Ubi est? ubi est? ubi est? ubi est? Nunc ubi it? ubi it? ubi it? ubi it? Peanut-butter jelly Peanut-butter jelly Peanut-butter jelly atque baseball bat
This is a very great video! I just have one question: Would you be able to use "-que" for 3 or more things? For example, "Leones tigres ursaeque," or "Leones tigresque ursaeque."
That's a real historical point that was pretty important actually. If i'm not mistaken it was someone's writing that was added to the credo at the council of Nicea that said 'ex Patre Filioque' that originally causes the east-west schism, and eventually the existence of the separate catholic and orthodox churches today.
I need help! I am teaching myself Latin from your videos alone. I decided I wanted to learn and I found your channel to be the best and most comprehensive. So THANK you. A quick question though, in this video when you say the word "incrēdibilis," you prounounce the ē as if it didn't have a macron. As in "idea." Perhaps i'm hearing wrong. Yet when I say this word I pronounce the ē as an A. incrAdibilis. Am I wrong here? Your video on vowels has a long ē as A as in "date," and a short e as eh, as in "bet." This is now driving me crazy wondering if i'm doing something wrong, or missing some rule. I'm struggling with some of the rule so let me know. Wouldn't be surprised to find out a rule that says "Whenever there is an ē preceded by a 'incr' and followed by a 'dibilis' then say it as the short version.' LOL Thanks again for your time.
Wow you answered fast! Thank you! I feel great knowing I was saying it right. Especially due to how much I'm struggling with as far as conjugation goes. I'll get there though, thanks for all your work. I spend quite a few hours a day with you, lol.
For "-que" I always remember the first line of the Aeneid, the first bit of Latin I really memorised and understood each word of, "Arma virumque cano" - "Arms and the man I sing of".
Since I have no experience in latin I feel the need to ask this question. If we translate "so horrible and so incredible" to latin shouldn't it be "tam atrox tam incredibilisque"? To me it makes more sense because it was "horrible and incredible" not horrible and so". Now I trust that the sentence in the video is correct, but I want to understand why.
I believe 'aut' is the only word for 'or' Visne occidere virum aut debesne occidere virum? Translation: Do you want to kill the man, or do you have to kill the man?
Debeo virum occidere, quia is malus est! Translation: I have to kill the man, because he is bad. Thanks for your answer. Do you make videos? People rarely have their pseudo on their image, except for that.
***** You're very welcome! Haha, I do indeed make videos, though they are rather...unique... I only make videos when I am bored or when I want to share a specific thing with the internet. My futile videos aside, I am a great fan of languages, even 'dead' languages, such as Latin.
Ahahaha, it seems as though I have made an error. I apologise, *****, for I wasn't aware of the existence of further Latin coordinating conjunctions expressing choice ( 'vel' and '-ve' ). I hope that you will continue this conversation with me, notwithstanding my grievous error, *****. At the end of the day, latintutorial is to be thanked, for he educates us Latin-fanatics with great enthusiasm for no price whatsoever. I am utterly honored to be in your presence, latintutorial.
Not necessarily. An adjective's number is given by the grammatical number of the noun it modifies, not by the amount of nouns. Both nouns, senātus and populus, are singular, therefore Rōmānus has to be too. It's a single adjective modifying two nouns, as a sort of shorthand for 'Senātus Rōmānus Populusque Rōmānus'. Instead of saying 'Et dominus Rōmānus et servus Rōmānus hominēs mortālēs sunt' (The Roman master and the Roman servant are both mortal men) you could just say 'Et dominus et servus Rōmānus hominēs mortālēs sunt' (Both the Roman master and servant are mortal men).
@@pablosorbara2280 Interesting feature. In Portuguese, a Latin descendant, we are forced to put the adjective in plural form to agree with two nouns, despite they are in singular form.
"the Senate and Roman people"? I thought it was "the Senate and people of Rome" or "the Roman Senate and people." the way you've translated it in english implies that the Senate is not necessarily Roman, just the people are, which obviously isn't the correct meaning.
Romanus is an adjective, which is why I translated it as an adjective in English rather than a noun. But I have a couple of quibbles with your comment: First, your logic doesn't hold up. If I were to say, "I like this car and the blue house", that doesn't imply that the car can't be blue. (So when I'm telling my wife that she looks lovely, it doesn't mean that isn't the case). And what you're observing is a very formulaic and standard Roman construction, populus Romanus (always in that order, often abbreviated P.R.). Sure, we can read into the SPQR from a modern perspective and suggest that the R refers to both senatus and populus, but that overlooks the actual history and use of this phase in antiquity.
@@latintutorial Right, it is an adjective, so sure that one isn't the best, fair enough. But is it not describing both the Senate and the People? (genuine question, wikipedia says yes it is) I think my logic does in fact hold, you just need to re-read my comment. I said that translation implies the Senate is not *necessarily" Roman, e.i. it could be Roman or it could not be. For instance, "the Senate and Roman people" could accurately refer to the Canadian senate (or any senate) and the Roman people. I do see what you mean about P.R., I just assumed (woops) that the Romans would've referred to the Senate as being Roman instead of just as "the Senate", and if so then I still don't think the above translation is technically accurate. Regardless, you have a great channel and I appreciate the quick response! This may not be our last exchange as I go through all your videos.
Just to be clear, we're splitting hairs here (a point I'll return to at the end). Since SPQR is such a stock phrase, you could argue that its literal definition doesn't really matter. It refers to the senate at Rome and the Roman people. When we look at other similar uses, the Romanus almost always shows up in a position that would show modification of the populus, even when in a different order (Livy: populi Romani senatusque verbis). And we should also consider the point that, in situations where English would use an ethnic adjective like "Roman" or "Gallic", Latin prefers to use the genitive plural of the people. So we see senatus Aeduorum, the senate of the Aedui, rather than senatus Aeduus, the Aeduan senate. That said and to further your point, an adjective could be singular and refer to two different nouns. And I think the most important point is that literal translation doesn't really matter, because the literal is limiting to the idea that the Senate is Roman. No matter what Latin says, using our own words the Senate is Roman, as are the people. So... yes?
Very interesting, thanks. Seems that in French and English there are nuances that make translation of a Latin « and » very subtle. « avec » or « ainsi que.. », « with » « as well »…
