Ille referre aliter saepe solebat idem (Ovidio, Ars II, 128)

[Hen Hanna]

Ille referre aliter saepe solebat idem (Ovidio, Ars II, 128)

(He) (refer) (differently) (frequently) (customarily) (same thing)

referre is infinitive.


Could someone help me connect
Saepe, Solebat, ...
to something I already know (in English, French, ...)?


e.g. if Solebat were related to Solecism,
that might have helped.


Saepe looks a bit like Souvent -- this helps.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/souvent


-bat (imperfect) ending is like
[habit in the past]
like (imperfect) in French.

the -bat suffix therefore I'd link to
the ending in
était , allait , .... That helps!


Quand il était petit, il allait à la plage tous les jours après l'école.


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/souloir

les hommes disent souloir estre faulsement rapporté

the men say that are habitually falsely reported

[Ed Cryer]

Ille ire solebat =
il allait d'habitude
or
il allait ordinairement

Ed

[Evertjan.]

Hen Hanna <henh...@gmail.com> wrote on 27 Feb 2018 in alt.language.latin:

> Ille referre aliter saepe solebat idem (Ovidio, Ars II, 128)
>
> (He) (refer) (differently) (frequently) (customarily) (same thing)
>
> referre is infinitive.
>
>
> Could someone help me connect
> Saepe, Solebat, ...
> to something I already know (in English, French, ...)?

Poetic order of:

"Ille saepe solebat referre idem aliter"

"He often used to refer to the same thing in another way"


--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Ed Cryer]

Autrement dit; il avait l'habitude d'aller souvent....

"Souloir" isn't used these days. It sounds archaic.
Similarly with "estre" for the modern "être", which (as with many
occurrences in modern French of "ê") indicates a dropped "s".

Ed

[Hen Hanna]

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 3:33:23 PM UTC-8, Evertjan. wrote:

> Hen Hanna <> wrote on 27 Feb 2018 in alt.language.latin:
>
> > Ille referre aliter saepe solebat idem (Ovidio, Ars II, 128)
> >

> > (He) (refer) (differently) (frequently) (used to) (same thing)

> >
> > referre is infinitive.
> >
> >
> > Could someone help me connect
> > Saepe, Solebat, ...
> > to something I already know (in English, French, ...)?
>
> Poetic order of:
>
> "Ille saepe solebat referre idem aliter"
>
> "He often used to refer to the same thing in another way"
>

thank you'all for all the help.


SO, this ordering

> "Ille saepe solebat referre idem aliter"

is somehow most natural...


Parva necat morsu spatiosum vipera taurum.

----- (e.g. in poetry) ANY ordering is allowed?

_______________

>>> Homo sapiens is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) ...........


Here's a riddle:

What's the scientific name for
a human (species) denoting
[Man who <often> thinks] ?

[Evertjan.]

Hen Hanna <henh...@gmail.com> wrote on 28 Feb 2018 in alt.language.latin:

>> "Ille saepe solebat referre idem aliter"
>>
>> "He often used to refer to the same thing in another way"
>>
>
> thank you'all for all the help.
>
>
> SO, this ordering
>
>> "Ille saepe solebat referre idem aliter"
>
> is somehow most natural...

No, Latin has no natural order.

The way I changed it was just made up for easier understanding.

However, the form coined by Ovidius:

Haec Troiae casus iterumque iterumque rogabat:
Ille referre aliter saepe solebat idem.

seems made to stress what he thought most important.

See also the "... iterumque iterumque rogabat:",
even stronger than "he enquired again and again ...".


<https://books.google.nl/books?id=nZPOtFQIOVEC&pg=PT142&dq=%
22Ille+referre+aliter+saepe+solebat+idem%22&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=
0ahUKEwiiqfzbxcnZAhXSY1AKHeURC8sQ6AEIVzAG#v=onepage&q=%22Ille%20referre%
20aliter%20saepe%20solebat%20idem%22&f=false>

[B. T. Raven]

On 2/28/2018 15:00, Hen Hanna wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 3:33:23 PM UTC-8, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Hen Hanna <> wrote on 27 Feb 2018 in alt.language.latin:
>>
>>> Ille referre aliter saepe solebat idem (Ovidio, Ars II, 128)
>>>
>>> (He) (refer) (differently) (frequently) (used to) (same thing)
>>>
>>> referre is infinitive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Could someone help me connect
>>> Saepe, Solebat, ...
>>> to something I already know (in English, French, ...)?
>>
>> Poetic order of:
>>
>> "Ille saepe solebat referre idem aliter"
>>
>> "He often used to refer to the same thing in another way"
>>
>
> thank you'all for all the help.
>
>
> SO, this ordering
>
>> "Ille saepe solebat referre idem aliter"
>
> is somehow most natural...

