Andrew Dalby

Enjoy your drink, but I agree with PerfectimusPrime. There's a lot of good stuff on Wikipedia, as there is on this forum. Wherever you get information from, you have to consider whether it's true. If it matters to you, you have to try to verify it. And if you are relying on any source, Wikipedia or /Der kleine Pauly/ (as I did in a posting here yesterday) or the Encyclopedia Britannica or Pliny, you cite it. It's true that given the way Wikipedia works there is a category of articles that can't be held stable. Articles such as: 'Cathars', 'Jimbo Wales', 'Saladin' and (since the Colbert report, and for some reason which since I'm not an American I will probably never understand) 'Elephant'. Well, bad luck. If you go to Wikipedia for these, you may be disappointed. And if you go to the Dictionary of National Biography for women's history and black history you may be disappointed. It's not the end of the world. And those who come to this forum for mottos for tattooing, are advised to add the letters UNRV after the motto. Always cite your source!

I've just bough my new schoolbooks for the next year. I've a new latin book, with many (original) texts from the Vulgata and i read something... I've been studying latin only one year, but i can easly understand the Genesis although i can't read more classical texts adapted for my level of knowledge. That's weird! You're absolutely right, and I found the same (but it was a long time ago!) One of the things about classical Latin (as most people wrote it) was that it followed precise rules. The other thing was that it pulled out all the stops -- all the verb tenses, every noun case, all the word order options, all the subordinate clauses, no redundancy, no repetition, no 'noise'. When you wrote (and read) classical, you showed you could handle all this. It was an elite language. The same is true of classical Greek. Pindar and Thucydides are hard. Really difficult. And Plutarch and Lucian, who wanted to show they could write this stuff just as well as the ancients, are difficult too. But the Iliad and Odyssey and Herodotus (because they haven't anything to do with the classical standard) and the Greek New Testament (because it's written by and for ordinary types) are astonishingly easy.

According to the best printed encyclopedic source I can lay hands on (/Der kleine Pauly/) he was a Roman knight (eques Romanus). His immediate family origin seems unknown. But his nomen, Pontius, is already recorded in the Roman Republic and the logical assumption would be that he descends from that family, therefore Italian. You might alternatively speculate that one of his ancestors was a freedman.

It may depend which Romans you read. Catullus, Propertius, Ovid, Martial were all (in their different ways) in favour of making love! Now about vulgar Latin. As you can imagine in a 'vibrant and multicultural society' (I borrow some modern scientific [!] terminology here) there was no sudden divide between classical and vulgar Latin, more a spectrum, a series of 'registers' (that's the real linguistic term). Of the authors we can still read, Cicero is among the most interesting because his letters (being real private letters in most cases, not intended for publication) are written in a much more colloquial style than his speeches and philosophy. Not exactly 'vulgar Latin', but some way across the spectrum from classical. Who else? Plautus wrote before the distinction had fully developed, and in some ways his language is half way between vulgar and classical. The way the guests speak at Trimalchio's feast, in Petronius's /Satyrica/, is a good stab at vulgar Latin -- Petronius was a fine observer of linguistic differences. If you read the recipe book, Apicius, that's pretty much vulgar Latin. And many inscriptions, including of course the graffiti at Pompeii, are vulgar Latin, not classical at all. And finally the 'Vulgate', the Latin text of the Bible, is written in a language that's much closer to vulgar than to classical, naturally, because its initial audience would have been uneducated people (including slaves) in the western provinces of the Empire, people who had had no chance to learn Greek and therefore needed a translation in everyday Latin.

Good point, Signore Dalby, one I forgot to bring up. Jozsef Herman (2000) notes Sacerdos (late 3rd c. AD) in mentioning that at that point the long vowels had been shortened in the final syllable, and an even later grammarian Sergius "explicitly comments that 'it is difficult to know which syllables are naturally long' (that is, which syllables contain a long vowel; syllabas natura longas difficile est scire, GL, IV.533)" (p. 28). His statement is that, beyond the comments from the grammarians, "there are other indications that confusion over length had come into Vulgar Latin toward the end of the Empire" (p. 29), such as the construction of poems (he notes Commodian), but I wonder if this is not just the typical lag between speech and written documentation. As I have said for years, we really need that time machine up and running, so we can go back and observe all of this! Put me down for a ticket. And I promise to distribute a phrase book of Roman foods to all passengers. But we'll need Pertinax there with his herbal skills to keep us healthy.

