loudest possible applause, a similar throng and similar applause accompanied me right up to the Capitol, and in the forum and on the Capitol itself there was again a wonderful crowd." ~ M. Tullius Cicero, Epistula LXXXIX (Ad Atticum 4.1)


AUC 1229 / 476 CE: Traditional Fall of the Roman Empire

Odovacar desired land for his people in Italy. Orestes, the master of the troops, refused this request and Odovacar revolted. He first defeated Orestes at Pavia and then rode on to Ravenna where he deposed Romulus Augustus, the son of Orestes and last emperor in the West. Zeno, Emperor in the East, had never recognized Romulus Augustus as co-emperor after Orestes had deposed Nepos and placed his son on the throne. When Zeno afterward named Odovacar as "patricius," Nepos retained titular claim as emperor in the West until his death in 480, while Zeno tacitly recognized Odovacar's rule in Italy. Seventeen years later Theodoric of the Ostrogoths, acting on behalf of Zeno, took Ravenna after a three year seige and captured Odovacar on 27 Feb. 493.


Our thought for today is from Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.3:

"All that comes from the Gods is full of Providence. That which is from Fortune is not separated from nature or without an interweaving and involution with the things that are ordered by Providence. From thence all things flow; and there is besides necessity, and that which is for the advantage of the whole Universe, of which you are a part. But that is good for every part of nature that the nature of the whole brings, and what serves to maintain this nature. Now the Universe is preserved, as by the changes of the elements so by the changes of things compounded of the elements. Let these principles be enough for you, let them always be fixed opinions. But cast away the thirst after books, that you may not die murmuring, but cheerfully, truly, and from your heart be thankful to the Gods."

Salvete,

"dee" is also attested in Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian (adv. Marc. 1.29).

Valete,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Moore" <astrobear@...> wrote:
>
> Salve, Dexter,
>
>
>
> Populus does have a vocative form, "popule", attested in the Vulgate (Micah
> 6:3, 5) and the "reproaches" of Good Friday ("Popule meus"). Admittedly,
> these are late sources.
>
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Potitus
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Gaius Petronius Dexter
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:03 AM
> To: Nova Roma
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Meus et deus et populus.
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvetote omnes,
>
>
>
> Deus and populus do not have vocative distinct forms. You absolutely cannot
> say "dee" nor "popule". Vocative form of "meus" is "mi". Meus, or deus or
> populus, while they are ending in -us do not have the vocative declension
> -e.
>
>
>
> Examples of vocative :
>
> Mi bone Lentule!
>
> Mi optime deus!
>
> Mi beate populus!
>
>
>
> Valetote.
>
>
>
> --
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Flamen Portunalis.
> Quaestor Praetoris Cn.Equitii Marini.
> Scriba Censoris K. Fabii Buteonis Modiani.
>

Ave,

> "dee" is also attested in Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian (adv. Marc. 1.29).

That is not Latin but christian. Because this "dee" is not "dee" but "Dee" when "Deus" was become a name. The name of the god of the Christians.

Deus as name has a vocative form made by Christians, but the word "deus" does not have the vocative form. You cannot find this form in all the good Latin writers.

Salve.
C. Petronius Dexter

Ave Potite,

> Populus does have a vocative form, "popule", attested in the Vulgate (Micah
> 6:3, 5) and the "reproaches" of Good Friday ("Popule meus"). Admittedly,
> these are late sources.

"Popule meus!" that is very bad Latin. That is not Latin. A kind of Latin as in the movie "The life of Brian"... My subject was the Latin, the good and mere Latin, the Latin spoken and written by Romans.

Salve.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve,

LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese? You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).

In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion, whom he believes does not even exist: "Gratus esses, o dee haeretice, si isses in dispositionem creatoris, quod marem et feminam miscuit; utique enim et Marcion tuus ex nuptiis natus est."

Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> > "dee" is also attested in Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian (adv. Marc. 1.29).
>
> That is not Latin but christian. Because this "dee" is not "dee" but "Dee" when "Deus" was become a name. The name of the god of the Christians.
>
> Deus as name has a vocative form made by Christians, but the word "deus" does not have the vocative form. You cannot find this form in all the good Latin writers.
>
> Salve.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Ave iterum,

> "dee" is also attested in Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian (adv. Marc. 1.29).

And Christus in the cross saying "Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me?"

Sometimes you can use the nominative in place to the vocative. Vergil do that, but that was fancy. Matthaeus was not fancy, but Mattheus did not write his text in Latin. I suppose that the christian Latin translator Hieronymus used the form "Deus meus" as vocative, but Hieronymus' Latin is not pure because he translated Hebraic and Greek words and phrases quasi "verbatim".

In other hand, the vocative used by the very Romans was "di" the vocative plural, of course.

Vale et Salve.
C. Petronius Dexter

Ave,

> LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?

You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.

>You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<

That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.

> In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,

Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.

> Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name

Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.

(I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).

It is a name because of the capital letter.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

-----Original Message-----
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 8:02 am
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Meus et deus et populus.

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Salvete!

I agree with Petronius on this point: that the Name of God is capitalized when referring to the Christian or Jewish God because that simply became the historic way of referring to Him. Marcion had the same God in mind, even though he was heretical in his ideas about Him.

But Gualterus is right on this point, I think: Tertullian, because he was speaking of that one God, would use a ...new?...singular vocative form of the word "deus"; that doesn't mean it's not correct Latin, simply that the language had to absorb the concept of the singular God and had to adapt.

To try to parse "real" Latin (only spoken by the Romans) from "other" Latin is a little specious; wasn't one of the great "real" Roman writers constantly made fun of because his Latin was so bad?

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
>
> Ave,
>
> > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
>
> You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
>
> >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
>
> That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
>
> > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
>
> Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
>
> > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
>
> Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
>
> (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
>
> It is a name because of the capital letter.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Hello!

I am the editor of the Ancient History Encyclopedia (http://www.ancientopedia.com), a new web resource for ancient history. The website already has a sizable database of entries, but we need more content, especially those of academic quality. Would you be interested in contributing to the site?

The site is organized around tags. Each tag has a definition (an encyclopedia-like general text), articles (in-depth and more academic texts of greater length), a timeline, illustrations /maps, books, and references / links. This format is created specifically for presenting historical information, unlike any other site on the internet. We have a great way of organizing information, but we need more content to make the site as big as it can be.

All contributors can earn money through the advertisements that are displayed next to their content, so that the efforts will be worthwhile, especially when the site receives more visitors.

Please have a look at the site and see what you think (any feedback is welcome). If you wish to contribute, you can register and start submitting straight away (all submissions are reviewed), and if you don't know what to write, visit the "Contribute" page listed in the top menu.

I would also be grateful if you could tell others who might be interested in the site, and post a link and maybe also this call for content on your website/blog, if you have one.

Thank you for your attention and I hope to see you on Ancient History Encyclopedia.

Greetings,

Jan van der Crabben
jan.vandercrabben {at} gmail.com

Salve,

You seem to have made a rather arbitrary decision on what is good and bad Latin. Apparently, Christian sources offer bad Latin. Also, who exactly is this mysterious Roman, speaker of good Latin, that you refer to? Which time period and geographic area do you have in mind?

I just did a search for "popule" in the Brepolis database of Latin texts (through my university website; it's not public) and it's certainly not common in the first two centuries CE, but you will find it in Quintilian's minor declamations (302.5) and in pseudo-Quintilian's major declamations (11.11) (provided the major declamations actually date this early). From the third through fifth centuries, it becomes much more common. In addition to the Vulgate, you find it in Ambrose, Augustine, Hieronymus, Maximus of Turin, and Julian of Eclanum. Amusingly, you even find it in pseudo-Cicero (ep. ad Oct. 6).

