Q Valerius Scerio

Ancora imparo. Latin doesn't really have a word for "to rock". They didn't have music, so "rock 'n' roll" would be lost on them. A common phrase uttered before festivities was "tempus nunc bibendi" (now is the time to drink). I don't think "dancing and singing" would correctly convey the message that Angus meant.

Oh the joys of youth. I also once thought that after finishing the grammar all will be done. I also was wrong. Latin is one of those languages in which most of its best works were written in such a way that only knowledge of grammar and a dictionary will not help you out at all. The syntax is convulated, the semantics obtuse and at once refined, surely you're aware of the idiomatic tendencies of this language. What can be done rarely is, and more often it's what is done that counts. BTW - for a good dictionary, I recommend Chambers-Murray. However, it only goes one way (Latin into English) thus you'll have to be more familiar with the language to do English to Latin translations. Familiarity is the key. After finishing high school Latin, I thought I could translate anything. A good dose of Juvenal and Tacitus cured that problem immediately. Oh, and concerning literality of translations, I myself prefer literal translations when working on a text. In fact, my current project is a translation of Matthew using the best manuscripts (aka UBS 4 with some modifications) into literal English. However, context is key. I don't think Simon2 was looking for an absolutely literal translation. He wanted to grasp the spirit, so I did. Two different problems, two different solutions. Use your judgment wisely. best regards, Chris Weimer

Uh-huh. Let me guess, Ecce Romani I still? I would be surprised if you had anything more advanced. Technically, you're correct on this one, but semper vive (and this was my mistake, vive not viva) sounds far better than vive in aeternitate. Plus, they both convey the same meaning. Fabula means "tale" or "story" and is a different kind of "legend" than the one he's obviously referring to. It's not too hard to infer that he's not talking about a story but about the status of a person, or legend, i.e. legendary hero, thus heros which means hero/demigod etc... and was used to describe such legends as Hercules. Simple typographical error. Vive, not viva. First of all, word usage is determined by lexigraphy not grammar, and furthermore, heros is dinstinctly used as "hero" or "demigod" whence we get our modern day "hero" likewise the adjective is herous whence come "heroic" and neither have anything to do with master or lord. True, but in is often preferred for standing directly in front. I was merely presenting another valid option. Um, whatever dictionary you're using is worthless. Which is it, I'm curious?

Heros, semper viva! "In" is preferred for standing literally in front of them.

I just heard 2nd season was canceled. http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicis...s/00002320.html

I sympathize terribly with all of you. The burning of Library of Alexandria is seriously the worst tragedy to befall the Western world, on par with the massive book burning in China which destroyed so much of its ancient history.

There's always my website: Ancient Mediterranean Forums

If Jesus had existed, and lived in Galilee as reported by the gospels, then indeed Jesus would have been fluent in Greek, as Galilee was a bilingual area. Greek was dominant in the area for official purposes, and I'd bet two pence that most upper fora of soldiers knew it, but doubtful that the grunts did. The Bible was first translated into Greek around the second century BCE and Latin followed with the conquest by Rome in the second century CE.

Hamilcar, father of Hannibal, enemy of Rome, why, of course! Time's version won't compare to this. I'm thinking volumes here. I'm thinking that college history textbooks aren't enough. For example, Josephus' Antiquity would be just a little too much. No, but seriously, I want it as the standard reference book and the most advanced all-encompassing book. Plus, being begun on the internet, and under GNU GPL licensing, it'll be accessible to everyone.

Hrm, neither really. I think we all should abandon this life of city-dwelling and become ascetic monks... But if I had to choose I would probably be... Damn, this is just too hard. People are just too untrustworthy.

Thank you kindly, Primus Pilus. It's not a Roman history site, but a history of the entire world, so I'm not sure how it would be self-defeating for you. And now, we're just getting started on organization, so everyone please join up and contribute. Even if you're not posting a long article or essay, anything to do will help further the cause. I also removed the restriction access on the Yahoo group, for those who tried to sign up, it is free for everyone to join.

Thanks spurious and Roman Wargamer. RW - the primary reason I say no copyright is because everything that will be submitted will be (presumabely) edited to such a degree that it would hardly be able to be recognized as yours. I'm just getting this project off the ground, so any input as well as articles would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Chris Weimer (aka Q Valerius Scerio)

Greetings fellow historians! It has been my life's dream to compile the greatest history of the world ever known. It will include all cultures that existed on this planet from a neutral outlook. I have a dream that we can accomplish this seemingly unfeasible task to have in a single book the entire timeline of this world, from birth to present. However, this is no simple task. I need historians of all calibers of every specialty to join in and give their imput, from organization to finalization. I started a Yahoo! Group here to help organize the project, although here and other history forums on the internet can be great places to gather information. I must warn that all the information given will fall under GNU GPL, i.e. there is no copyright on this information. Anyone up for a challenge? best wishes, Chris Weimer

Wealth and bloodline were tied together, as usually only the previously rich families had wealth. Clients were usually city-dwellers who promised their vote to the patrician that treated them the best which resulted in large commissationes and probably sex orgies. The plebians were just those without a large villa in the countryside only living in either insulae or small houses if they could afford it.

