Caesar
-
Posts
683 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Caesar
-
-
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essenes (sp?), a Jewish community that estabished secluded community (almost a monastic community) apart from the rest of the Jews. They remained separated (as was their desire) from the issues of the time; so they missed Jesus (although some scholars will say that Jesus Himself lived as an Essene for a while before He began his ministry).
The Dead Sea Scrolls were the copies of the Torah and other Jewish scriptures (now found in the Old Testament). When the Romans overran Jerusalem in 70AD, the Essenes attempted to protect their tiny settlement from destruction and made a feeble attempt against the Roman army. I dont think I need to say how that turned out
I would like to note though that the Jewish historian who was a contemporary of Jesus, Josephus, did mention Him.
-
I was under the impression that none or at best only one of the 4 major gospels was from a first hand account. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were copiled at a later date and "edited" to suit the newly converted Romans.
All four are believed to have been written between 60 and 90 AD. The most accurate of the cannonical Gospels is the Gospel of Mark, as it was the earliest and written by St. Mark, the Roman secretary of St. Peter. As for their authenticity and possible editing, take a look at the last few posts in the General Theology Thread
The most interesting texts from the period around the Jewish revolt of 65-74 AD are contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran (sp?). As I recall there is little if any direct reference to Christ.The Dead Sea Scrolls are just copies of the books of the old Testament, written by a secluded Jewish community. So there shouldnt be any referance to Jesus to begain with.
-
I think I remember something about moral in the FAQ (too lazy to check) about morale. You'll have to check with a 0ad staff member, but I'm pretty sure only the 0ad xpack will have morale.
-
Hmm, your mention of personalities for commanders gave me an idea.
What if units can be assigned to a certain commander and get bonuses based on his "personality"?
A type of automatic fighting could be interesting, as long as the player can turn it off. For example, units under the command of a hero unit can be put on some sort of auto-command, where the hero will make basic decisions (attack, stand ground; formations; ect.), but not enough to take away from the players role in the game (so a lazy player cant put all his units under auto-command and sit back).
One other thing- would it be at all possible if the pc attacks with their full strength and uses formations and tactics? I hate it in AoK when the pc attacks in small numbers (like 5 or 6 units at a time, or less) without any kind of tactics or formations, and usualy end up getting cut down by my towers and forts before they have a chance to attack.
-
I'm curious to see how 0ad will portray elephants for the Carthaginians and Persians.
-
So as not to clog up the Theology Discussions, this can be discussed in a new topic.
As some of you may have heard, National Geographic has unveiled the fabled Gospel of Judas. It is a Gnostic text written in Coptic Egyptian that is thought to date from the 2nd century AD (many scholars say 130-170 AD).
The text talks about Judas Iscariot, the Apostle of Jesus Christ who betrayed Him to the Sanhedrin. In the four Gospels accepted by Christians (all dating from 60-90 AD), Judas delivers Christ into the hands of the Jewish High Priests for 30 pieces of silver. This text claims that Judas was the favorite Apostle of Christ (in contrast to the other Gospels who name St. John as the favorite), and that Christ commanded him prior to his crucifixion to go to the Sanhedrin.
There are reportedly a total of 50 Gospels of Christ, with 20 that are still in existance (including the four Cannonical Gospels which were picked in the 4th century for their accuracy and date). The other 16 are of debatable accuracy due to time periods and contradictory information to the accepted texts.
The Gnostics were an early sect of Christian mystics. The particular group that supposedly wrote the Gospel of Judas were the Cainites- a small sect in the Eastern Roman Empire that worshipped Cain (the first murderer in the Bible) as a victim of Demiurge Jehovah- the God of the Old Testament who they believed to be evil. Several Gospels were written by the Cainites besides the Gospel of Judas.
National Geographic will be airing a program on April 9th called "the Gospel of Judas". The text is being debated as to it's significance due to the lack of any sources to back-up it's claim, and the obscurity of the sect that wrote it.
What's your opinions?
-
Last week I made the mistake of telling my grandfather that I wished to learn Latin. Since my school isnt offering a latin course at the moment, he decided to teach me. So now I have an old german guy trying to teach me latin by making me read from the Latin Vulgate.