I think a better thing to do is to say that you are restricting yourself to the idiom of golden and silver age Latin, and the observations should be phrased as pointing to regular and irregular usage relative to that period.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave Potite,
>
> > Populus does have a vocative form, "popule", attested in the Vulgate (Micah
> > 6:3, 5) and the "reproaches" of Good Friday ("Popule meus"). Admittedly,
> > these are late sources.
>
> "Popule meus!" that is very bad Latin. That is not Latin. A kind of Latin as in the movie "The life of Brian"... My subject was the Latin, the good and mere Latin, the Latin spoken and written by Romans.
>
> Salve.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

--- Salvete;
what 'heresy'? Marcion was a gnostic Christian. His beliefs about his god are just as valid as Tertullian's, according to our Roman culture. All Christian cults are equal in Nova Roma.
optime vale
Maior



Marcion had the same God in mind, even though he was heretical in his ideas about Him.

>
> But Gualterus is right on this point, I think: Tertullian, because he was speaking of that one God, would use a ...new?...singular vocative form of the word "deus"; that doesn't mean it's not correct Latin, simply that the language had to absorb the concept of the singular God and had to adapt.
>
> To try to parse "real" Latin (only spoken by the Romans) from "other" Latin is a little specious; wasn't one of the great "real" Roman writers constantly made fun of because his Latin was so bad?
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
> >
> > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
> >
> > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
> >
> > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
> >
> > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
> >
> > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
> >
> > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
> >
> > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
> >
> > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
> >
> > It is a name because of the capital letter.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
>

That isn't a proper name, Dexter. The Greek has "qee", which Matthew offers as a translation for "hli" which isn't a proper name either, but alef-lamed with the first person sg. possessive suffix (lit. "my god"). I think you're getting confused by the capitalization convention in Christian texts.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave iterum,
>
> > "dee" is also attested in Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian (adv. Marc. 1.29).
>
> And Christus in the cross saying "Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me?"
>
> Sometimes you can use the nominative in place to the vocative. Vergil do that, but that was fancy. Matthaeus was not fancy, but Mattheus did not write his text in Latin. I suppose that the christian Latin translator Hieronymus used the form "Deus meus" as vocative, but Hieronymus' Latin is not pure because he translated Hebraic and Greek words and phrases quasi "verbatim".
>
> In other hand, the vocative used by the very Romans was "di" the vocative plural, of course.
>
> Vale et Salve.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

My guess that you were confused by capitalization is confirmed in this post. Capitalization doesn't make it a proper name. It, like so many other words, is capitalized due to early Christian tradition in using nomina sacra. In other words, these words were considered holy. Many of them were also proper names, but not all.

Saying that the god that Tertullian attacks was also his god is a rather sorry defense. Tertullian expressly does not believe this; why do you assume they're the same god?--Just because those he attacks might think so? What is your foundation for the metaphysical claim that they're all the same god? More importantly, *it doesn't matter* because Tertullian's usage depends on *what he thinks*. If he believed "deus" was a proper name for his god, he would never qualify it with the term "heretical", nor would he disavow its existence. It is obvious that Tertullian deems it acceptable to use "dee" as a vocative for the generic term "deus".

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
>
> Ave,
>
> > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
>
> You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
>
> >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
>
> That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
>
> > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
>
> Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
>
> > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
>
> Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
>
> (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
>
> It is a name because of the capital letter.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Maior,

This is completely irrelevant. Tertullian's usage depends on what he thinks; we can infer from his usage that he considered "dee" acceptable for "deus" in a generic sense.

Now, if you really want to get into this, what is your metaphysical argument for why Marcion's god is the same as Tertullian's?

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> --- Salvete;
> what 'heresy'? Marcion was a gnostic Christian. His beliefs about his god are just as valid as Tertullian's, according to our Roman culture. All Christian cults are equal in Nova Roma.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
>
>
> Marcion had the same God in mind, even though he was heretical in his ideas about Him.
> >
> > But Gualterus is right on this point, I think: Tertullian, because he was speaking of that one God, would use a ...new?...singular vocative form of the word "deus"; that doesn't mean it's not correct Latin, simply that the language had to absorb the concept of the singular God and had to adapt.
> >
> > To try to parse "real" Latin (only spoken by the Romans) from "other" Latin is a little specious; wasn't one of the great "real" Roman writers constantly made fun of because his Latin was so bad?
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ave,
> > >
> > > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
> > >
> > > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
> > >
> > > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
> > >
> > > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
> > >
> > > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
> > >
> > > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
> > >
> > > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
> > >
> > > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
> > >
> > > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
> > >
> > > It is a name because of the capital letter.
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > >
> >
>

Cn. Lentulus M. Cornelio sal. >>> It is obvious that Tertullian deems it acceptable to use "dee" as a vocative for the generic term "deus". <<< Isn't it possible that Tertullian uses it intentionally in the wrong form? Couldn't it be a sarcasm? As far as I remember to my Christian Latin readings, the form "dee" is entirely not common even there, so, I dare to say, it is possibly the first instance that I see of this strange phenomenon. Cura, ut valeas. --- Ven 4/9/09, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...> ha scritto: Da: gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Meus et deus et populus. A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Venerdì 4 settembre 2009, 18:55   My guess that you were confused by capitalization is confirmed in this post. Capitalization doesn't make it a proper name. It, like so many other words, is capitalized due to early Christian tradition in using nomina sacra. In other words, these words were considered holy. Many of them were also proper names, but not all. Saying that the god that Tertullian attacks was also his god is a rather sorry defense. Tertullian expressly does not believe this; why do you assume they're the same god?--Just because those he attacks might think so? What is your foundation for the metaphysical claim that they're all the same god? More importantly, *it doesn't matter* because Tertullian's usage depends on *what he thinks*. If he believed "deus" was a proper name for his god, he would never qualify it with the term "heretical", nor would he disavow its existence. It is obvious that Tertullian deems it acceptable to use "dee" as a vocative for the generic term "deus". Vale, Gualterus --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@ ...> wrote: > > > Ave, > > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese? > > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative. > > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).< > > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding. > > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion, > > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him. > > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name > > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God. > > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?). > > It is a name because of the capital letter. > > Vale. > C. Petronius Dexter >

-----Original Message-----
From: gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 9:34 am
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Meus et deus et populus.