An interesting quote. I guess this was written not later than the 18th century? It's a fact that language development and reltionships didn't begin to be fully understood until after that date. At that same time, in fact, people were still saying that Scottish Gaelic was directly descended from Hebrew -- which seems like a fantasy idea now! And some people still insisted that ALL languages must be descended from Hebrew, since it survived from before the Flood. The unknown author you quote was close to the truth, none the less. The languages he mentions are all related; he just didn't quite grasp how Hebrew was related to the others. There are inscriptions. There was once a literature and libraries; according to Roman sources the libraries of Carthage were given to the Numidian kings, and their eventual fate when Rome conquered Numidia is (I think) not known. The Romans themselves were only interrested in one text -- the Carthaginian farming manual, compiled by Mago. The Roman Senate financed the translation of this into Greek and Latin, by a Roman citizen who was fluent in Punic. Some recipes and instructions attributed to Mago, evidently preserved via these translations, still survive, quoted by Columella (in Latin) and in the Byzantine Greek text called Geoponica. And, so far as I know, that's all that remains of Punic literature. To complete St Augustine's linguistic CV: he learned Greek when he went to school. He hated Homer, because Homer was a school text. He guesses that Greek kids who learned Latin at school must have hated Virgil in just the same way. Nothing personal, Virgil ...

Some of my neighbours have pretty strange accents ... but Hunnish? Not so far as I know.

No, they didn't. They spoke Punic, which was a variant of Phoenician, a West Semitic language (and so is Aramaic; Hebrew may be a member of the same group, but quite a bit different). St Augustine, who was bilingual in Latin and Punic, found Aramaic easy to learn in later life but Hebrew quite difficult.

The sound of the language is a very interesting question, but hard to answer. Many other people think that Italian has a very musical sound, but who is to tell us whether Latin sounded similar? The only comments are likely to have been made by Greeks, and they traditionally regarded the peoples of Italy as (1) barbarians or (2) imperialists, and in severe cases both. Classical Greek depended on rise and fall of tones, but not in every syllable, like Chinese or Thai; rather in each word, like Burmese or Welsh. I have always guessed that Greek would have sounded a bit like one of these two latter languages. Unlike classical Greek, Latin had stress; one stress per word. What to compare it with? There is a big difference with Italian because classical Latin also had a crucial distinction of vowel length, in every syllable, which Italian doesn't. If you can imagine a language that sounds half way between Finnish (which has the vowel length distinction) and Italian (which has the stress, and the right consonant groups) you might have pinned down classical Latin. But then comes the big change between classical Latin (which people wrote, and must have spoken up to a certain point) and vulgar Latin (which must be the way everyone eventually spoke, at least in the mid and later empire, because it is the origin of the Romance languages). Vulgar Latin had lost the vowel length distinction and had also the same seven vowel sounds that Italian has. So vulgar Latin must, really, have sounded quite a lot like Italian (or Spanish, or a mixture; but without the -th- sound of Spanish, and without the -ch- sound of Italian).

That would be fine if it wasn't for Mrs D's irrational liking for oranges, bananas and kiwi fruits. As for me, I have to make an exception for Gorgonzola. No one anywhere makes cheese quite like Gorgonzola. I think that's all really. Oh, no, there is one other thing. Jack Daniel's. Are you going to deprive me of that, Pantagathus?

Moi? Incidentally, Beaujolais not quite powerful enough (IMHO). It would require several bottles of Naoussa to keep me happy through a three day Greek epic.

I'm about to listen to this, Octavius. I can't wait. And, yes, I'm really happy that Barico thought it appropriate to use a woman performer when a woman's story was being told. Even though I think it probable that a woman created the whole poem ...

