Disputatio:Anulorum Erus

message: I have added mention of Sindarin, and have removed the line " Multi loquuntur hanc linguam" which concerned Quenya, as this is a highly dubious statement 
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Eldarin).
129.186.18.164 21:13, 27 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
129.186.18.164 est Usor:Arminius
Arminius 21:18, 27 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: 1. Says Whitaker:
 elbus
 elbus   ========   UNKNOWN    
2. For the translation of the "black speech"... did the author do that himself or find it already in latin somewhere?
Anulus Eos Subicere 
Omnes Invenire 
In Obscuritatem Pellere 
Et Aeternaliter Vincire 
(In Terram Mordorem 
Qua Umbrae Sunt)* 
I would not use infinitives of purpose here (something only English speakers and drunken characters in Plautus are allowed to do) but I would use potential subjunctives. Anyone else agree?--Ioshus (disp) 17:52, 28 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much experience with translating into Latin, but I think that you are probably right--the subjunctive would be better. Allen and Greenbough's New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges says "The Purpose of an action is expressed in Latin in various ways; but never (except in idiomatic expressions and rarely in poetry) by the simple Infinitive as in English (§ 460)." If this qualifies as poetry, the usage as it stands might be acceptable (assuming this qualifies as the purpose of an action). Furthermore, a construction with the Gerundive might be acceptable, but I don't know for sure. On an unrelated note, is the translation of the Lord of the Rings that is available on the first link legal?--Arminius 22:15, 28 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :But is this really PURPOSE in the poem?  I don't think it is. It's not "one ring, in order to bind them," but rather an infinitive of description.  One Ring (which is such so as) to rule them all.
THese are descriptive infinitives (virtual adjectives), not purpose clauses (adverbs).  Dokei moi, at any rate.--74.133.247.2 17:22, 3 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

text: However, the purpose of the One Ring is "to rule them all" (all people, that is), but it is also "the ruling ring" (in that it is superior to all other rings). Therefore, the infinitives could be simultaneously "purposeful" and "descriptive."Arminius 22:28, 3 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
"Ultimus liber est famosissimus, forsan maximus et optimus."--Nonne opinio hoc est?-Secundus Zephyrus 16:06, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: Opus nomine Domini Anulorum e sex libris vero compositum erat sed in tres voluminibus editum est. Illa opinio, quae commemorabatur, a pelliculae certe suggesta est, attamen in pellicula tertia praecipue scaenae e volumine secundo ostentae sunt. Ceterum censeo opinionem esse delendam. ;-) Danielus Pugnatorius 09:58, 1 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Consentio.  Admiror tertium volumen sicut multi admirantur; opinio tamen constat; praeterea plurima contra, pro primis voluminibus, dici potest.  Delevi.  Jackmitchell 06:23, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  res duae 

message: This page should probably be renamed to The Lord of the Rings, seeing as the Latin translation (1) only covers three chapters; (2) hasn't actually been published. Mattie 17:37, 3 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Meae ignoscatis ignorantiae, sed non valeo intelligere illam partem "Decem Leti Hominibus quibus fatum est adveniente". Quid sibi vult "Decem Leti"? Nonne fuerunt novem anuli hominibus? Neque patet illud de taëtra, fortasse est "terra"? GratiasAlfonsoz (disputatio) 15:46, 23 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quod "letum" idem significat ac "mors," scriptor verbo "mortalis" uti debuit.  Ut mihi videtur, in lexicone sub vocem anglicam "mortal" invenit non solum hoc verbum sed etiam "mortifer" et "letalis" (= "quae nocent"), et inter verbos latinos male elegit.  Debemus ergo scribere "decem mortalibus hominibus."  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:42, 23 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias plurimas, sed etiam dicebam fuisse novem anulos hominibus, ergo etiam emendo.--Alfonsoz (disputatio) 17:23, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Recte dicis:  debebam illud scire!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:30, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Quia homines sunt mortales, mortalibus hominibus redundantia videtur ('for/to mortal humans'), pro aut mortalibus aut hominibus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:58, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ita, sed (ut fortasse scis, melius etiam quam ego) versio anglica carminis dicit "for mortal men" -- non modo "hominibus" sed "illis hominibus, qui mortales sint."  Pagina legenda:   --- hic inveniuntur versiones Latinae (2, quarum una in hexametris), Polonicae (etiam 2), Francogallica, Hibernica, pluresque aliae!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:35, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Tolkien ipse bis tautologus fuit: "nine for mortal men, doomed to die". Never mind the redundancy, feel the alliteration! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:50, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::You want alliteration? You can have it in Latin, with gratuitous chiasmus: Noveni mortalibus, morti natis 'Nine for mortals, born for death'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:06, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Iacobe, romani amabant reiterare verba et nonnumquam in sententiis inveniuntur sequentiae verborum sicut: dictum dicere, iterum iterare... In mentem non veniunt exempla auctorum latinorum, sed quaeram. Ergo mea sententia debemus Tolkieno parere et scribere "mortalibus hominibus" sicut ille scripsit "Nine for mortal Men, doomed to die". Sed ego velim quasdam res mutare:

text: 1. Sententia de hominibus debet magis propinqua esse originali, quae dicit homines condemnatos mori esse. Ergo ego sic dixerim latine: Novem mortalibus Hominibus, morte damnatis.

text: 2. Et Iacobe, ut credo debes dicere in tua sententia: novem mortalibus, a morte/ex morte natis. Potius, sed est mea sententia.

text: 3. Ut videtis scripsi "mortalibus" pro "Mortalibus", nam latine adiectiva minoribus litteris scribuntur. Etiam dicendum est romanos non discrimen habuisse inter litteras capitales et minores, nam textus iisdem litteris scribebant et sine spatiis. Nostrus scribendi modus venit ex renascentium artium tempore. Ergo si vultis possumus relinquere nomina personarum, sc. Nanorum, Hominum, Elforum... ut pateat stirpem esse. Sed adiectiva minoribus litteris. Converterem igitur sic carmen:
replies: text: :Tres anuli Alforum regibus sub caelo fulgente,

text: :Septem Nanorum dominis in arcibus ex petra,

text: :Novem mortalibus Hominibus quibus fatum est adveniente/morte damnatis

text: :Unus atro Domino in regia sua taëtra (taetra sibi vult throne?),

text: :In Mordoris Terra, umbra descendente.

text: :Unus anulus ad omnes dominandos, unus ad reperiendos,

text: :Unus ad omnes tenebris inferendos ibique vinciendos,

text: :In Mordoris Terra, umbra descendente.
Scio anglos valde amare litteras capitales ubique adhibere, sed hic latine scribimus...--Alfonsoz (disputatio) 15:14, 25 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decem Leti?