Cn. Lentulus C. Marcio s. d. Thank you for participating in the game! Your solution is perfect! Congratulations! Have you ever thought to learning Latin? VALE! CN. LENTVLVS --- Gio 3/9/09, robert574674 <jbshr1pwa@...> ha scritto: Da: robert574674 <jbshr1pwa@...> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Accusative and Repetition - Put Your Name in Accusative (And Dative and Vocative)! A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Giovedì 3 settembre 2009, 16:41   C. Marcius Crispus omnibus S.P.D. > > > NOW: THE GAME > > Nominative: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Vocative: GAI MARCI CRISPE Accusative: GAIUM MARCIUM CRISPUM Genitive: GAII MARCII CRISPI Dative: GAIO MARCIO CRISPO Ablative: GAIO MARCIO CRISPO > Valete optime Crispus

Cn. Lentulus praetori carissimo suo Memmio s. p. d. Thank you ever so much for sharing this song (and the story behind it) with us, praetor amplissime! I was so nice to hear... It made me happier. Fac valeas! Lentulus --- Gio 3/9/09, publiusalbucius <albucius_aoe@...> ha scritto: Da: publiusalbucius <albucius_aoe@...> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: The order of declinations and Brel A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Giovedì 3 settembre 2009, 12:47   Scholasticae et omnibus latinistis s.d. The French way is Nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative and ablative. You will find below the link to Jacques Brel's (died in 1980)song "Rosa". Even if the remain of the song may not been easily understandable for those of us who have not heard much French or studied it, the interest is in the top of each verse : it is the schoollike enumeration of the grammatical cases, applied to the typical - still taught : the rose, "rosa". The second interest is to hear the way the schools in France and french speaking world taught the words from the Revolution til the 1960's : ROSA, ROSA, ROSAM, **ROSEY** (and not ROS-A-E) etc.. Now we are told to pronounce "ros-a-e", with the liberty to turn to "ae" in "aï" if we are able to (!) inside a discussion. The song is about Brel's memories as a schoolboy, where he was taught Latin (declination Rosa, feminine), and was in love with his cousin Rosa. As many love songs, and particularly Brel's ones, the beginning is joyful, but the end is a deception, for the singer finally experiments that "there are thorns in roses" (including his cousin Rosa!). At the poetry level, this is one of the jewels that Brel has produced. Here is the link: http://www.dailymot ion.com/relevanc e/search/ brel+rosa/ video/x33irw_ jacques-brel- rosa_music Valete omnes, Albucius --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@... > wrote: > > > > > Scholastica Catoni Albucio Lentulo Latinistis quiritibus, sociis, > > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D. > > > > > > Cato Lentulo Albucius Scholasticaesque SPD > > > > Salvete! > > > > I remember learning them like Equitius Marinus does - the very first one I > > ever learned was: > > > > amicus > > amici > > amico > > amicum > > amico > > > > but that was about a million years ago, and I've forgotten most of it except > > for some Church Latin. > > > > ATS: As I said earlier, that is the normal US pattern, which has a number > > of advantages. Church Latin is good; Church Latin is nice; it led a lot of us > > to the classics. It is most unfortunate that they gave up on it. All of us > > hope that B XVI will restore it. > > > > GEC: I guess it's never too late to relearn... > > > > ATS: Nope. Or to learn from the beginning. I have some Russians in > > Sermo I who may be glad to learn what their government denied them in their > > youth. > > > > > > Scholastica, what are the books needed for the level 1 class? > > > > ATS: Wheelock¹s Latin, by Frederic Wheelock, Sixth Edition, revised by La > > Fleur. You should be able to get it at the Columbia U bookstore, or maybe > > the NYU one, or any civilized university bookstore. Possibly also the > > ordinary bookstores like B & N. Try also: > > > > <http://www.wheelock slatin.com> which has several educational materials for > > sale, plus sound files for all of the vocabularies of this text, recited one > > word at a time with all grammatical parts necessary (not all that exist, to be > > sure, but enough to generate the others). > > > > > > > > Vale, > > > > Cato > > > > Vale, et valete. > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com> , > > "publiusalbucius" <albucius_aoe@ > wrote: > >> > > >> > Lentulo s.d. > >> > > >>> > > East European tradition of the order of cases: > >>> > > > >>> > > Nominative - Marinus > >>> > > Accusative - Marinum > >>> > > Genitive - Marini > >>> > > Dative - Marino > >>> > > Ablative - Marino > >> > > >> > > >> > Damn! I have lived in East Europe when I was a child and just realize it > >> now. I have learnt this order, with the vocative between the nom. and the > >> acc..: Verus circus? Truman show ? ;-) > >> > > >> > Vale bene, > >> > > >> > > >> > Albucius > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:Nova- Roma%40yahoogrou ps.com> , > >> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > Salve Lentule, > >>> > > > >>>> > > > Congratulations, Marine Censori, you are also quite farseeing ;-) A > >>>> > > > little mistake: the vocativus of Gnaeus is rather Gnaee, with double > >>>> > > > ee. > >>> > > > >>> > > Woah. Just earlier this week you said that you'd never seen it > >>> > > written that way. You said, in fact, that I had written it correctly > >>> > > as Gnae Equiti Marine. For the moment I shall continue to use Gnae as > >>> > > the vocative of Gnaeus, because I believe that is the classical usage. > >>> > > > >>>> > > > It's interesting to note that you follow the Western European order > >>>> > > > in the cases of the declension > >>> > > > >>> > > What can I say? That's how my 9th grade Latin teacher taught them, > >>> > > back 40 years ago. > >>> > > > >>>> > > > East European tradition of the order of cases: > >>>> > > >   > >>>> > > > Nominative - Marinus > >>>> > > > Accusative - Marinum > >>>> > > > Genitive  - Marini > >>>> > > > Dative - Marino > >>>> > > > Ablative - Marino > >>> > > > >>> > > So you have -us, -um, -i, -o, -o; instead of -us, -i, -o, -um, -o. > >>> > > > >>>> > > > I think it is easier to memorize the declension in the first way > >>>> > > > than this other way. > >>> > > > >>> > > Possibly so. But having had it branded into my neural pathways in the > >>> > > manner I cited it, I doubt I'd ever be able to replace that method now. > >>> > > > >>> > > Vale, > >>> > > > >>> > > CN-EQVIT-MARINVS > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >

Salve,

> That isn't a proper name, Dexter.

That is a proper name, of course. For Jews and Christian God is the name, the proper name by witch they pray their god. Nobody give him his true name Yewe.

When someone prays Jupiter he does not call him "God!" but Jupiter!
When a Christian pray his god he never gives another name that God, I do not know a christian calling his god with his true name "YHWH".

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve Lentule,

The sentence is dripping with sarcasm, but I don't see how consciously using "dee" as a *bad* form would add to the effect, although, using it consciously as an irregular form might make sense. I have no problem classifying it as irregular, but calling it "wrong" or "bad" is arbitrary. You also find it in Prudentius (Amartigenia 931) "O dee cunctiparens, animae dator, o dee christe", where it can hardly have been considered "bad" by the author.

It even gets an entry in pseudo-Probus, Instituta Artium (4.127.9):

"Quaeritur, qua de causa vocativo casu numeri singularis o dee per duas e litteras scribatur. hac de causa, quoniam quaecumque nomina ablativo casu numeri singularis o littera terminantur et nominativo casu numeri singularis eus litteris definiuntur, haec excepto genetivo casu numeri pluralis per | ceteros casus pari numero syllabarum oportet scribi."

