| Dantes Cellar | 02 Jun 2009 9:23 p.m. PST |
Any Latin experts out there willing to take a crack at translating this: Nobis colloquium intendens intimis motis alensque auribus arrectis semper revenientibus pro plure volentibusque sodalitatem et pro pecunia. Any help would be much appreciated. |
korsun0  | 02 Jun 2009 10:23 p.m. PST |
Something about: speech, to us, to move, always, coming back, favourable/willing, togetherness for money. I'd say the last bit, from "pro" onwards is something about "willing to be together for friendship and money" Hows that for a singularly unhelpful response? |
| Mrs Pumblechook | 03 Jun 2009 1:17 a.m. PST |
eek, lots of passive verbs and ablatives! see what I can do, its not that easy |
| Dantes Cellar | 03 Jun 2009 10:03 a.m. PST |
Eeek indeed! Thansk korsun0. It was a long shot that I got at the last minute from my wife for some contest she was trying to win. I'll post back what the author's translation was as soon as I find out. |
| Dantes Cellar | 03 Jun 2009 10:36 a.m. PST |
Here it is: "Conversation that speaks to nurture our attention and keeps us interested makes us willing to pay for your company." God I hate corporate bastardizations of language sometimes. |
korsun0  | 03 Jun 2009 4:15 p.m. PST |
Amazing how they managed to create such a phrase; I can't imagine any old Roman trotting out such a cumbersome mouthful!! |
| Mrs Pumblechook | 03 Jun 2009 11:30 p.m. PST |
I took this to my tutor today, he said it didn't make sense and wasn't constructed properly, ie, it wasn't a proper sentence. one problem is in the latin, they use pecunia which is money, and a noun, the verb is more like to be derived from pendo or annumero I am not sure what word is supposed to mean speaks, as none of the words I know for that is in the sentence company should be either comitatus or societas not sodalitatem, and auribus arrectis means to prick up your ears and listen. Intimis means secret, arrgh, I think I should just stop |
| Ed Mohrmann | 04 Jun 2009 5:28 a.m. PST |
It seems as if the author's representation is an interpretation, *not* a translation
|
aecurtis  | 04 Jun 2009 7:26 p.m. PST |
I have to bite my tongue. It is a fine, if not literal, translation. |
aecurtis  | 05 Jun 2009 4:29 a.m. PST |
Sorry, Mrs. P. You have to deal with your tutor. It doesn't matter what I think of his comments. Allen |