If you want to learn an interesting language have a look at Esperanto. I know it's not that popular but it's a very creative one and actually quite fun to learn.Hmm, maybe. But its not exactly a language that I could use...
-
Salvete!
I found this good site with a Latin Course. Includes a lot of easy lessons.
-
A few years ago I was browsing the AoKH forums and came across an old modpack project called 0ad. I couldnt find any information about whether or not it was completed, so I tried some websites- first under Wildfire Studios (the original name for WFG), then Wildfire Games. So imagine my surprise to discover that 0ad was a full, freeware game.
-
-
Peter was to hold "the key to the kingdom of heaven". Thus the image of Peter at the gates of heaven, welcoming those who were worthy into the pearly gates and so on and so forth. He was also to be the "cornerstone" of Jesus' kingdom.
He was the "rock" upon which Christ built His Church (both in the symbolic sense, and quite literally too as the the great Basilica of St. Peter was built over his tomb).
"and I tell you that you are Peter (from Latin Petrus, meaning Rock) and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it"- Matthew 16:18
Not to mention, Christ specificaly gives Peter the charge to "tend my sheep".
But John, brother of James, was the "disciple whom He loved". He was there at the crucifixtion with Mary, and appears to have been even closer to Jesus than Peter, especially given Peter's sketchy history with faith and long-suffering (walking on water and the denial of Christ, to name a couple). He remains alive the longest out of all of the apostles, and is receives the Revelation while in exile on Patmos.And certainly John was the favorite, but there is no evidence in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or the Letters, that St. John was ever a leader or was given the role of leadership by Christ. John was given another role by Christ, but there is no evidence that he had a leadership role.
On the other hand, Peter was given a role that apears to be one of leadership. Look at the Gospel quotes above, and consider that Peter was always placed first on lists of the Apostles, spoke first to the crownds at Pentecost and did take a strong leadership role in the Early Church.
As for Peter's faith, it was unwavering. He may have had problems with his own courage and strength, but he remained faithful to Christ. Peter was the first to proclaim Christ as the messiah-
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 16:13-17
Paul, after the acts of, well, the book of Acts, appears to have assumed general control of early Christian belief. I do not see any evidence for one actual bishop controlling a great deal of churches until the second century, The closest to such a set-up was given by Paul himself, who stated that elders should be appointed in every church, as well as deacons.Paul was an important evangelist (especialy to the Gentiles), but the fact that he was not one of the original Apostles seems to have hampered his ability to act as a leader for the Universal Church. Peter held the most authority in the Church (the decision to allow Gentiles to be Christians really came down to him), but the Book of Acts focuses more on Paul after his conversion.
The hierarchy wasnt established by Paul either- it seems to have existed before Paul came along (he was even responsible for the execution of the St. Stephen, a deacon in Jerusalem). Of course the titles of Bishops, Presbyters/Priests and Deacons did not yet exist, but the offices that would develop into them did.
St. Peter was a universal leader of the Early Christians (although he did not really possess too much administrative authority), and was co-leader with St. Paul of the Church in Rome. His/their successors to the leadership of the Roman Church would become the Popes.
Peter, being either killed through persecution (my historical instincts tell me that he was not killed in such a dramatic fashion as being hung upside down)You would be surprised. The tradition that says Peter was crucified upside down does have some basis in fact. Roman historians of the time wrote that the soldiers would often experiment with crucifixion by trying differant body positions.
My point is this: Catholic dogma on the early Church is not specifically refuted by any historical evidence. However, there is very little evidence available before 160 C.E. which proves the dogma. Which, in my opinion, is why the various Christian faiths can all claim something contradictory to one another without actually going against history.Tradition doesnt come from nowhere- you would be quite surprised at how accurate traditions can be. Also, there are sources to this, but being religious texts most secular scholars wont accept them.
The belief of St. Peter as first Bishop of Rome and his martyrdom on Vatican Hill was Universal Christian beliefs for 1500 years until the Protestants came along and tried to discredit the Papacy by contradicting this traditional belief.
