Don't feel constrained to my suggestion, though. There are dialects that do not contract vowels, like Ionic. You get used to them if you read Herodotus, which is a famously straightforward author.
Advertisement
by Hyggemata » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:00 pm
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Lemlar » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:26 pm
Εκτακτες Ειδήσεις: LemlarΛεμλαρ, ξεκινώντας μια νέα εποχή καθώς το πράσινο κόμμα έχει δημιουργήσει έναν συνασπισμό με τους καθιερωμένους μοναρχικούς.
by The Islands of Versilia » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:38 pm
by Astrolinium » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:08 pm
The Islands of Versilia wrote:Hello. I'd like to ask if this is at all accurate. My fictional Vampiric species, Homo Nosferatu Noctivagus, has (obviously) a Latin scientific name.
Is it at all comprehensible? Should I change it in any way?
Thank you.
by The Islands of Versilia » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:11 pm
Astrolinium wrote:The Islands of Versilia wrote:Hello. I'd like to ask if this is at all accurate. My fictional Vampiric species, Homo Nosferatu Noctivagus, has (obviously) a Latin scientific name.
Is it at all comprehensible? Should I change it in any way?
Thank you.
I don't know if it's what I would have come up with. I'll say it's mostly serviceable for your purposes, though. I don't know the specifics of your Vampires, but I might change it to something like Homo Nosferatensis noctivagus or something, just so that the "Nosferatu" looks a little less tacked on and resembles other scientific names a little more closely.
by Gigaverse » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:21 am
The Islands of Versilia wrote:Astrolinium wrote:
I don't know if it's what I would have come up with. I'll say it's mostly serviceable for your purposes, though. I don't know the specifics of your Vampires, but I might change it to something like Homo Nosferatensis noctivagus or something, just so that the "Nosferatu" looks a little less tacked on and resembles other scientific names a little more closely.
Thank you.
Art-person(?). Japan liker. tired-ish.
Student inlinguistics???. On-and-off writer.
MAKE CAKE NOT stupidshiticanmakefunof.born in, raised in and emigrated from vietbongistan lolol
Operating this polity based on preferences and narrative purposes
clowning incident | clowning incident | bottom text
can produce noises in (in order of grasp) vietbongistani, oldspeak
and bonjourois (learning weebspeak and hitlerian at uni)
by Tracian Empire » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:35 pm
by Demetland » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:10 pm
Tracian Empire wrote:Not a motto, but since you guys are the only Latin masters that I know:
How would I be able to say, Before the Calamity and After the Calamity, in Latin?
I want to use them for a calendar era, kinda like how Anno Domini works.
by Tinhampton » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:50 pm
by Great Nortend » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:10 am
by Demetland » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:17 am
Great Nortend wrote:'Sum qui sum et quod volo esse' might work, or if you replace 'volo' with 'eligo'.
by Danceria » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:20 am
by Great Nortend » Sun Jul 16, 2017 9:17 am
by Demetland » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:21 pm
Great Nortend wrote:
Quem is the masculine accusative. It thought it should be in the nominative, as it is the complement of 'esse', isn't it?. I never really got when to use neuter and when to use masculine for abstract concepts and pronouns as a whole baffle me. You're probably right though; I didn't do Latin in school.
EDIT: Oh I see what you've done. 'Me' agrees with 'quem'. I hadn't thought of it like that. Shouldn't there be a 'se' in there?
by Great Nortend » Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:02 pm
by Hyggemata » Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:17 am
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Great Nortend » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:50 am
by Hyggemata » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:29 am
Great Nortend wrote:Can you use 'que' as a standalone word?
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Demetland » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:02 am
by Hyggemata » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:05 am
Demetland wrote:
That's not how you use -que.
-que follows the word which, had you used et instead, et would have preceded.
So you've got:
Sum qui et sum elego esse et quem.
Also, the second -que seems redundant. Two -ques usually imply both ... and ...
If that is what you intended, it's not entirely incomprehensible. It's just not very charitable to put the ques in that position and expect everyone to sort it out.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Great Nortend » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:37 am
by Hyggemata » Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:11 am
Great Nortend wrote:You cannot use 'que' separately. It is an enclitic and must be attached to a word.
Conservative logic: every slope is a slippery slope.
Liberal logic: climb every mountain; ford every stream.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Fuck the common good
by Danceria » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:30 pm
by Demetland » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:43 pm
Danceria wrote:I would like to know the phrase "Rising above the rising tides" in Latin, if you please.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Rogue River
Advertisement