Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Waning Moon Conrad · 04-25-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But afflicti is the verb, and is plural and passive.
Roger Pearse

D'oh!

Scivi ut aliquem responderet et vellem calcitrare mihi post legendum.

BTW - does the above work?

Roger Pearse · 04-25-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

suppliciis is ablative - by/with/from/in/on.

Could it be dative? Still, I can see this isn't going to work--there's no reason for it to be dative, is there?

It could indeed by itself, except for the context of a passive plural verb meaning "inflict" (on). If it was dative, we could think "to/for punishments", but that won't work either.

Quote:

You're probably thinking 'supplicium'=supplication. But that is really "supplicatio", attested in Livy 10.23:1 and Vitruvius 3.3:3.

But it is also meaning 2 in the OLD, as you have noted. Anyway, it does seem that this phrase, whoever wrote it, must refer to the tradition of Neronean physical persecution of Christians.

'Fraid so. The whole paragraph is about Nero punishing a series of people.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 04-25-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waning Moon Conrad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

But afflicti is the verb, and is plural and passive.
Roger Pearse

D'oh!

Scivi ut aliquem responderet et vellem calcitrare mihi post legendum.

BTW - does the above work?

Nothing wrong with your post -- I just happen to own an OLD <smug>

Waning Moon Conrad · 04-25-2009, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waning Moon Conrad

D'oh!

Scivi ut aliquem responderet et vellem calcitrare mihi post legendum.

BTW - does the above work?

Nothing wrong with your post -- I just happen to own an OLD <smug>

Thanks for that!

I'm a little annoyed with myself for not picking that it was a passive form and hence necessarily takes a nominative.

I'm trying to decide whether to buy an OLD or a Lewis & Short. Is it true that the L & S includes medieval Latin where the OLD does not?

Roger Pearse · 04-25-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waning Moon Conrad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Nothing wrong with your post -- I just happen to own an OLD <smug>

Thanks for that!

I'm a little annoyed with myself for not picking that it was a passive form and hence necessarily takes a nominative.

I'm trying to decide whether to buy an OLD or a Lewis & Short. Is it true that the L & S includes medieval Latin where the OLD does not?

I don't own an L&S so can't say what it includes. I have Souter's glossary for late Latin. The OLD is essential if you do a lot of Latin (which few of us do) but huge, heavy and pricey. I bought it when the dollar had fallen to $2 = 1GBP, but when US prices had not adjusted; effectively at half price.

The real answer is to see if someone has created a PDF of it.

spin · 04-25-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

That's not what I'm asking.

You mightn't have known it, but it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

I'm asking why can't suppliciis mean "prayers, offerings"? So: "He struck down the prayers of the Christians."

Is this reading impossible?

When you lay out your thought that way, I have to join the chorus: yes.

spin

the_cave · 04-26-2009, 11:42 AM

This has been helpful; thank you to everyone.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2009, 11:42 AM	#17
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	This has been helpful; thank you to everyone.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.