A similar development happens in Greek, where traditionally qeos did not have a vocative form, but you begin to see qee around this period, and it isn't limited to Christian texts since you find it in the magical papyri too.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus M. Cornelio sal.
>
>
> >>> It is obvious that Tertullian deems it acceptable to use "dee" as a vocative for the generic term "deus". <<<
>
>
> Isn't it possible that Tertullian uses it intentionally in the wrong form? Couldn't it be a sarcasm?
>
> As far as I remember to my Christian Latin readings, the form "dee" is entirely not common even there, so, I dare to say, it is possibly the first instance that I see of this strange phenomenon.
>
>
> Cura, ut valeas.
>
>
>
> --- Ven 4/9/09, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...> ha scritto:
>
> Da: gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...>
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Meus et deus et populus.
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Venerdì 4 settembre 2009, 18:55
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> My guess that you were confused by capitalization is confirmed in this post. Capitalization doesn't make it a proper name. It, like so many other words, is capitalized due to early Christian tradition in using nomina sacra. In other words, these words were considered holy. Many of them were also proper names, but not all.
>
>
>
> Saying that the god that Tertullian attacks was also his god is a rather sorry defense. Tertullian expressly does not believe this; why do you assume they're the same god?--Just because those he attacks might think so? What is your foundation for the metaphysical claim that they're all the same god? More importantly, *it doesn't matter* because Tertullian's usage depends on *what he thinks*. If he believed "deus" was a proper name for his god, he would never qualify it with the term "heretical", nor would he disavow its existence. It is obvious that Tertullian deems it acceptable to use "dee" as a vocative for the generic term "deus".
>
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
>
> Gualterus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ave,
>
> >
>
> > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
>
> >
>
> > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
>
> >
>
> > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
>
> >
>
> > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
>
> >
>
> > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
>
> >
>
> > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
>
> >
>
> > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
>
> >
>
> > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
>
> >
>
> > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
>
> >
>
> > It is a name because of the capital letter.
>
> >
>
> > Vale.
>
> > C. Petronius Dexter
>
> >
>

Ave,

> My guess that you were confused by capitalization is confirmed in this post.

I confused nothing. For christians Deus is a name, is the name of the entity in whom they believe. It is the name of their god. They never give him another name. Which christian name his god with his true name YHWH? None.

God is a name, it is the proper name of the god of the christians. And it is a great and vicious idea, because if their god is God no one except him can be god.

Which modern philosopher try to prove the existence of Jupiter? Spinoza, for example, tryed to prove the existence of God, hoc est the unic god and the unic god is the god of the monotheists: whose the name is God. Spinoza did not try to prove the existence of Yhwh nor of Zeus... when he searchs a god, he finds God.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Lentulus Tulliae et Quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis s. d.

>>> ATS:  As I said earlier, that is the normal US pattern, which has a number of advantages.  <<<

I certainly acknowledge it has its advantages, but what I wanted to say is that my personal experience with my pupils is that they acquire much quicker and easier those declensions that have the most isomorphic endings. And when they learn that the plural dative and ablative are always of the same form, they jubilate: this is why it is easier to teach and lear the Nom-Acc-Gen-Dat-Abl order than the Western one.

>>> Church Latin is good; Church Latin is nice; it led a lot of us to the classics.  It is most unfortunate that they gave up on it.  All of us hope that B XVI will restore it. <<<

Yes, we hope so... Hope that the Pope also hope so...

Lentulus Hortensiae suae s. p. d. Gratias tibi ago et congratulor! All perfect, test passed ;-) Fac ut valeas! Lentulus --- Gio 3/9/09, rory12001 <rory12001@...> ha scritto: Da: rory12001 <rory12001@...> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Accusative and Repetition - Put Your Name in Accusative (And Dative and Vocative)! A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Giovedì 3 settembre 2009, 07:50   -- Salve Julia; I agree. Divus Lentulus;-) Nominative: Marca Hortenia Maior Accusative:Marcam Hortensiam Maiorem Dative: Marcae Hortensiae Maiori Vocative: Marca Hortensia Maior > you are wonderful, Lentule! optime vale Maior > Salve Lentule, > > Please forgive my absence in this game, I will catch up when i have more than a few moments to give as this deserves my best;) > > This is wonderful, actually the most wonderful set of threads that I have ever seen in Nova Roma, you are truly a blessing amice;) > > Vale, > Julia > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Ugo Coppola <ugo.coppola@ > wrote: > > > > Placidus Corneli Lentulo S.D. > > > > >NOW: THE GAME > > > > >Your task is now to put your name in all cases we practiced earlier > > AND into > > >Accusative, in this format: > > > > >Nominative: Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (subject) > > >Accusative: Gnaeum Cornelium Lentulum (direct object) > > >Dative: Gnaeo Cornelio Lentulo (indirect object) > > >Vocative: Gnaee Corneli Lentule (calling on name, addressing personally) > > > > >Now your turn :-) > > > > Nominative: Publius Annæus Constantinus Placidus > > (Genitive: Publi Annæi Constantini Placidi) > > Dative: Publio Annæo Constantino Placido > > Accusative: Publium Annæum Constantinum Placidum > > Vocative: Publi Annæe Constantine Placide > > (Ablative: same as Dative. This is the Second Declension, after all.) > > > > I hope this is all correct! ;-) > > > > Bene vale, > > Placidus > > >

Lentulus Tulliae suae s. p. d.

>>> ATS:  Indeed, and quite frankly, I think that our American system is better. <<<

It might be a question of use or taste.

>>> The vocative usually tags along at the end, but is relevant only in two of the many groups of nouns in the second declension, whereas the other four declensions and other variants in the second declension have no separate vocative; it is simply the same as the nominative. <<<

And this is why I never include the vocative in a table of declensions. It just confuses the students to see a table where there is a case that is always the same as the word itself (nominative) except the masculine words in the second declension.

>>> It’s quite true that the accusative is probably the most common of the oblique cases, and that the European system shows the similarities of the cases, but to me at least it is much easier to learn the American version, in which we emphasize the differences.  Having too many forms look like one another seems entirely too confusing to the learner. <<<

I came to the opposite experience, but it is also true that different people learn in different ways, and some acquire easier what's the difference, some, however, learn quicker what's the similarity.

>>>> As you know, Lentule, the French Assimil text uses the NAGDA pattern rather than the NGDAA one we use here, so methinks it is not so much Eastern and Western Europe which are being divided here, but Europe vs. the Americas, or North America at least. <<<<

Yes, now I remember, and as our Memmius said, too, they learn the NAGDA order. But the Eastern-Western division still stands since Italy and England and I think some other Western Eauropean countries use the NGDAA system - while in the East from Germany (or France), the NAGDA system prevails (alone).


Fac valeas!

Lentulus Fidelio s. d. Well done, Lusitane, you made only a very small error. The vocative of your name is Luci Fideli Lusitane, with one "i" in Luci and in Fideli. The vocative of names ending "ius" is always one "i", not two. VALE! LENTVLVS --- Mer 2/9/09, Bruno Cantermi <brunocantermi@...> ha scritto: Da: Bruno Cantermi <brunocantermi@...> Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] The Accusative and Repetition - Put Your Name in Accusative (AndDative and Vocative)! A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Mercoledì 2 settembre 2009, 23:56    Salvete Omnes!   Nominative: Lucius Fidelius Lusitanus. Dative: Lucio Fidelio Lusitano. Vocative: Lucii Fidelii Lusitane. Accusative: Lucium Fidelium Lusitanum.   Wow! Four in a row! I'm surprised I could reach that much!   Vale,   LVSITANVS.SPD. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus To: Nova Roma ML Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:23 AM Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Accusative and Repetition - Put Your Name in Accusative (AndDative and Vocative)!   Cn. Lentulus magister sodalitatis Latinitatis Quiritibus omnibus suis sal. Now, after practicing a little verb inflection, let's return to the nouns. Latin nouns have cases to express their grammatical role. We did not talk about the basic case, the Nominative to express the subject. It's your name as it is. My name in Nominative is Lentulus e.g. So far we know the Nominative case and played with the Dative and Vocative. Do you remember them? You must if you want to participate in this round. :-) Here comes the Accusative case, most used Latin case ever. THE ACCUSATIVE: The Latin accusative case is the grammatical case used to mark the direct object of a transitive verb, like for example in English "Peter reads a book." In English, except for a small number of words which display a distinct accusative case (e.g., who/whom, I/me, he/him), the accusative and nominative cases are identical. Here are the basic and very general rules for making a singular accusative: -If a word ends in "-us", then the accusative ends in "-um". Tullius becomes Tullium. -If a word ends in "-a", then the accusative ends in "-am". Livia becomes Liviam. -If a word ends in "-o", then the accusative ends in "-onem". Cicero becomes Ciceronem. -Many other words change their ending to "-em" whose rules are more difficult and are not detailed here. Here are some just for example: Audens in accusative becomes Audentem, Venus in accusative is Venerem, homo in accusative is hominem, praetor in accusative is praetorem, consul in accusative is consulem, and so on. -Nouns of the neutral gender which often end in "-um" have no accusative different from nominative, so, for example forum is forum in accusative. For more information, see OUR WEBSITE: http://novaroma. org/nr/Accusativ e NOW: THE GAME Your task is now to put your name in all cases we practiced earlier AND into Accusative, in this format: Nominative: Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (subject) Accusative: Gnaeum Cornelium Lentulum (direct object) Dative: Gnaeo Cornelio Lentulo (indirect object) Vocative: Gnaee Corneli Lentule (calling on name, addressing personally) Now your turn :-) VALETE! Cn. Lentulus __________ NOD32 4390 (20090902) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset. com