I like these: http://pages.globetrotter.net/passetemps/index.html

The Immaculate Conception actually refers to Mary being born without sin. The idea is that no sinner could give birth to a perfect man. But about Jesus being born of God, look no further than Zeus to figure out where they got that one from. Isn't it odd that it is missing in Mark? And further remember that Jesus was only made God by a vote.

Then why comment at all?

It doesn't have to be an arguement for Islam. It was actually an early Christian arguement. Most scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was written in this way, i.e. the Adoptionist view. Most notable is the lack of a nativity scene in Mark which in Matthew and Luke signify Divine Birth. Traditionally, according to this view, Jesus was adopted when he was baptised by John the Baptist.

I believe it was "patrice".

A little note on it: what I drive away in sarcasm I bring in with generosity; and I don't wish to achieve success and fame, but reclusiveness to the monastery or university library... Reasonable? They're probably a little too negative, which is why they're somewhat wrong.

Haughty Intellectual You are 85% Rational, 28% Extroverted, 42% Brutal, and 71% Arrogant. You are the Haughty Intellectual. You are a very rational person, emphasizing logic over emotion, and you are also rather arrogant and self-aggrandizing. You probably think of yourself as an intellectual, and you would like everyone to know it. You may have an unhealthy obsession with yourself, and consider yourself God's gift to the world, thus causing everyone to hate you for being such an elitist twat. On top of all that, you are also introverted and gentle. This means that you are just a quiet thinker who wants fame and recognition, in all likelihood. Rather lacking in emotion, introspective, gentle, and arrogant, you are most certainly a Haughty Intellectual! And, most likely, you will never achieve the recognition or fame you so desire! Sweet! To put it less negatively: 1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive. 2. You are more INTROVERTED than extroverted. 3. You are more GENTLE than brutal. 4. You are more ARROGANT than humble. Compatibility: Your exact opposite is the Schoolyard Bully. (Bullies like to beat up nerds, after all.) Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Braggart, the Hand-Raiser and the Robot. * * If you scored near fifty percent for a certain trait (42%-58%), you could very well go either way. For example, someone with 42% Extroversion is slightly leaning towards being an introvert, but is close enough to being an extrovert to be classified that way as well. Below is a list of the other personality types so that you can determine which other possible categories you may fill if you scored near fifty percent for certain traits. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's pretty close considering my Jung type is an INTJ.

I've been working on a Juvenal translation for a while and truly the man was remarkable - his wit uncanny - satyre perfect. I also enjoy Ovid for a remarkable read. Of course, Primus Pilus, are you reading in Latin? It's the only way to truly enjoy the text.

Well, sure the scope of the movie is the entire Trojan War rather than just the Iliad, but the bones of it is based on Homer. Which they proceeded to randomly destroy. There is no alternative historical evidence pointing to Menalaus dying in Troy for example. Its just butchered Homer. There is no attempt to write a historical account or anything like it. I don't mean to be rude but what are you talking about? I never even alluded to anything approaching that. Homer wrote a great and important epic tale, probably based on Greek history as he knew it. How is making a mutilated version of this with arbitrary changes and ommisions a historical acount ? They are using Homers characters and retelling his tale of the Trojan War, and they made a complete hash of it because they took ridiculous liberties with one of history's greatest works. Simple as that. I must say though I do kind of see what you were getting at in your first post though. If you meant simply watching the movie on its merits instead of comparing it to what we think it should be well then thats a good point, strangley enough that is exactly the tactic I have been using lately in order to enjoy the latest rush of historical epics. And it has worked pretty well for me. I found it impossible with Troy though because it is complete irredeemable rubbish. In my opinion of course *edit* Oh by the way I didn't mean to jump all over you when you were just trying to bring a bit of sanity to the torrent of abuse directed at the film. I'm all tired and cranky today No problem, I take no offenses at all, and I hope you don't take any either, but again, let me point out that Homer served merely as a model for Troy. They specifically said (watch the special features) that they didn't want to make the Iliad, that they wanted to retell what could have been historical. Sure, there is no evidence that Menelaus died at Troy, in fact, there's no real evidence for any of the characters at all. It's legend, and they simply made their own legend. Actually, it's in the true spirit of Homer: Homer was a rhapsode, and like all rhapsodes he cut and fitted his story to gear towards a particular audience. There was never one Iliad (until the others were lost) but many, and Wolfgang here is acting as a rhapsode, cutting and fitting where he sees necessary to make a new legend. Question - For those who have never read the Iliad but have seen Troy: Did you like it? Let's be honest here, too, no one has an agenda to push.

Or some authentic works of Epicurus - now that would be enlightening. They say they're going to do the same with the stash at Herculaneum.

If it were called the Iliad, I would be inclined to agree with you. But the whole purpose of the story was not to retell the Iliad, but to give what could have been a historical account of what have happened. Are you suggesting that Homer actually wrote history? I think not.