How so? Because it follows the most neutral English prose word order?


Here is the context:

Nec violae semper nec hiantia līlia flōrent, 115
Et riget āmissā spīna relicta rosā.
Et tibi iam venient cānī, fōrmōse, capillī,
Iam venient rūgae, quae tibi corpus arent.
Iam mōlīre animum, quī dūret, et adstrue fōrmae:
Sōlus ad extrēmōs permanet ille rogōs. 120
Nec levis ingenuās pectus coluisse per artēs
Cūra sit et linguās ēdidicisse duās.
Nōn fōrmōsus erat, sed erat fācundus Ulixēs,
Et tamen aequoreās torsit amōre deās.
Ā quotiēns illum doluit properāre Calypsō, 125
Rēmigiōque aptās esse negāvit aquās!
Haec Trōiae cāsūs iterumque iterumque rogābat:
Ille referre aliter saepe solēbat idem.

>
>
> Parva necat morsu spatiosum vipera taurum.

Is it more natural to think this thought in this word order:

Parva vipera necat spatiosum taurum morsu?

>
> ----- (e.g. in poetry) ANY ordering is allowed?

I don't think any order is allowed but but probably ten times as many
permutations are allowed than in an uninflected language.

>
> _______________
>
>>>> Homo sapiens is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) ...........
>
>
> Here's a riddle:
>
> What's the scientific name for
> a human (species) denoting
> [Man who <often> thinks] ?

Homo cogituriens

Eduardus

[Hen Hanna]

thank you!

(Ichiro's ritual batting stance - YouTube)
(Ichiro's equipment ritual | MLB.com)


Now Ichiro's a guy who can [Run] 'n' bat
wont to solemny rituals of Lilliput.
Then comes a chapper
who's also a pitcher
"yo' Hey! all that [he] can do is [sole bat] !

(the new chapper (japper) is Shohei ... )



solamente,soltanto, sole, (solo?) solely -- Latin Sollus

(console is from a different root)

Solamente, seulement sound like Solemn.

__________________________

solemn (adj.)

mid-14c., "performed with due religious ceremony or reverence, sacred, devoted to religious observances," also, of a vow, etc., "made under religious sanction, binding," from Old French solempne (12c., Modern French solennel) and directly from Latin sollemnis "annual, established, religiously fixed, formal, ceremonial, traditional," perhaps related to sollus "whole" (from PIE root *sol- "whole, well-kept").


"The explanation that Latin sollemnis was formed from sollus whole + annus year is not considered valid" [Barnhart], but some assimilation via folk-etymology is possible.

In Middle English also "famous, important; imposing, grand," hence Chaucer's friar, a ful solempne man. Meaning "marked by seriousness or earnestness" is from late 14c.; sense of "fitted to inspire devout reflection" is from c. 1400. Related: Solemnly.

[Ed Cryer]

I wonder about the "m" in "sollemnis". Could it have come from "amnis"
rather than "annus". A complete stream or torrent of water.
And then "sol" instead of "sollus". A sun-stream.

This kind of fanciful etymology was favoured by the ancients; especially
the Stoic ones (the type of man who goes climbing Everest or Fuji
"because it's there").

Incidentally, the old Latin "sollus" surely came from Greek ὅλος; and
there's only one lambda in that.

Ed

[Will Parsons]

Surely it didn't "come from" the Greek ὅλος, but both came from a
common origen. They are a match though: ὅλος with a single lambda
goes back to an earlier ὅλϝος (cf. Homeric ουλος), and L. sollus from
a earlier *solwos.

--
Will

[Ed Cryer]

You have constantly brought me to book over this question. It's about
time I put up a rational defence of my position, because I don't keep
repeating it without reason.
It's a question of just when certain words came into Latin. Did they
arrive with the Indo-European settlers in Latium around 1000 BC; or were
they brought in later?
You opt for the first answer all the time; and I opt for the second.

I have an analogous case. Take our English word "mutton". If we
discussed how it got into English, you might say something like this;
"Middle English: from Old French moton, from medieval Latin multo(n- ),
probably of Celtic origin; compare with Scottish Gaelic mult, Welsh
mollt, and Breton maout." But I'd say that it came across the Channel
with the Normans in 1066.