Salve,

I've never met a Christian who thought the three letters "g" "o" "d" make the name of their god, and I've never read any church father trying to make this argument for "god" in any other language. Rather, if you ask what their god's name is, Christians will typically answer that it is Jesus Christ, sometimes Yahweh, sometimes "unknown". If you want to keep arguing this, I suggest you try to dig up some reference in a church father that can support you.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> > My guess that you were confused by capitalization is confirmed in this post.
>
> I confused nothing. For christians Deus is a name, is the name of the entity in whom they believe. It is the name of their god. They never give him another name. Which christian name his god with his true name YHWH? None.
>
> God is a name, it is the proper name of the god of the christians. And it is a great and vicious idea, because if their god is God no one except him can be god.
>
> Which modern philosopher try to prove the existence of Jupiter? Spinoza, for example, tryed to prove the existence of God, hoc est the unic god and the unic god is the god of the monotheists: whose the name is God. Spinoza did not try to prove the existence of Yhwh nor of Zeus... when he searchs a god, he finds God.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Well, the citations I gave weren't to liturgical Latin, but the living Latin of late antiquity. I am certainly aware that Latin, like all living languages, changed and to absolutely categorize one phase of it "correct" and the rest "wrong" is arbitrary and senseless.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, geranioj@... wrote:
>
> As you know classical latin is much different than litugial latin, even; in pronuciation.?? Look at the words of JESUS and then look at Cicero, you can hardly find the verb in Ciceros latin,? QUO USQUE TANDEM ABUTERE.............................CATILINA.?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: gualterus_graecus waltms1@...
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 9:34 am
>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Meus et deus et populus.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve,
>
>
>
> You seem to have made a rather arbitrary decision on what is good and bad Latin. Apparently, Christian sources offer bad Latin. Also, who exactly is this mysterious Roman, speaker of good Latin, that you refer to? Which time period and geographic area do you have in mind?
>
>
>
> I just did a search for "popule" in the Brepolis database of Latin texts (through my university website; it's not public) and it's certainly not common in the first two centuries CE, but you will find it in Quintilian's minor declamations (302.5) and in pseudo-Quintilian's major declamations (11.11) (provided the major declamations actually date this early). From the third through fifth centuries, it becomes much more common. In addition to the Vulgate, you find it in Ambrose, Augustine, Hieronymus, Maximus of Turin, and Julian of Eclanum. Amusingly, you even find it in pseudo-Cicero (ep. ad Oct. 6).
>
>
>
> I think a better thing to do is to say that you are restricting yourself to the idiom of golden and silver age Latin, and the observations should be phrased as pointing to regular and irregular usage relative to that period.
>
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
>
> Gualterus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" jfarnoud94@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Ave Potite,
>
> >
>
> > > Populus does have a vocative form, "popule", attested in the Vulgate (Micah
>
> > > 6:3, 5) and the "reproaches" of Good Friday ("Popule meus"). Admittedly,
>
> > > these are late sources.
>
> >
>
> > "Popule meus!" that is very bad Latin. That is not Latin. A kind of Latin as in the movie "The life of Brian"... My subject was the Latin, the good and mere Latin, the Latin spoken and written by Romans.
>
> >
>
> > Salve.
>
> > C. Petronius Dexter
>
> >
>

Cn. Lentulus Cn. Marino praetori s. d. <<< Just earlier this week you said that you'd never seen it written that way. You said, in fact, that I had written it correctly as Gnae Equiti Marine. For the moment I shall continue to use Gnae as the vocative of Gnaeus, because I believe that is the classical usage.<<< That's not entirely what I've said. I cite my mail in which I spoke about the vocative of "Gnaeus": "Yes, although the "Gnaeus" part a bit more complicated. As the general rule says -us must end in -e in vocative, it should rather be "Gnaee" with double ee. But I confess I have never seen this written out in Latin. The praenomen "Gnaeus" earlier form was "Gnaevus" - but then written as Gnaivos". So in those times it should have be "Gnaeve" in vocative." So I have said I have never seen this written out - but according the the grammatical rules it *has to* be "Gnaee". >>> Possibly so. But having had it branded into my neural pathways in the manner I cited it, I doubt I'd ever be able to replace that method now. <<< Nor should you! It is not of any importance since you learned it once. If one learned it one way, there is no reason to learn it in another way, too. I merely wanted to notice an interesting difference in teaching Latin declensions among different countries. Fac valeas! Cn. Cornelius

Ave,

> The sentence is dripping with sarcasm, but I don't see how consciously using "dee" as a *bad* form would add to the effect, although, using it consciously as an irregular form might make sense.

The vocative "dee" is not correct, so it is bad not irregular. When something is not correct, it is said bad and wrong. In French we use the term "mauvais" in this case. It is not a drama to use forms which are not correct, because they can be corrected.

> I have no problem classifying it as irregular, but calling it "wrong" or "bad" is arbitrary. You also find it in Prudentius (Amartigenia 931) "O dee cunctiparens, animae dator, o dee christe", where it can hardly have been considered "bad" by the author.

You forgot the capital letters. "Dee" and "Christe"... If one person first said wrongly "Dee", a form become possible because of the unic Deus and his proper name, if this peculiarity was a sign of affiliation to a people, to the christian people, why not. But this vocative is not correct in Latin.

> It even gets an entry in pseudo-Probus, Instituta Artium (4.127.9):

You have a big bookcase... so I am sure that you can find the rule of the grammar in which deus is normally said without vocative.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Lentulus Placido s. p. d. Fantastic! Without mistake! Are you learning Latin, amice? If not, you definitively should! VALE! LENTVLVS --- Mer 2/9/09, Ugo Coppola <ugo.coppola@...> ha scritto: Da: Ugo Coppola <ugo.coppola@...> Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] The Accusative and Repetition - Put Your Name in Accusative (And Dative and Vocative)! A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Data: Mercoledì 2 settembre 2009, 14:48   Placidus Corneli Lentulo S.D. >NOW: THE GAME >Your task is now to put your name in all cases we practiced earlier AND into >Accusative, in this format: >Nominative: Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (subject) >Accusative: Gnaeum Cornelium Lentulum (direct object) >Dative: Gnaeo Cornelio Lentulo (indirect object) >Vocative: Gnaee Corneli Lentule (calling on name, addressing personally) >Now your turn :-) Nominative: Publius Annæus Constantinus Placidus (Genitive: Publi Annæi Constantini Placidi) Dative: Publio Annæo Constantino Placido Accusative: Publium Annæum Constantinum Placidum Vocative: Publi Annæe Constantine Placide (Ablative: same as Dative. This is the Second Declension, after all.) I hope this is all correct! ;-) Bene vale, Placidus

Ave,

> I've never met a Christian who thought the three letters "g" "o" "d" make the name of their god,

Trully? And if someone is the "son of God", he is the son of who?

