Re: Dog Latin
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 26, 2004, 20:00|
On Sunday, January 25, 2004, at 11:21 PM, Christian Thalmann wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ray Brown <ray.brown@F...> wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 07:25 PM, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>> Quoting Christian Thalmann <cinga@G...>:
>>>> *Volutus in solo ridens meas nates ab*
>>> This looks more like Latin - I don't understand it!
>> It ain't - you can't have prepositions prepositing nothing in Latin!
>> (i.e. you can't have "ab" at the end likr that!!)
> In other words, it's pure-blooded Dog Latin. =)
> As for |volutus| -- I wanted to translate "rolling", in the
> intransitive, active sense, but my dictionary gave me |volvi|
> for intransitive "roll".
> Is there a more appropriate form
> than |volutus| for the desired meaning? |Volutus sens|,
> perhaps? ;-)
NO. A Roman would've written 'volutus' (or rather VOLVTVS :)
But if it's dog Latin, I guess 'volvens' could be intransitive :)
>> *Volutus in solo ridens meas nates ab*
>> Rolled on the-floor laughing my arse/ass off
>>>> BTW, I'd use "futuenter" rather than "copulandus".
>> 'futuenter' derives an appropriate verb, and is a real doggy
> formation :)
> What would the real adverb derivation from |futuens| look like?
> |Futuentiter|? |Futuendo|?
No - actually I made a boo-boo there. 'futuenter' is _not_ a doggy
formation - it's correct Classical Latin :(
>> Not only is _copulandus_ correctly formed, the formation is literary
>> and the verb far too polite. No self-respecting dog would ever use
>> such a form ;)
> Hmmm, on second thought, I should have used |culum| rather
> than |nates|. =P
Maybe - but neither 'nates' nor 'culus' are exactly common in surviving
Classical Latin so it's not clear whether either more more vulgar than
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760