User talk:Timotheus1

Salve, amice!

Mihi gratissimum habere hic te in Victionario anglico est. Pauci scientes multum latinitatis adsunt, sed automatonibus ("bots") permultae formae inflectae facta sunt et te haec optima appellare posse existimo, si vidisti. Ullum auxilium dabo ut roges, et ullis quaestionibus respondebo. (Et unum magis: mea latinitas pejor quam tua est, et correctiones a te capiam cum gaudio.) Gratias tibi ago! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Salve! Laetissimus sum ut mihi scripsisti! Laetus adjutu te ero si quaestiones habebis. Latinitas tua bona videtur, et non comprehendo rationem cui dicis eam esse pejor mea. Credo te studuisse eam diutius. Sum qui requiro auxilium. Dificilis autem erat mihi comprehensu sententiam secundam de automatonibus. Visne verbum "automatonibus" esse in dativo casu? (Spero me ussus esse omnia verba accurate) TIMOTHEVS (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oratio tua mihi facillima pro compraehensione, sed tuae typones (fortasse "litterae errantes" in modu classico) quaedam verba obscura faciunt. Sub magistro educatione numerata sola, duos annos studi jam habeo, itaque non diutius vel longius studium meum in realitate est. (Sed auxilium dabo simile rogato a me: sententiam quintam esse "Sum qui requirat auxilium." debere existimo.) In mea sententia, "autonatonibus" in casu ablativo est (anglice "ablative of means"), sed error adest! "Appellare" esse "appellari" debet. Nuncne bonum tibi? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Credo omnia esse bene. Nunc melius comprehendere possum. Existimo autem id esse debere "sum qui requiram auxilium" quod antecedens verbi "qui" est "ego", quod implicatum est. Sed tu rectus es dictu errorem fuisse, existimo verbum in subjunctivo esse requisivisse. TIMOTHEVS (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Unum magis: In sententia secunda tua "permultae formae inflectae factae sunt" esse debere existimo. TIMOTHEVS (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

O, vero! Te amabo, amice. Sed verbum "requiram" ibi non idoneum sententiae est. Ut pronominale verbum, "qui" requirat verbum activum motionis, ergo "requirat". Hocne negas? Nisi, silentiam tene, aut veritatem dic. (Fortasse orationes classicales me corruerunt ad hyperbolam, sed grammatica rex est.) Excellenter scienterque dicere latinitatis donum est, et hanc raram avem invenisse laetissimus sum. Si placet, quaestionem habeo - est vocativum verbi "Timotheus" vere *Timothee? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In lingua Graeca, vocativum est Τῑμόθεε, itaque in lingua Latina credo verbum esse "Timothee". Sed illud verbum "requiro" esse debere in persona tertia disputo. Si videbis hic, videbis "qui" non requirere personam tertiam et in persona ulla sit. Nisi illa sole est Latina Ecclesiastica. Sed dubito differentiam grammaticae esse magna. Timotheus1 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Certe, negare haec vera non possum, et me chasma scientiae habere videtur (estne dictum rectum sic?). In vocativo cum bis littera 'e', fides meus aberat pro hac forma quod formulae ("templates") formas sine putando producunt. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Haec pagina confirmat vocativum esse "Timothee", et ab ulla formula productum non est. Hoc autem esse verum confirmare non possum. TIMOTHEVS (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sic, sic. Sed numerus major paginarum latinarum hic a qui non linguam bene loquuntur creatus est. Autem te credo nunc, etsi 'ee' alienum mihi phonologicaliter est. Estne /ee/ in IPA vero? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sic, id esse credo. Videtur tamen extraneum. Liberos de illud videre debo. Hoc reperiam et tibi narrabo tardius. Romani sonos combinaverint itaque litteras quoque. Sed iterum certus non sum. TIMOTHEVS (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, sententia tua tertia mysteriosa mihi est; intendistine dicere "debeo" et locare pronomen in ablativo? (His mutatis etiam non comprehendo, sed omnia itinera primos gradus habent.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Si placet, translationem meliorem fac, in hoc difficultatem inveni.

Altera rursus jam a principio constituat generalia quædam abstracta et inutilia; altera gradatim exurgat a dea quæ reverà naturæ sunt notiora.

One now establishes again from the beginning some generalities which are abstract and useless; the other is derived step by step from the divine things which are in fact more familiar to nature. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Quaeso mihi ignosce. Illam sententiam scribui tam celeriter. Tu rectus es. Sententia esse debet "Liberos de illo videre debeo".

Credo translationem tuam esse recta. Hoc est quid habeo:

One may now establish again from the beginning some abstract and useless generalities; another may now gradually rise from a goddess things which are actually more familiar to nature.

Illa est sententia difficilis. Unde illam impetravisti? — This unsigned comment was added by Timotheus1 (talk • contribs).

