Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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, 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. =)
Yep. [snip]
> As for |volutus| -- I wanted to translate "rolling", in the > intransitive, active sense, but my dictionary gave me |volvi| > for intransitive "roll".
That's correct.
> 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 :( [snip]
>> 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 the other. Ray =============================================== (home) (work) =============================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760