Lucius Calpurnius Capitolinus

Well see there you go. I'm just lazy. Ambiens would be the present active participle of ambio, ambire. One's "go-roundings" then. I feel justified in giving the translation I did. I really ought to start simply checking myself. Hubris can ruin a man, you know.

If all humans have descended or evolved or whatever from one small group of humans (as mitochondrial DNA evidence would have us believe) then it only follows that at one time, all humans spoke the same language. Stephen Pinker's book "The Language Instict" addresses this issue and others like it quite well. It is probably my favorite book on linguistics, though it might be too heavy on the Chomsky for some.

Interesting that Phillips is the family name. Any connection to "philia" - the greek word for "amor?"

I never thought to look up the etymology of ambiance (I think it can also be spelled "ambience"). Is it French I wonder? There has to be something better than "good surroundings."

I don't disagree with you. I'm simply trying to point out that there are a number of arguments like the one in the link promoting a polytheistic foundation for Judaic thought.

Has the great Byzantine general Flavius Belisarius been mentioned yet? I am too lazy to search all the back pages. Regardless, he has always been among my favorites. Despite how mistreated he was by his friends and lovers, he went dutifully about his job and should be placed among the greatest generals of all time.

http://tinyurl.com/8f4za This is a decent pronunciation site. I have a great hand out that details how/why we know what we know about classical pronunciation. I'll see if I can find it.

The commandment does not presuppose that there are other gods. It just presupposes that people worship other gods but does not acknowledge their existance. The bible or the old testament is very clear that there is only one god in existance and thats Yahweh, it's certainly been consistent for the last 2000 years. During ancient times and indeed 2000 years ago their was a culture of paganism and that was the predominant religion at the time. There are many instances in the bible were the Jews would fall into that trap of worshiping pagan gods but by the time Islam was born, paganism had all but died out so they did not have to deal with that threat to the extent that Jews and Christians did. Remeber monotheism was still a fairly new concept at the time and was still evolving. Peoples beliefs evolve but the text itself has never evolved or changed in the last 2000 years. There is plenty of textual evidence that points to a polytheistic foundation for Judaism. Please know that I am by no means endorsing this argument, however, I feel that it is a strong enough argument to at least recognize. Check the following link: http://tinyurl.com/dqu8a . Basically, there is evidence in the Bible that points to pre-biblical texts. It is to these texts that I am refering. The Torah has not changed, but interpretations of it have and our understanding of it has. As for the Muslims, there are Muslims who to this day argue that both Christians and Jews are polytheistic. Christianities "Trinity" is looked down upon by some Muslims as polytheism. Ultimately, I do think that you and I disagree on any fundamental level. I am simply trying to point out that there are many arguments to be made for a polytheistic foundation upon which the three main monotheistic traditions have been built.

http://tinyurl.com/b9jgg This is a good link that details Seneca's views on suicide. This ought not to be taken as a universal view on the subject, but many Romans would have felt similarly.

Now I'm really upset. I went to the website for the movie and in place of the "a" in DaVinci, they have a freakin "Lambda." I hate it when folks use greek letters without any understanding of what those letters mean. A "sigma" for instance is not an "E" in Greek or in any other language. A "delta" is not an "O," and a "lambda" is certainly never an "A." Why would they use a Greek letter anyway? The movie has nothing to do with Greek! I hate Hollywood.

I think that the "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" commandment presupposes that there were other gods. This is one of the reasons that some Muslims accuse the Jews of being polytheistic. Certainly the Romans would have encountered a Judaism that would have been closer to these old ways of thinking than we are today. It is certainly a mistake to assume that the religion hasn't changed over the last 2000 years.

My elementary understanding of this relationship is that the Romans recognized all of the gods out of fear of offending any. They even prayed to the "gods they did not know about." A god as seemingly powerful as the god of the Hebrews would have no doubt been one that they feared and respected. Later Jews would have been threatened with death for refusing to worship the Emperor. I am sure that there is someone here with more helpful information.

I read the book and thought it was quite poorly written. I also felt it made a lot of claims that were unsubstantiated. I understand that it was a work of fiction, but I feel that a lot of its readers did not understand that. Go read Holy Blood Holy Grail if you are sincerely interested in the Cathars and the Priory of Sion and the Merovingian Dynasty. I believe the authors of that book are sueing Dan Brown for misrepresenting their research and for earning a lot of money off of their theories.