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Ave,

> Now, if you really want to get into this, what is your metaphysical argument for why Marcion's god is the same as Tertullian's?

At the time of Tertullian the god of the christians was not yet completely nor clearly defined. The god of Marcion was so competitive than the god of Tertullian. So the christian church bit by bit claimed some ideas on the christian god she wanted heresies if those ideas were not created from the dogm bit by bit defined. To try to end the struggles of definition the emperor Constantine, at Nicea, forced the Christians to vote the nature of their god. At the council of Nicea the bishops of the whole christianity/Roman empire did a consensus with the emperor to define the god in question and to vote his design. The vote was edicted in the "Nicene creed", after that the bishops opponent were driven out and treated as "heretical".

The beginning of the dark age.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Lentulus Albucio suo amico sal.

>>> Damn! I have lived in East Europe when I was a child and just realize it now. I have learnt this order, with the vocative between the nom. and the acc..: Verus circus? Truman show ? ;-) <<<

Well, Latin grammatically, yes, you lived in the NAGDA part of Europe... It's interesting to learn that French people learn it that way too - while Italians do it the other way.

Why is it so?


Optime vale!

LENT.

C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,

> NOW: THE GAME
> Your task is now to put your name in all cases we practiced earlier AND into Accusative, in this format:

Nominative: Gaius Petronius Dexter (subject)
Vocative: Gai Petroni Dexter (calling on name, addressing personally)
Accusative: Gaium Petronium Dextrum or Dexterum (direct object)
Dative: Gaio Petronio Dextro or Dextero (indirect object)

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve Gualtere;
I have no idea if Marcion's idea of god is the same as Tertullian's, frankly I'm not interested. The important point is that here in Nova Roma there are no heretics, Marcion and gnostic christians are exactly on the same level as roman, orthodox, protestant christians. They are all equally true. There is no one exclusive Truth.

it's a very important cultural issue; syncretism and tolerance are what Nova Roma is about.
optime vale
Maior

> Now, if you really want to get into this, what is your metaphysical argument for why Marcion's god is the same as Tertullian's?
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > --- Salvete;
> > what 'heresy'? Marcion was a gnostic Christian. His beliefs about his god are just as valid as Tertullian's, according to our Roman culture. All Christian cults are equal in Nova Roma.
> > optime vale
> > Maior
> >
> >
> >
> > Marcion had the same God in mind, even though he was heretical in his ideas about Him.
> > >
> > > But Gualterus is right on this point, I think: Tertullian, because he was speaking of that one God, would use a ...new?...singular vocative form of the word "deus"; that doesn't mean it's not correct Latin, simply that the language had to absorb the concept of the singular God and had to adapt.
> > >
> > > To try to parse "real" Latin (only spoken by the Romans) from "other" Latin is a little specious; wasn't one of the great "real" Roman writers constantly made fun of because his Latin was so bad?
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ave,
> > > >
> > > > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
> > > >
> > > > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
> > > >
> > > > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
> > > >
> > > > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
> > > >
> > > > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
> > > >
> > > > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
> > > >
> > > > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
> > > >
> > > > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
> > > >
> > > > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
> > > >
> > > > It is a name because of the capital letter.
> > > >
> > > > Vale.
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
...

> The vocative "dee" is not correct, so it is bad not irregular. When something is not correct, it is said bad and wrong. In French we use the term "mauvais" in this case. It is not a drama to use forms which are not correct, because they can be corrected.
>
...

But, as I have already demonstrated with more than one example, it IS correct in late antique Latin, and it IS "drama" to claim anything that doesn't fit the regular usage of golden and silver age Latin as "wrong". The fact that languages evolve seems to have be lost on you.

Vale,

Gualterus

Ave,

> I've never met a Christian who thought the three letters "g" "o" "d" make the name of their god,

Does not exist in English the expression: "In the name of God!"?

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve,

Of the father, who remains unnamed in that phrase. There is a parallel phrase, "son of man"--do you suppose that "man" here is a proper name? Would you have the same confusion if encountering "divi filius" in a non-Christian setting?

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> > I've never met a Christian who thought the three letters "g" "o" "d" make the name of their god,
>
> Trully? And if someone is the "son of God", he is the son of who?
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

>Crispus Lentulo omnibusque S.P.D

Thank you. I'm pleased to have got it right.

I did learn Latin over 45 years ago, but, having given up before I became anything like proficient, and never having the need to use it, I now remember only a little. I think I gave up all hope after learning all the parts of hic, haec, hoc, but with no prospect of ever being able to say "Hi, I'm Crispus, what's new, what are we doing today?". French seemed to have so much more practical application. I don't regret concentrating on the French, but I do regret never progressing with the Latin. Curiously I still have the odd phrase in my head, such as "Exigua parte aestatis reliqua, Caesar (decided to invade Britain).

During the period up to at least 1970, the order of the declensions in England was:

Nominative Vocative Accusative Genitive Dative Ablative. The vocative was always included, without fail, in every declension.

I suspect that all this may now have changed.

You are absolutely right that I should seriously think about learning again.


Vale optime

Crispus

>
>
>
> Why is it so?
>
>
> Optime vale!
>
> LENT.
>

Salve,

Of course it exists, but it is clear you don't understand what "in the name of god" means. It doesn't state or imply that "god" is the name, but is an invocation of the name which god happens to have and remains unstated in the phrase. It is elliptical and understandably so, given the Jewish tradition of avoiding its pronunciation (i.e. the tetragrammaton, later abbreviated as only two yods, -> pronouncing "adonai" in its place -> simply ha-shem ("the name")). In the magical literature, both Christian and non-Christian, various names are divulged as being the "real" ones.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> > I've never met a Christian who thought the three letters "g" "o" "d" make the name of their god,
>
> Does not exist in English the expression: "In the name of God!"?
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Salve Maior,