I'll give it a go, though I'm more used to going from Latin to English. As in English, many different words can be used for similar ideas, so I've listed each part separately. dent dii = may the gods give largientur dii = may the gods lavish, bestow, give abundantly praebeant dii = may the gods supply (usu. abstract things) tibi = to you omnem = all, everything quidquid = whatever deberis = you are owed mereris = you are deserved/merited Latin word order is quite flexible and is often used to maximize the impact. Using the definitions above, see how the following phrases could be perceived by a Roman listener: largientur dii tibi omnem deberis tibi praebeant omnem mereris dii. quidquid deberis praebeant dii tibi. dii dent tibi omnem deberis. I'm sure others here can fix it up or offer better alternatives, but it's a start. I might just suggest a couple of adjustments. The usual plurals for 'gods' are di or dei (dii is OK but unusual). In Latin I think 'all' or 'everything' would usually turn out as a plural too, 'omnia' (neuter plural because it's things in general) -- but quidquid is fine as an alternative, meaning 'whatever'. And, lastly, if you use 'omnia' you need to translate 'that'. In English you can leave it out, but that's because English is odd -- in Latin it's an essential word. So my attempts, just adapting what Jasminia has done, are: Dei tibi dent omnia quae mereris Di tibi praebeant omnia quae mereris Tibi praebeant dei quidquid mereris Now I'm waiting for someone to point out my mistakes ... We'll get there in the end.

Very interesting question, Pertinax. So far as I can remember, Owbridge's Lung Tonic (whether or not it contained horehound) tasted not so very different from a very dark sweet Pedro Ximenez sherry. These sherries tend to come a bit expensive, though: if I open a bottle of that, I drink it (nice and slowly), I don't go adding herbs to it. I admire your dedication to duty. A cheaper version of something very similar would be the cooking Malaga available in supermarkets here at about 4 euros a bottle. In any case, my guess is that strong and sweet would be the taste to aim at for your basic wine, though, as you know, in Roman times the sweetness would have come entirely from the addition of concentrated must (defrutum, sapa), not from stopping the fermentation with alcohol.

OK this clears things up quite a bit, but I'm still left wondering whether there have been quantitative studies on the amount of Roman linguistic influence versus Norman linguistic influence. Are there as many Latin-derived words in Welsh, Cornish, and Breton as there are French-derived words in English? I suspect somewhat fewer. In fact it's extremely difficult to do meaningful statistics on such a point, because so much depends on the range of the dictionaries you happen to have available, whether you count dialect words, obsolete words, technical words, etc. etc. For Cornish, in particular, no dictionary was made before the language became extinct. (There are dictionaries now, but they are as thin as the surviving literature.) Even if you could do the statistics, it would be wrong to draw hasty conclusions. Here's a couple of reasons: 1. Welsh and Cornish both descend from dialects of British Celtic which would have been relatively uninfluenced by Latin (as compared with the dialects of the southern and eastern lowlands): so far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the Romans didn't settle much in either region, treating Wales rather as a military frontier. 2. If the few reports of Dark Age migrations are true, Breton would probably show the influence of the ancient dialects of the settled south-west (Somerset, Dorset, Gloucestershire ???) and therefore have more Latin borrowings than the other two. And I rather believe it does. But then, it would also have Latin borrowings coming from the period of settlement in Brittany -- and from contact with Latin/Old French on a continuing basis -- and it's not always easy to tell such layers of borrowings apart. Anyone who wants to read more about this should look for Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson, \Language and history in early Britain\. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1953. Reprint: Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2000. A strikingly original and well-researched work.

Simple really. The Anglo-Saxon invasion ocurred post roman. Therefore there wasn't an english to influence prior to roman departure. Exactly! Instead, what the Romans were doing all that time was influencing the Celtic language of Britain, which was eventually to become Welsh, Cornish and Breton. And in fact these languages do have a lot of Latin words.

Who want to settle down to England ,what the hell is that supposed to mean?How about fighting for your home,your family,your people and your land! Or did they just think to hell with it im off to fight for the Byzantians to get rich!The Saxons were allready rich,England was one of the richest country's in europe at the time. Yes, but it wasn't so comfortable for some Saxons after the Normans had taken over and the resistance had collapsed (which didn't take long). After that, maybe, it was an attractive prospect for certain young able-bodied Saxons, especially from families not in favour with the new rulers, to go and make a living elsewhere as mercenaries.

Yes, there must be an error in the article. They are describing it as a Romano-British village, which is simply wrong for 100 BC, whatever the style of the houses. My guess it should be 100 AD and the BBC staff writer didn't know the difference.