-
Good points Erik
I do not disagree that the Catholic Church has gone against their own teachings in the past- but, to sum up what Erik said, the Catholic Church is a human Church. Humans are fallible beings. We can, and are, often lost in the pleasures of our corporeal world, to the extent that we often lose sight of our spiritual one. And the humans that make up the Catholic Church are no differant than any others- just look at Pope Alexander VI.
The Catholic Church has indeed been swept up in the past by politics- but less so today, especialy since the Church's temporal States are now limited to about a square mile.
I think there's a pretty large misunderstanding here in thinking that the Catholic Church ruined Henry's life.Interesting information about Henry VIII- before his apostacy, Henry was a ferverous defender of Catholicism against the onslaught of Luther's Protestantism. For his book "Defence of the Seven Sacraments", Pope Leo X granted Henry the title of "Defender of the Faith" (a title still held by British monarchs, but now in referance to the Church of England). Whether Henry actualy believed what he was writing at that time would be intirguing to know, but once again greed and politics reared its ugly head and Henry VIII became the first protestant King of England.
But lets get to an interesting question shall we? Why exactly would we consider the possibilty that the Roman Catholic Church altered the most sacred Christian text?
Because everyone likes a good conspiracy, thats why. Did the CIA shoot JFK? Are there alien spacecraft in Area 51? Did man really land on the moon? Did the Church of Rome tamper with the Bible for their own purposes?
There is more than substantial evidence to suggest that the Bible we have today is very accurate to the original texts:
- The earliest manuscripts of Gospels date from the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, long before the Catholic Church had the power to alter all the texts (if they ever had such power at all). These manuscripts are accurate to our modern versions.
- The Eastern Orthodox Churches split from the Roman Church before the time when the Roman Church is suspected of having tampered with the scriptures. The Bible of the Eastern Orthodoxy today remains the same as the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
- It seems to be almost impossible that the Catholic Church could have altered every Bible in existance. I am 99.9% sure that such a feat is quite impossible.
- If the Church changed the Bible, how come we now see that so many medieval Catholic leaders disobeyed the teachings of Christ? Wouldnt you think that the Church would have changed the Bible to support what wrongs they were doing?
But secularists and fundamental Protestants dont like to see the fact that Catholic Church might actualy have the decency to remain true to it's faith (OMG!). The fact is that for all the Church has done, both good and bad, it has always, always, got back up and tried to walk on the path of Christ again. Just like all humans.
-
Hahaha, a debate!
I don't think anyone will disagree that the Church lost/has lost its way - especially in the Middle Ages. The Church became so involved in politics and vise versa - it was just a bad situationLike all human insistutions, the Catholic Church has strayed from the right path various times in the past. But this has been caused by a negative impact of politics on the Church- not faulty beliefs.
Even modern day, it still isn't right. Look at how the Church is influencing the illegal alien mess.It is the moral duty of the Catholic Church to work for the rights of all people- even "illegal" immigrants. I support the rights of those immigrants who were just looking for a better life, and I believe that the Church of Rome, and all Christian denominations, have a duty to defend the morals and values of Christianity.
It is my fervant belief (based on historical facts and my own faith) that the texts we have now are very accurate to their original versions. I have provided you with a more expanded view on my beliefs here above.
Now, by the Dark/Middle Ages, corruption had been introduced. The Church was decadent, and they were the greatest power on Earth, at least in Europe. The aforementioned Henry IV example servers again here. The Church could and would ruin people's lives - clear up to the King, so that their authority remained unchallenged.Had it not been for the short leash the Church kept European royalty on, Christianity would not exist today.
The Church at this point could easily have altered texts (as it was before Luther's translations or the printing press), and muscled down the protests of anyone who dared object.Ok then, following this theory, why are the scriptures we have today so accurate in comparison to the earliest versions we possess- versions that existed long before the Church gained enough power to change all the texts?
-
Let me expand on what I said yesterday.
Basicaly, we know the following things (from history and from the Gospels):
- St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, hence leader of the Church, after the death of Christ.
- The early Christian Church was unified by a common following of the Apostles.
- Biblical sources seem to hint towards Peter's execution.
- Tradition holds that St. Peter was crucified upside-down atop Vatican Hill outside Rome.
- What is believed to be his tomb lies directly beneath the High Altar of the Basilica which bears his name, in the Vatican catacombs.