So, in fact, you are not making a metaphysical statement that Marcion's god and Tertullian's god are *actually* the same, but a socio-political one, that their perspectives hold equal social standing in NR. That's all fluffy and good, but I don't see why you felt the need to interject this into a completely unrelated discussion. I'm sure you are aware of the various uses of "heretical" and how it is meaningful within the context of particular Christian literature. So, in short, frankly, I'm not interested.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gualtere;
> I have no idea if Marcion's idea of god is the same as Tertullian's, frankly I'm not interested. The important point is that here in Nova Roma there are no heretics, Marcion and gnostic christians are exactly on the same level as roman, orthodox, protestant christians. They are all equally true. There is no one exclusive Truth.
>
> it's a very important cultural issue; syncretism and tolerance are what Nova Roma is about.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
>
>
> > Now, if you really want to get into this, what is your metaphysical argument for why Marcion's god is the same as Tertullian's?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Salvete;
> > > what 'heresy'? Marcion was a gnostic Christian. His beliefs about his god are just as valid as Tertullian's, according to our Roman culture. All Christian cults are equal in Nova Roma.
> > > optime vale
> > > Maior
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marcion had the same God in mind, even though he was heretical in his ideas about Him.
> > > >
> > > > But Gualterus is right on this point, I think: Tertullian, because he was speaking of that one God, would use a ...new?...singular vocative form of the word "deus"; that doesn't mean it's not correct Latin, simply that the language had to absorb the concept of the singular God and had to adapt.
> > > >
> > > > To try to parse "real" Latin (only spoken by the Romans) from "other" Latin is a little specious; wasn't one of the great "real" Roman writers constantly made fun of because his Latin was so bad?
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ave,
> > > > >
> > > > > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
> > > > >
> > > > > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
> > > > >
> > > > > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
> > > > >
> > > > > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
> > > > >
> > > > > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
> > > > >
> > > > > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
> > > > >
> > > > > It is a name because of the capital letter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale.
> > > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo s.p.d.,

> Yes, now I remember, and as our Memmius said, too, they learn the NAGDA order.

An ancient Roman way is given by Donatus.

"Casus nominum quot sunt? sex.
Qui? nominatiuus, genetiuus, datiuus, accusatiuus, uocatiuus, ablatiuus."

So the ancient system was : NGDAVA.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM, gualterus_graecus wrote:

>
> Salve,
>

[excision. The fact that languages evolve...

>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>

...is quite clearly shown by the history of my own cradle tongue,
Standard American English (going by just the Germanic elements here
,-).

Standard American English came from early Modern English, which
developed from Middle English, an outgrowth of Old English (aka
Anglo-Saxon), a child of "West Germanic," stemming from Old Germanic,
an off shoot of Proto-Indo European...whew!

Even in our lifetimes, language is changed, adding new words, dropping
archaicisms...shedding cumbersome or "proper" grammar.

mea sententia

Venator Nonscholastica ,-)
Venator

 A. Tullia Scholastica Crispo quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 


>Crispus Lentulo omnibusque S.P.D

Thank you. I'm pleased to have got it right.

I did learn Latin over 45 years ago, but, having given up before I became anything like proficient, and never having the need to use it, I now remember only a little. I think I gave up all hope after learning all the parts of hic, haec, hoc, but with no prospect of ever being able to say "Hi, I'm Crispus, what's new, what are we doing today?".

    ATS:  How about mihi est Crispo.  Quid novi?  Quid hodie agimus? (being quite literal here).  


French seemed to have so much more practical application. I don't regret concentrating on the French, but I do regret never progressing with the Latin. Curiously I still have the odd phrase in my head, such as "Exigua parte aestatis reliqua, Caesar (decided to invade Britain).

    ATS:  LOL!

During the period up to at least 1970, the order of the declensions in England was:

Nominative Vocative Accusative Genitive Dative Ablative. The vocative was always included, without fail, in every declension.

    ATS:  And as Lentulus noted, that is hardly necessary...at least in Latin.  Greek is another matter, since there are many forms of the vocative.  

I suspect that all this may now have changed.

You are absolutely right that I should seriously think about learning again.

    ATS:  Registration in Grammatica Latina I is still open, and will be for a week or so.  If you can obtain the text, you will be welcome in the class.  We have all levels there.  Ditto in Sermo I, but the text is more difficult to obtain, except by emule.  

Vale optime

Crispus


Vale, et valete.  
>
>
>
> Why is it so?
>
>
> Optime vale!
>
> LENT.
>

  
    

     

L. Livia C. Petronio Cn. Lentuloque sal.
Interesting: it seems we Italians have actually managed to make one innovation in all these centuries. We have moved the vocative to the last place, or taken it out all together from the declensions where it's the same as the nominative.
For the rest, we stick to tradition. I think nobody found declensions in this order difficult to learn. For those who did not learn it, it's due to other reasons, mainly the lack of motivation.

Optime vale,
Livia

>
> C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo s.p.d.,
>
> > Yes, now I remember, and as our Memmius said, too, they learn the NAGDA order.
>
> An ancient Roman way is given by Donatus.
>
> "Casus nominum quot sunt? sex.
> Qui? nominatiuus, genetiuus, datiuus, accusatiuus, uocatiuus, ablatiuus."
>
> So the ancient system was : NGDAVA.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Livia Petronio omnibusque sal.

Why do you think "di" is plural? To me it looks as if the vocative of "deus" is the same as that of "meus". Nothing surprising. Di mi!

Optime valete,
Livia

Salve Gualtere;
I mentioned 'culture' nor is it fluffy, a demeaning term, to describe and analyze how our Nova Roman culture adresses such ideas as 'heretical', 'God' etc...

But I think you don't believe either in our creating a polytheistic Roman culture or the gods, it is all a piece of sterile research work.

You like the term 'heretical' just like the term 'orthopraxy' it's easy and doesn't really require you to rethink things, just as modern scholars are reappraising early Christianity and seeing a spectruum, of christianities not just the winners....

Feel free to cling to these obsolete terms; but in the current state of scholarship you are passe.
vale
Maior

> Salve Maior,
>
> So, in fact, you are not making a metaphysical statement that Marcion's god and Tertullian's god are *actually* the same, but a socio-political one, that their perspectives hold equal social standing in NR. That's all fluffy and good, but I don't see why you felt the need to interject this into a completely unrelated discussion. I'm sure you are aware of the various uses of "heretical" and how it is meaningful within the context of particular Christian literature. So, in short, frankly, I'm not interested.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Gualtere;
> > I have no idea if Marcion's idea of god is the same as Tertullian's, frankly I'm not interested. The important point is that here in Nova Roma there are no heretics, Marcion and gnostic christians are exactly on the same level as roman, orthodox, protestant christians. They are all equally true. There is no one exclusive Truth.
> >
> > it's a very important cultural issue; syncretism and tolerance are what Nova Roma is about.
> > optime vale
> > Maior
> >
> >
> >
> > > Now, if you really want to get into this, what is your metaphysical argument for why Marcion's god is the same as Tertullian's?
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Gualterus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- Salvete;
> > > > what 'heresy'? Marcion was a gnostic Christian. His beliefs about his god are just as valid as Tertullian's, according to our Roman culture. All Christian cults are equal in Nova Roma.
> > > > optime vale
> > > > Maior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marcion had the same God in mind, even though he was heretical in his ideas about Him.
> > > > >
> > > > > But Gualterus is right on this point, I think: Tertullian, because he was speaking of that one God, would use a ...new?...singular vocative form of the word "deus"; that doesn't mean it's not correct Latin, simply that the language had to absorb the concept of the singular God and had to adapt.
> > > > >
> > > > > To try to parse "real" Latin (only spoken by the Romans) from "other" Latin is a little specious; wasn't one of the great "real" Roman writers constantly made fun of because his Latin was so bad?
> > > > >
> > > > > Valete,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ave,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is a name because of the capital letter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale.
> > > > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Salve Maior,

Before you surgically implant that foot into your mouth, you will notice that the immediate reason I chose to use "heretical" (and in quotes, mind you) was because the passage from Tertullian itself says "o dee haeretice". It wasn't some spontaneous choice on my part. Did you actually read the passage I pasted in one of the posts?

