Disputatio:Pater noster

I think it is fallacious to say these were the words of Matthew, and then put the version in Latin. The Greek version should definitely be included, and it should be mentioned that it was the original from which all the others were translated. Thoughts?

Cogitationes nullae etiam? Id graece ponam cras si non sunt...--Ioscius 05:05, 9 Martii 2006 (UTC)

I think it is customary to but scripture in the vernacular (in this case latin!), but I don't object to providing a Greek text, or perhaps a link to the Greek text in Wikisource. --Tbook 2 (UTC)1:07, 10 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Accedere(?):

   Πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς·
   ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου,
   ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου,
   γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
   Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον.
   Καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν,
   ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν.
   Καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,
   ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

"Usus precis istae non solum privatus est": Should not it be istius? (iste fem. sing. gen.)--Daniel bg 15:44, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Scilicet, Daniel. Mutavi, post duos annos ;] --Ioscius^∞ 12:20, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

bold

Anyone know why some words in the Greek are bolded?--Ioscius ^(disp) 17:37, 7 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

I assume because those are the phrases the entire next section treats one by one? —Mucius Tever

usus precis istae

Sane scribi oportet "precis istius"sed, an ne melius etiam esset ipsius nec istius? "Use of the prayer itself" rather than "use of that lousy prayer"... --Ioscius^∞ 12:19, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC) Or even huius? --Ioscius^∞ 12:50, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Rafael, non vidi! Gratias. --Ioscius^∞ 12:51, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Grammatica

Anyone mind correcting the grammar? e.g. Wrong word order...... -- 84.238.43.37, usor sine nomine

Tell it to Jesus! who most famously said "Hoc est corpus meum" (Evangelium secundum Lucam, 22:19). Why do you think this grammar is wrong? Why do you think Jesus should have said "Hoc corpus meum est"? IacobusAmor 01:17, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Luckily we needn't get into Jesus's word order. The change that the anonym actually made on the page was not in the Vulgate text, but in an introductory sentence. It was the usual thing, from "A est B" to "A B est". The resulting sense was, roughly, "This is a Greek text, folks!" I've reverted it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

I'd still be interested to know where the idea that a form of esse anywhere but at the end of a clause is "wrong word order" comes from. Since this idea keeps recurring here, the likeliest guess is that some pedagogue somewhere has published a textbook that simplifies matters by teaching that all verbs always go at the end. But which textbook? And what, other than lightening beginners' burdens, would be the pedagogical justification for thus misrepresenting the language? IacobusAmor 13:52, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing, indeed, how ingrained this belief is. But I have no answer to your question. When I began my Latin at age 10, the first sentence in the textbook was: "Sicilia est insula", not "Sicilia insula est." Neander 15:22, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

My first text book began with Caecilius est in horto, and in Spain, my dictionary (which was my cousin's an before it was my mother's, so it's not something new) does not mention that "est" should be last as a rule either. However, Henricus Barbatus' book X-treme Latin actually says scias te fortasse romanum esse si saepe quid habeas in animo dicere priusquam ad verbum pervenias, obliviscaris. So this thing about the verb being last is widespread (NB, Barbatus is very fond of last-position-verbs himself all across his book, but not always, mostly he uses it as an emphatic figure).--Xaverius 10:08, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

And over here (where we wear our patriotism on our sleeve), it was "America est patria nostra," not "America patria nostra est." IacobusAmor 15:37, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

I thought Latin words could be placed anywhere in a sentence because no matter how its worded, the sentence always maintains its basic meaning, minus emphesis. Though the use of "A est B" over "A B est" makes sense for the sake of orderliness and clearity. Lucretius2764 20:05, 3 Februarii 2011

Yep. But final est in these cases would be emphatic, and thus wrong. The middle est is unemphatic and consistent with est just being a linking verb, which is the right meaning. Final est is saying that the "being actually that" was more important than "what" it is. With the intended meaning of linking verb, the final position therefore is actually wrong, and not optional.--123.192.64.184 05:14, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Errare humanum est (ut alio loco iam dixi). --Alex1011 11:21, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Scientia potentia est ut Austriaci dicunt. --Alex1011 11:25, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Good instances where est is emphatic.--123.192.64.184 11:34, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes ... but if you look at en:wiki (I haven't checked further) you will find that "errare humanum est" derives from a statement of Augustine of Hippo, who said "humanum fuit errare". In other words, he put the "est" (in past tense) in the usual place, no special emphasis. Simply, "going wrong has been a human thing". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

quod statim rediturus est (fortasse malum exemplum quia participium)

navigare necesse est

Amantium irae integratio amoris est --Alex1011 11:40, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Latin is both a SOV language and a free-word-order (FWO) language. Given the former typological property, Latin has a tendency to put the predicate verb after the subject and the object, in practice often but not always in the last position of the sentence. Given the FWO property, word order isn't needed for expressing grammatical relations (such as subject and object); instead, word order is free to be used for various pragmatic purposes (emphasis, focus, contrasts, rhyme, euphony, prose rhythm, just for fun). The SOV property is no law-like mechanism but rather a statistical tendency observable in running texts. But it can't be denied that the SOV property involves a basic cognitive scheme articulating, as it does, the linear relations of carriers of propositional contents. Nevertheless, there are degrees of freedom, and authors have preferences of their own. Oftentimes phrases and phrase types have a nearby fixed word order. Textually, necesse est overruns est necesse statistically; but a NEG-element (such as non, nihil, numquam, etc) reverses the situation: non est necesse being the norm. But the conventional order navigare necesse est doesn't imply a sentence final position after est. The point is that est comes after necesse, but its perfectly possible to use necesse est in the midst of the sentence, e.g. navigare necesse est mare saeviente. Neander 13:19, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

A few years ago, when we were looking into this question in a disputation, I observed in a long passage apud Ciceronem that a clause-final form of esse was likelier in dependent clauses that in independent clauses. Is that differentiation just a fluke (caused by an unrandom or unreliable sample)? or is it a property of the language in general? IacobusAmor 14:06, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say on gut feeling. But in general, it's not a bad idea or research strategy to look for conditioning factors such as dependent vs independent clauses. I wouldn't characterise that differentiation as a fluke; rather, it's an interesting empirical hypothesis which, a priori, I don't find entirely improbable. But questions concerning grammatical regularities of this kind tend to be too abstract to be answered off the cuff, even if you were a native speaker. Neander 14:53, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

J.N. Adams' Wackernagel's Law and the Placement of the Copula Esse in Classical Latin has a whole section on esse in "qui" phrases; he concludes "except where another determinant of position was at work, esse was much more likely than any other verb to be placed immediately after the relative pronoun in a relative clause, particularly in forms of the root es- as distinct from fu-." In general he finds that the unmarked placement of the copula is indeed after the predicate, though it would be placed after the subject when there was a special focus (e.g., of several texts he counted frequencies in, 'S est pred.' was only more common than 'S pred. est’ in De Inventione 1.1-20, which he attributes to "the fact that the De inuentione is full of definitions.") But as for the case of 'Hic est textus Graecus', he does find that copula does attach to demonstratives because they 'have a strong element of deixis, and are usually contrastive or focused in some way'. —Mucius Tever 16:38, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)