- The succession of leaders of the Christian Church in Rome, what later became known as the Papacy, originated (or is believed to have originated) with St. Peter.
- The Gospels hold Peter to be first among the Apostles (he is placed first in the lists of the Apostles; often special attention is given to Peter's experiences; after Pentecost Peter is the first to speak and makes his famous sermon to the crowds; and of course the well-known "Tu es Petrus" passage).
For those of you who are not familar with the story of St. Peter, here it is in brief:
Peter's actual name was Simon ben Jonah. He was a fisherman in Capernaum when he met Jesus Christ and became one of His first followers. Peter, James and John formed Christ's "inner circle" of Apostles and were present at many of important events in the life of Christ. Peter was the first to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, to which Jesus said "et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam" (oh fine- "and I tell you that you are Peter (from Latin Petrus, meaning Rock) and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it"- Matthew 16:18)
Another important passage with Peter is John 21:15-19-
"So when they had eaten their breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?"
He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection for you."
He said to him, "Feed my lambs.
He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?"
He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection for you."
He said to him, "Tend my sheep.
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you have affection for me?"
Peter was grieved because he asked him the third time, "Do you have affection for me?" He said to him, "Lord, you know everything. You know that I have affection for you."
Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep
Most certainly I tell you, when you were young, you dressed yourself, and walked where you wanted to. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you, and carry you where you don't want to go.
Now he said this, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. When he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me."- This particular passage is held to be a prophesy of the death of Peter by crucifixion.
Peter held a place of importance in the early Church. He was leader of the Church in Antioch, and by tradition is held to be leader (or co-leader with Paul) of the Church of Rome. This passge from the apocryphal Acts of Peter recounts his death-
"And as they considered these things, Xanthippe took knowledge of the counsel of her husband with Agrippa, and sent and showed Peter, that he might depart from Rome. And the rest of the brethren, together with Marcellus, besought him to depart. But Peter said unto them: Shall we be runaways, brethren? and they said to him: Nay, but that thou mayest yet be able to serve the Lord. And he obeyed the brethren's voice and went forth alone, saying: Let none of you come forth with me, but I will go forth alone, having changed the fashion of mine apparel. And as he went forth of the city, he saw the Lord entering into Rome. And when he saw him, he said: Lord, whither goest thou thus (or here)? And the Lord said unto him: I go into Rome to be crucified. And Peter said unto him: Lord, art thou (being) crucified again? He said unto him: Yea, Peter, I am (being) crucified again. And Peter came to himself: and having beheld the Lord ascending up into heaven, he returned to Rome, rejoicing, and glorifying the Lord, for that he said: I am being crucified: the which was about to befall Peter."
-
Well, St. Peter was leader (or co-leader with St. Paul) of the Early Church in Rome. The leaders of Early Christian communities became known as Bishops, and the hierachy we know today developed. So, Peter as leader of the Roman Christians would be the first "Bishop of Rome". The leaders of the Roman Church were his successors, and that line developed into the Papacy. St. Peter wasnt actualy a "Pope" (indeed that title wasnt used until around 700 AD), but he was the first holder of an office that developed into what we would know as the Office of the Pope. We also know that Peter was the leader of the Apostles after the death of Christ, and the Early Church during the lives of the Apostles was more or less "unified" through writings and traveling evangelists like St. Paul.
-
Celtic Genetic Engineering Lab eh?
Hahaha
-
Patience is a virtue.
-
Just as a note about today, April 2, I would like to take the chance to point out that at 9:37pm a year ago today, Pope John Paul II died. I think it is important to remember his words on his faith on this day.
"I am happy and you should be happy too. Do not weep. Let us pray together with joy"
-
I too have always wanted to learn Latin, so I found this good guide.
Its easier than a normal Latin course because it teaches how to create sentances and phrases, then you just have to learn enough words.
-
and then if you want to learn more Latin words and phrases, download this free language software- www.byki.com
-
I found this good Latin course online. It explains how to create sentances, and then you just have to learn enough words. Anyone want to learn Latin with me?
LATIN: THE EASY WAY
© 1999 by C.J. Cherryh
I used to teach this subject. I use a method that's a little different than the standard, a method aimed at results, not tradition, and no need to learn grammar at the outset, when you've got enough new things to learn. If you learned by the traditional method you may find this radically different; but trust me.