As for your culture argument, I am not of the same opinion that all religions are of equal standing--I consider it a rather fluffy position.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Gualtere;
> I mentioned 'culture' nor is it fluffy, a demeaning term, to describe and analyze how our Nova Roman culture adresses such ideas as 'heretical', 'God' etc...
>
> But I think you don't believe either in our creating a polytheistic Roman culture or the gods, it is all a piece of sterile research work.
>
> You like the term 'heretical' just like the term 'orthopraxy' it's easy and doesn't really require you to rethink things, just as modern scholars are reappraising early Christianity and seeing a spectruum, of christianities not just the winners....
>
> Feel free to cling to these obsolete terms; but in the current state of scholarship you are passe.
> vale
> Maior
>
> > Salve Maior,
> >
> > So, in fact, you are not making a metaphysical statement that Marcion's god and Tertullian's god are *actually* the same, but a socio-political one, that their perspectives hold equal social standing in NR. That's all fluffy and good, but I don't see why you felt the need to interject this into a completely unrelated discussion. I'm sure you are aware of the various uses of "heretical" and how it is meaningful within the context of particular Christian literature. So, in short, frankly, I'm not interested.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Gualtere;
> > > I have no idea if Marcion's idea of god is the same as Tertullian's, frankly I'm not interested. The important point is that here in Nova Roma there are no heretics, Marcion and gnostic christians are exactly on the same level as roman, orthodox, protestant christians. They are all equally true. There is no one exclusive Truth.
> > >
> > > it's a very important cultural issue; syncretism and tolerance are what Nova Roma is about.
> > > optime vale
> > > Maior
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Now, if you really want to get into this, what is your metaphysical argument for why Marcion's god is the same as Tertullian's?
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Gualterus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Salvete;
> > > > > what 'heresy'? Marcion was a gnostic Christian. His beliefs about his god are just as valid as Tertullian's, according to our Roman culture. All Christian cults are equal in Nova Roma.
> > > > > optime vale
> > > > > Maior
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcion had the same God in mind, even though he was heretical in his ideas about Him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But Gualterus is right on this point, I think: Tertullian, because he was speaking of that one God, would use a ...new?...singular vocative form of the word "deus"; that doesn't mean it's not correct Latin, simply that the language had to absorb the concept of the singular God and had to adapt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To try to parse "real" Latin (only spoken by the Romans) from "other" Latin is a little specious; wasn't one of the great "real" Roman writers constantly made fun of because his Latin was so bad?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cato
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ave,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is a name because of the capital letter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vale.
> > > > > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

-----Original Message-----
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 11:07 am
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Meus et deus et populus.

 Scholastica Liviae Petronio Lentulo quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 

Livia Petronio omnibusque sal.

Why do you think "di" is plural? To me it looks as if the vocative of "deus" is the same as that of "meus". Nothing surprising. Di mi!

    ATS:  Di IS plural.   It is one of the three nominative plural forms given in the OLD.  Others are dii and dei.  The classical vocative of deus is deus, and the classical vocative of meus (masculine singular ) is mi.  However, the G & GL grammar says that meus does not change form in the vocative when used with a substantive which does not change form in the vocative, and cites meus ocellus alongside mi anime.   It also notes that in late Latin, mi  served as the feminine singular vocative, and the masculine plural.  The OLD does not give a vocative for populus, and lists only syncopated/archaic spellings among the variants.  

    That was interesting about the ancient order of the cases...

Optime valete,
Livia

  Valete.  
    

-Salve Graece;
kindly save the insulting tone; this is the ML. I get that over at the Back Alley 24/7 with Cato thinking he can become a religious official.

I read your post. Why include the term?. Tertullian differs with Marcion over their individual understanding of their god. It's easy to understand, the Latin is perfectly clear.

So you don't believe religions are of equal standing. Interesting, how do you rank them then?
vale
Maior

>
> Before you surgically implant that foot into your mouth, you will notice that the immediate reason I chose to use "heretical" (and in quotes, mind you) was because the passage from Tertullian itself says "o dee haeretice". It wasn't some spontaneous choice on my part. Did you actually read the passage I pasted in one of the posts?
>
> As for your culture argument, I am not of the same opinion that all religions are of equal standing--I consider it a rather fluffy position.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Gualtere;
> > I mentioned 'culture' nor is it fluffy, a demeaning term, to describe and analyze how our Nova Roman culture adresses such ideas as 'heretical', 'God' etc...
> >
> > But I think you don't believe either in our creating a polytheistic Roman culture or the gods, it is all a piece of sterile research work.
> >
> > You like the term 'heretical' just like the term 'orthopraxy' it's easy and doesn't really require you to rethink things, just as modern scholars are reappraising early Christianity and seeing a spectruum, of christianities not just the winners....
> >
> > Feel free to cling to these obsolete terms; but in the current state of scholarship you are passe.
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
> > > Salve Maior,
> > >
> > > So, in fact, you are not making a metaphysical statement that Marcion's god and Tertullian's god are *actually* the same, but a socio-political one, that their perspectives hold equal social standing in NR. That's all fluffy and good, but I don't see why you felt the need to interject this into a completely unrelated discussion. I'm sure you are aware of the various uses of "heretical" and how it is meaningful within the context of particular Christian literature. So, in short, frankly, I'm not interested.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Gualterus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve Gualtere;
> > > > I have no idea if Marcion's idea of god is the same as Tertullian's, frankly I'm not interested. The important point is that here in Nova Roma there are no heretics, Marcion and gnostic christians are exactly on the same level as roman, orthodox, protestant christians. They are all equally true. There is no one exclusive Truth.
> > > >
> > > > it's a very important cultural issue; syncretism and tolerance are what Nova Roma is about.
> > > > optime vale
> > > > Maior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Now, if you really want to get into this, what is your metaphysical argument for why Marcion's god is the same as Tertullian's?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale,
> > > > >
> > > > > Gualterus
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Salvete;
> > > > > > what 'heresy'? Marcion was a gnostic Christian. His beliefs about his god are just as valid as Tertullian's, according to our Roman culture. All Christian cults are equal in Nova Roma.
> > > > > > optime vale
> > > > > > Maior
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marcion had the same God in mind, even though he was heretical in his ideas about Him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But Gualterus is right on this point, I think: Tertullian, because he was speaking of that one God, would use a ...new?...singular vocative form of the word "deus"; that doesn't mean it's not correct Latin, simply that the language had to absorb the concept of the singular God and had to adapt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To try to parse "real" Latin (only spoken by the Romans) from "other" Latin is a little specious; wasn't one of the great "real" Roman writers constantly made fun of because his Latin was so bad?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cato
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ave,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > LOL, it's not Latin? What is it, Chinese?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can be ironical, but yhou are wrong. In Latin deus has not vocative form "dee", but "di", the plural vocative.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >You could make the observation that it's not common or not preferred, but you can't make the statement "that is not Latin but christian" (which doesn't even make sense).<
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That makes sense but you feign lack of understanding.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In addition, it would have served you well to actually read the passage from Tertullian, because he is not referring to his own god, but the "heretical" god of Marcion,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who was this "heretical god" the christian God of course, Marcion too was christian. A gnosticist. You know how Tertullian was against heresies, id est against those who do not think like him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Obviously, Tertullian here is not treating this as some proper name
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, he did! This heretical god is the christian god, but Marcion had another opinion than Tertullian about him. And when you have an unic god, this god becomes God.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (I'm curious where you got that argument from, btw, that Christians consider "deus" a proper name; maybe you'd like to back that up by citing some church father?).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is a name because of the capital letter.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vale.
> > > > > > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>