Ancient Translation Problems

[Q Valerius Scerio]

My recent blogpost may be of interest to some here.

 

http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=81

 

A couple days ago I mentioned about translation problems. Browsing through Remains of Old Latin IV, I found an advertisement for a temple inscriber in both Greek and Latin, in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum X 07296.

 

Στηλαι ενθαδε τυπουνται και χαρασσονται νασις ιερος συν ενεργειαις δημοσσιαις.

 

“Slabs here are modelled and engraved for holy temples with public labors.”

 

Tituli heic ordinantur et sculpuntur aidibus sacreis cum operum publicorum.

 

“Inscriptions here are ordered and engraved for holy temples with public labors.”

 

Can you guess the errors? No cheating now. Actually, there is are three errors: a grammatical error, a word usage error, and a translation error.

 

The grammar error should be recognizable enough: cum operum publicorum ought to be cum operis publicis since cum takes an ablative, not a genitive. What’s funny, though, is that συν also takes a dative (Greek lost its ablative case fairly early; the dative and genitive case took over its function), which would correspond with the ablative, and not a genitive like some Greek prepositions. Perhaps, as Warmington noted, the translator was confusing it with μετα?

 

The second error is that ordinare “to order, to arrange” is not a very good word used to translate τυποω “to mold”. In my opinion, fingere seems a much better word that should have been used.

 

The third error is that ενεργεια does not indicate public labor. I cannot confirm this absolutely, but I think it is closer to the Latin actus than opus.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Q Valerius Scerio

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Could it be that the Latin here was actually archaic?

 

I mean, a Roman inscriber wouldn't be that bad at Latin.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

The Latin is archaic, which is why it's "heic" and not "hic" (with a long i). However, it still used the ablative and not the genitive.

[Andrew Dalby]

My recent blogpost may be of interest to some here.

 

http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=81

 

A couple days ago I mentioned about translation problems. Browsing through Remains of Old Latin IV, I found an advertisement for a temple inscriber in both Greek and Latin, in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum X 07296.

 

Scerio, where was the inscription found? Does Warmington say?

[Q Valerius Scerio]

It was found in Panormus, Sicily, although there is a question mark after that statement. Other than that, I've no idea, although he must have been sure enough not to explain what he means by the question. From my inference, there was probably a small debate on its provenance, but generally points to Panormus, Sicily or at least somewhere in Sicily. I'll look into it more.