Ita, saepe uti modum subiunctivum non memini. dea feminina est, sed non logicam mihi facit... est e pagina (deprecated template usage) gradatim. Verbum Alienum Diei ago, et id esse in pagina principali volo ut verbum utile notabileque. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mea quaestio maxima est Cum quo "quae" congruit? Verbum "sunt" est plurale, sed si "quae" conguat cum "dea", singulare esse debet. (Mihi ignosce quod non signavi nuntium priorem) TIMOTHEVS (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Vere, talia non grocco. Nunc melius citationem aliam capere existimo pro pagina, quod sine contexto, demonstrandum amisi. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Latin

Hello! I am a new contributor to the wiki, and I would like some help with Latin grammar. I am translating (as a learning experience) the Lord of the Rings. I am serious enough that I would like to keep the original meaning, but also to use correct Latin grammar; would you be willing to help? If not, I understand.

To save time, I will give you the first sentence- Hic liber Paulomines pertinet maxime, et ex paginis lector characteris multi et historiae aliquod eorum cognoscat.

English- This book is mostly concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may find much of their character and a little of their history.

It is not very good grammar, but I have been studying only two months, and I truly need some help. | Scio (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Salve! I read the first sentence of the book, and I believe your translation is accurate. I cannot assist you in translating the entire Tolkien novel, but if you have specific questions, I may be able to help. May I ask what the etymology is for the word you used for "Hobbits". TIMOTHEVS (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I may have spoken prematurely. I think that this might be an interesting challenge. I think I could help you with larger chunks of the book if you want me too. TIMOTHEVS (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If I want you to? I wouldn't want to make you feel like you have to do it; please, don't feel pressured.

I already have someone (Robert.Baruch) helping me with translating the book. However, I am asking him if he would be okay with anyone else giving input; I think it would be helpful to have an la-3 on board (Robert is an la-2, I am an la-1, but I feel like an la-0). You don't have to give regular input if you don't want to, or are too busy, but the little you can give would be much appreciated.

Also: Paulomo is just a word I made up to take the place of Hobbitus, which doesn't sound particularly Latin. It is a blend of paulus and homo, to literally mean little man. It has the same inflection as homo.

Gratias tibi ago. | Scio (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to sign off now, and I won't be able to read your response until eleven hours from now; I am sorry. Differing time zones can make it difficult to communicate efficiently, a single conversation sometimes taking several days. I just wanted to let you know why I am not answering right away. Once again, thank you. | Scio (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It really would be no trouble if you need my assistance. It might be a fun project. Also, since a lot of the words aren't present in Classical Latin, have you made up some sort of codex so that multiple translators would be sure to use the same words? I really would be glad to help. TIMOTHEVS (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! The more input, the better, I think; however, Robert.Baruch has not gotten back to me yet, so I still don't know what he thinks. If he doesn't want you to join, then I suppose I can work with you both, just separately.

I started making a Latin-Tolkien Lexicon, but now I have to start over so that I can put more thought into the words. If Tolkien spent a lot of time on it, then I believe I should too. I will probably be posting the words on my talk page.

If you would like to see what Robert and I have translated so far, here it is-

English- This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history. Further information will also be found in the selection from the Red Book of Westmarch that has already been published, under the title of The Hobbit.

Latin- Hic liber ad Paulomines plerumque pertinet, paginis cuius lector naturae multum, historiae paulum eorum cognoscat. Plus illa parte Libri Rubri Occiditinensis, quae iam prodita est sub titulo "Illo Hobbite", cognoscat.

Everybody makes mistakes, so if you see anywhere it can be improved, you are welcome (and encouraged, as I am really doing this as a learning experience) to speak up. Thank you. I will tell you when he makes his decision. | Scio (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

TIMOTHEVS, I sincerely apologize; Robert has not gotten back to me yet. When he does, I will notify you as soon as possible. I just wanted to let you know that I did not count you out. I am doing this for learning purposes, and learning purposes only, and so I need someone who is very capable at teaching. Robert.Baruch is very capable; I contacted both you and him at about the same time, hoping that either of you would answer; I expected you not to, as you had been inactive for quite some time. When Baruch replied, I started without you, as I assumed that you were no longer watching your talk page; plus, Robert proved an excellent tutor, as well as latinist. If he were to say no to you helping, would you understand? He would not mean to do any harm.

Mind you, I am translating The Lord of the Rings not because it would be fun, but because it would be the experience I need to learn latin; if you believe you do not have the teaching capability of Baruch (you can see his talk page for examples), then please understand that it would be best if you gave guidance, but did not give the majority of the translating. I do not want someone to do the translating for me; I would like someone to teach me how to translate. I very much hope that you would truly understand. Gratias tibi ago. | Scio (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I seriously will not be offended if he doesn't need my help. If you guys only need me to weigh in on certain translation disputes, that's fine. I've been pretty busy nowadays, and I will most likely be unable to assist you as actively as Robert.Baruch has, so it would probably be best if I only help here and there anyway. Again, you do not need to feel bad if you don't need me. TIMOTHEVS (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, what happened was that, as I did not want to waste time, in my hastiness I contacted numerous users at once. I see now that that has proved a source of dissappointment, and for that, I apologise. Thank you for being honest about your being busy, as that pretty much settles it. You would definately be welcome to give input where you see fit, and when you are able, however. Once again, I am sorry for all of this; but thank you anyway. | Scio (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We moved our project to [1], if you would like to see. If you do see anything that is incorrect, you are welcome to join in. | Scio (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice! I'll check it out when I get the chance! TIMOTHEVS (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)