This question has not been settled by a knowledge of some theoretical
Indo-European language, but by a knowledge of history.
There was a time when English didn't contain "mutton", and then it did.
Similarly with "beef", "venison" and "pork".
And similarly, of course, with thousands of other intakes from Romance
languages, especially Latin.

Now then, the inhabitants of Latium lived on a peninsular that was home
to lots of Greek colonies, and travellers abroad would have come home
with Greek terms; just as Indian words entered English from the British Raj.

Ed

[Will Parsons]

On Friday, 2 Mar 2018 6:04 PM -0500, Ed Cryer wrote:
> Will Parsons wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 Mar 2018 7:01 AM -0500, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> I wonder about the "m" in "sollemnis". Could it have come from "amnis"
>>> rather than "annus". A complete stream or torrent of water.
>>> And then "sol" instead of "sollus". A sun-stream.
>>>
>>> This kind of fanciful etymology was favoured by the ancients; especially
>>> the Stoic ones (the type of man who goes climbing Everest or Fuji
>>> "because it's there").
>>>
>>> Incidentally, the old Latin "sollus" surely came from Greek ὅλος; and
>>> there's only one lambda in that.
>>
>> Surely it didn't "come from" the Greek ὅλος, but both came from a

>> common origin. They are a match though: ὅλος with a single lambda

>> goes back to an earlier ὅλϝος (cf. Homeric ουλος), and L. sollus from
>> a earlier *solwos.
>
> You have constantly brought me to book over this question. It's about
> time I put up a rational defence of my position, because I don't keep
> repeating it without reason.
> It's a question of just when certain words came into Latin. Did they
> arrive with the Indo-European settlers in Latium around 1000 BC; or were
> they brought in later?
> You opt for the first answer all the time; and I opt for the second.
>
> I have an analogous case. Take our English word "mutton". If we
> discussed how it got into English, you might say something like this;
> "Middle English: from Old French moton, from medieval Latin multo(n- ),
> probably of Celtic origin; compare with Scottish Gaelic mult, Welsh
> mollt, and Breton maout." But I'd say that it came across the Channel
> with the Normans in 1066.
>
> This question has not been settled by a knowledge of some theoretical
> Indo-European language, but by a knowledge of history.
> There was a time when English didn't contain "mutton", and then it did.
> Similarly with "beef", "venison" and "pork".
> And similarly, of course, with thousands of other intakes from Romance
> languages, especially Latin.
>
> Now then, the inhabitants of Latium lived on a peninsular that was home
> to lots of Greek colonies, and travellers abroad would have come home
> with Greek terms; just as Indian words entered English from the British Raj.

Yes, sometimes it can sometimes be problematic. But, in this
particular case, it is not, because if ὅλος had been borrowed into
Latin, whether from the time when Latin was importing Greek wholesale,
or from the Greek colonists in Magna Graecia, it wouldn't have been
borrowed as "sollus" - there's just no pattern where Greek /h/ gets
replaced by Latin /s/ in borrowed words. So, if the word were
borrowed from Greek, we would expect something like *holus or *hulus,
or even (if the borrowing were old enough) perhaps *holvus, but not
"sollus".

For the same reason, although L. _sex_ and _septem_ are obviously
cognates of Gk. _hex_ and _hepta_, it is clear they were not borrowed
from the Greek forms, but independently from a common source.

--
Will

[Evertjan.]

Will Parsons <va...@nodomain.invalid> wrote on 03 Mar 2018 in
alt.language.latin:

> For the same reason, although L. _sex_ and _septem_ are obviously
> cognates of Gk. _hex_ and _hepta_, it is clear they were not borrowed
> from the Greek forms, but independently from a common source.

I always had this innate feeling that sex came from a common source.

--

[Ed Cryer]

Many words are also imported from other languages, and used in ways that
the original language didn't use them.
"Encore"; the French don't say that; they say "une autre" or "bis" (this
latter being a similar import from Latin).
English also teems with words brought back from the British Raj in India;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Hindi_or_Urdu_origin

And once imported they evolve completely independently of the language
they were taken from; they mix with the culture and fashions of the new
language, until they've taken on a completely different meaning. And
that makes it necessary to distinguish word form from meaning for
linguistic philosophers.
You can't rub your hands with glee if you've found traces of a word's
formal packaging history in another language; or, at least one
shouldn't. Sometimes also words evolve differently for different times
or social groupings within the same language. "Paganus" is a case in
point. How could, say, Cicero have foreseen what the word would come to
mean?

Ed