I look forward to seeing an answer from soeone who actually knows ... Meanwhile, bear in mind that most of the people you meet when travelling don't want to know your citizen status. They prefer to know your economic status. Your clothes, your travelling gear, the number of your companions will indicate whether you do or don't have enough money. If you read Cicero's letters, you realise how often when travelling you were likely to be meeting, and staying with, friends and friends-of-friends. There's another, informal, way in which you make clear your status. But if you get into trouble, yes, your citizen status suddenly matters a lot. This is when, like St Paul, you need to be able to assert it. See Acts of the Apostles chapter 21.37 to 22.3 for an example. These points may help a bit, but maybe someone else knows if there is evidence of documents on this subject.

I get it now. I must admit that when I first answered I hadn't taken in the 150 BC thing: mention of Martial and the slaves on sale at the Saepta therefore irrelevant. You're making for what on my map is called the Emporium, beside the Tiber below the bridges, right? A. Anyway, since you started from the Clivus Palatinus on your way north, you will not be wholly retracing your steps if, on your way south, from the Argiletum you turn west along the Forum, and then down the valley into the Velabrum following the line of the Cloaca Maxima more or less. You reach the bank of the Tiber and then go south along it. That's one way. B. The other way is to keep in the eastern suburbs of built-up Republican Rome. There will be a road or track due south from the Suburra, across a low saddle, reaching a crossroads -- east of the Forum -- where the Meta Sudans stands. You can imagine the Colosseum towering above you to your left, but it isn't there yet. You go on south, on what is (in your time) the main road from the Forum towards the Porta Capena -- the main road to Campania therefore. Pretty busy I would say. On this road you cross another saddle between the Palatine on your right and the Mons Caelius on your left. The Palatine is the respectable quarter of Rome at this time -- nice houses and the odd temple. Now, the road south takes a left turn, but you take a right fork, downhill, and cross the little river (it's called La Marrana on my 19th century map, I don't know off hand what it was called in your time). You now have two choices. B1. Turn right again and follow the valley (Vallis Murcia) westwards down to the Tiber. You have the Aventine on your left (it's fairly built up already) and you are actually walking through what will later be the arena of the Circus Maximus. Finally, turning left and following the Tiber bank, you leave Rome by the Porta Trigemina and reach the Emporium. B2. Go straight ahead, uphill to the saddle that separates the Aventine (on your right) from the greener hills on your left. At this saddle you leave Rome by the Porta Raudusculana, and follow a rough path under the southern slope of the Aventine, and therefore under the walls of Rome, till you reach the Emporium. There you are, that's one thing GPS can't do for you.

Nice one. I had to work this kind of thing out at my desk (regrettably) in order to make a sensible description of sensual Rome for /Empire of Pleasures/. And, yes, you put your problem in a nutshell. The obvious way to the Tiber from the Suburra is via Argiletum (potter's field), Forum, and Velabrum. It's not only the straightest route -- it's also the only flat route, because it's the valley bottom. The Cloaca stream that flowed through the Suburra becomes the big sewer (hence Cloaca Maxima) -- and empties into the Tiber between the Forum Boarium and Forum Holitorium (cattle market and vegetable market). You can probably smell it at times, among all those other smells, as you make your journey. Where do you want to hit the Tiber? Exactly there, or north, or south? If you go northwards, you might meet some of Martial's neighbours and eventually reach the Campus Martius (including the Saepta, where expensive slaves were on sale).

Seneca was Nero's tutor, I think, not Gaius's.

Now I understand. Mrs D and I have been speaking different languages all these years.

I think retsina is great when picnicking under a hot Greek sun, and ideal with octopus salad. Not sure whether Dioscorides had already pointed this out, possibly not. Retsina has to be chilled, though. And somehow it's never so good when you bring it home. I also believe that on this little detail Carcopino's remark says more about Carcopino's tastes than about ancient Romans. (Mind you, Carcopino, as a rule, is very good.)

That is certainly true. You made no money from writing, unless one counts the money and support given by patrons, and the patronage to be got from writing that is critical of the Imperial setup would be extremely limited. Of course, Suetonius and Tacitus are both very careful not to criticise the current rulers ... but the tone is still anti-Imperial. We don't get a full psychological study of course -- only a partial and biased one -- but, yes. As support for what you say, Robert Graves was able to make what I consider to be a really convincing fictional study of Claudius (and some of his relatives) based on such sources.