Europe seems like such a secular place these days that I wonder how much sway the various churches have on politics. As a Tennessean, I am perhaps unaware of some of the subtler aspects of European politics. Is Europe not as secular as it appears? Or does the Church simply hold more political power than religious power? Regardless, I find it odd that Turkey is being asked to be less relgious (i.e. less Islamic) on the one hand and then asked to submit in a sense to Catholicism on the other. All of that said, when I was in the Hagia Sophia in 2000, I was saddened by its poor state and would like to see restoration efforts made regardless of who makes them.

It does lose gusto. I have often found that people are dissappointed by translations from English to Latin. It is why comedy and puns rarely translate well. They rely too much on subtle rules and expectations held by the language of the audience.

The Ecce Romani teaching text centers around a Roman family called the Cornelians. The house is called "villa Corneliana" which uses an adjectival form of "Cornelius" in order to modify "villa." "Domus Corneliana" would work as well. Basically, if you are not going to use the Latin word for house, there is no need to use proper Latin for Cornelians.

Your point about punctuation is absolutely right, though. A good Latin motto ought to read itself (so to speak) even if there's no punctuation to be seen. So I prefer yours, Capitolinus! Ago gratias tibi, Mr. Dalby. Were I to translate "You cannot eat ambiance" I would probably use the passive voice and say that ambiance cannot be eaten. bona circumiecta edi non possunt literally = good surroundings are not able to be eaten. thoughts?

Sextus, your pronunciation are good, but I would make the following changes: aedile = ah-ay-dee-lay (the ah-ay can be pronounced like the word "eye") stilicho = the "ch" comes from the greek "Chi" (X) and is pronounced with an aspirated hard "c" like this: kho = stee - lee - kho finally, "ii" is pronounced "ee-ee"

There was a decent show on the Discovery channel regarding the Gladiatorial graveyard discovered at Ephesus. Over 70 Gladiator bodies were exhumed and studied. Among the things that evidence helped them to conclude were: 1) Gladiators did not wear shoes in the arena 2) Gladiators ate mostly barley and beans 3) 1 out of 8 Gladiators were killed in the arena 4) Not all gladiators were slaves, some were citizens who simply found that they could earn a good living fighting It was a really good little show. I believe it was called "True Gladiators."

One of the chief dificulties is that we modern English speakers/writers present to those attempting translation is that we rely on punctuation marks that the Romans did not have. Ecce, Improvisus venit Graecusque Asiaticus est. Look! The unexpected comes and it is an Asian Greek. By using "que" I am creating a definite seperation of clauses as opposed to the weaker "et." Mr. Dalby's is quite nice as well, and I like the reference to the Africa phrase.

Do you mean to imply oriental as "asian" or as "eastern?" Oriental is the Latin term for an Easterner and therefore they mean something slightly different. Also, your construction leaves me wondering what exactly you are trying to say. Here is a very straight-forward translation for you: Improvisus Graecus Asiaticus sic venit. I doubt a Roman would have said this in this way though, as I wonder if a Roman would have said this at all. I will spend more time on this.

Much like the dabate about when (and if) Latin "died," this debate also cannot be answered simply. Obviously, the seperation of power in the mid-4th century played a huge role, but looking at things the population drop during the 4th century tells us a great deal as well. In Rome, many folks were drinking and eating from lead cups and plates, while in the Eastern Empire, folks were still using ceramics. What I have been taught to believe is this: Ask an average Roman on the street in, say, 470 AD if Rome had fallen recently and they would have had no idea what you were talking about. The Western Empire did not fall, it simply became the Catholic Church. The resources that had been available to the civic government of Rome were handed over to the the religious governement. Augustulus Romulus and Odoacer had their little thing, but it really had far little to do with the state of the power of the Roman empire. Rome did not fall. It evolved.

I believe the saying is: Ginger Rodgers did everything Fred Astaire did backwards and in heels.

Thank you for the welcome. It is great to see so many folks interested in Roma and her Linguae. I promise to offer what I am able.

I believe that St. Francis of Assissi's "Canticle of the Sun" is widely considered to be the first work published in Italian (by that I believe it is meant, published in an Italian that is more Italian than Latin). While no doubt many dialects were spoken, it is difficult to officially recognize a language until something has been published in that language. I am by no means saying that the language did not exist before than, but by being published, a language is given an authenticity that it would be difficult to ascribe to it otherwise. Language is such a dynamic, organic thing that it is difficult to chart its evolution in any specific way. Finding the missing link, if you will, between Latin and Italian is practically impossible what with the nature of creoles and pidgins and such. It is for that reason that above discussed "army" statement was originally coined.