Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2023 May 16

= May 16 =

Fictional Latin Footnote
The Latin I cobbled together is "ab vetus anglicus id est idem," which is supposed to mean "from Old English, it is the same". It's supposed to go in a footnote in a fictional work, mimicking a non-fiction work's use of footnotes to explain the text. Does it work? How can it be done better? Can you share any examples from real non-fiction that uses similar footnotes? Schyler ( exquirito veritatem bonumque ) 18:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for a detailed answer just now, but one thing is that the object of ab would have to be in the ablative case. Deor (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For a start, ab is a before consonants, and takes the ablative; and anglicus is usually taken to refer to lingua "tongue", which is feminine (even if that is not actually exressed). So a vetere anglica.
 * Normally "in a language" is conveyed by an adverb, so simply anglice; but I'm not sure how you'd manage "Old English" in that way. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Latin Wikipedia calls it "lingua Anglica Antiqua" or "lingua Anglo-Saxonica", not "lingua Anglica Vetus". Shells-shells (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, "a lingua Anglica Antiqua id est idem" works? Are there any examples from real texts that use a similar footnote? Schyler  ( exquirito veritatem bonumque ) 19:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of Latin isn't great, but I'm suspicious both of "id" (in place of stating what "it" is, or just using the verb alone) and of the exact way "idem" is connected to the other part. Any other suggestions? --142.112.220.184 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the English. What is the meaning of "from Old English, it is the same"? What is the same as what? --Lambiam 21:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in a fictional footnote, allow me to try and explain:
 * Pretend this is the main text and some fictional type of Old English appears, with footnotes: "...orthink[1], mood[2], and hyge[3]..."
 * [1] Orthink, AAA “orþanc”: clever mind
 * [2] Mood, AAA “mod”: heart
 * [3] Hyge, AAA idem: soul
 * Note the formula for the footnote is [, AAA "": ]. Schyler  ( exquirito veritatem bonumque ) 23:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess that doesn't clarify things much to me. If you're giving the glosses ("clever mind", etc.) in Modern English rather than Latin, why use Latin or abbreviations of Latin anywhere in the footnotes? Why not just "Mood, from OE mod 'heart" and the like? (Note that "heart" and "soul" aren't really good glosses of mod and hyge, but I suppose that you're just using them exempli causa here.) Deor (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Using "aaa" is in the same vein as the use of "eg" or "ie" in modern English. I'm using Bosworth Toller and Glosbe for my psuedo-translations. Schyler  ( exquirito veritatem bonumque ) 00:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the fictional work was written in English, would you write
 * [3] Hyge, from Old English idem: soul
 * ? That seems a little strange. But
 * [3] Hyge, from Old English it is the same: soul
 * is even stranger. --Lambiam 05:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than "it is the same", how about "likewise"? Item anglice antiquitus (that last word being an adverb) —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the same:
 * [3] Hyge, likewise Old English: soul
 * is likewise Modern English strange. If we don't have an acceptable version in English, we cannot be expected to produce an acceptable Latin translation. --Lambiam 19:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)