If this is new to you...give it a try. Download this file and work with the pieces and see if you don't think this is easier than legend says it is. Think of Bren Cameron, with more than singular and plural to worry with...and try an alien language.
I've found Latin fluency more valuable myself than any other subject I ever studied: vocabulary, logic, world-building, history, culture, reasoning and general knowledge. I can read scientific texts in subjects I never studied...because to me the scientific jargon makes perfect sense.
And if a good number of my visitors would like to learn how to think and speak Latin beyond the 3 sessions below, I'll continue this section from time to time. Let me know.
PART ONE
First of all, not every human born thinks in the same order. English is moderately unusual, in fact, in the way it patterns thoughts. Let me show you the Latin thought pattern.
<ACTOR /ACTED-UPON> <ACTION>
Now, think about that. Two units. The first package is, say, "Marcus Brutus/Caesar." <Actor/Actee>
So, what, knowing history, would you expect the action to be? The <Action> is pretty well expected from the association of the first two parts. OK? We expect...<stabbed or killed or assassinated>. That's right.
Now think of another <actor/actee> and a really logical <action>. How about "The man/the runaway horse” followed by <caught>. Has to be a single simple action. Nothing fancy, yet. Try several more logical and obvious combinations.
In Latin, the verb [action] is often a no-brainer. Of course, the hearer says to himself, it's thus and such. Every language has set expectations. In Latin, the most important understanding is the <actor/actee> set. The <action> is, with a lot of practice, downright guessable.
NEXT: Latin words change endings according to their duty. ACTORS have a basic spelling...."Marcus Brutus".
ACTEEs change that spelling to end in the -m sound [-am, -um, or -em]. Why this happens...ask later. Just trust that if "Marcus Brutus" weren't the hitter, but the hitt-ee, he'd be "Marcum Brutum."
Let's say Caesar saw Marcus Brutus. In Latin, the actor/actee is "Caesar/Marcum Brutum" and the action is "saw".
Tullia [a woman's name] saw Marcus Brutus. <Tullia Marcum Brutum> "saw."
Marcus Brutus saw Tullia. <Marcus Brutus Tulliam> <saw.>
Neat trick: because Latin shows use by changes in spelling, you can turn a statement inside out and upside down and the meaning doesn't change. <Tulliam/Marcus Brutus> <saw> is exactly the same as <Marcus Brutus/Tulliam> <saw>. This reversal is nice for poetry...but rare. Save that trick for later. Do it the plain way. Marcus Brutus Tulliam <saw>.
Some words to use for practice.
§ Marcus Brutus [a man's name] say: mar-koos bru-toos; mar-koom, etc.
§ Tullia [a woman's name] say: TOO-lee-ah; TOO-lee-ahm.
§ Tullius [a man's name] say: TOO-lee-oos; TOO-lee-oom.
§ Caesar [a man's name: this is one of the -em sort, not uncommon. The actor version is Caesar; actee is Caesarem.] say: KY-sar; KY-sar-aym.
§ Femina [can you possibly guess it's an -am type?] means 'woman'. Say: FAY-mee-nah. Many words of this time are women's names. So are the words for: casa [casam] meaning 'house,' tabula [tabulam] meaning 'table', urna [urnam] meaning 'pot, jar, container', aqua [aquam] meaning 'water', and porta [portam] meaning 'door' or 'access' or 'gate.' Not every of the type has to do with houses and their furnishings, but a lot do.
§ Patria [another -am] means 'country' as in 'native land'. Say PAH-tree-ah.
Oh, forgot to mention: Latin doesn't have a word for "a, an, the" and rarely uses "my, yours, his, theirs." You can say "Marcus Brutus patriam" < betrayed> and it means Marcus Brutus <betrayed> [his] country. Trust me. It does.
Ok, there's all of lesson one and some words to play with. You haven't learned the ACTION yet. That's next, and it's not that hard, either. What you've got is the most basic and important word-association in the whole language. If you can do <actor/actee> rapidly and accurately with various words, hey, you're a third of the way through Latin I semester one in a single lesson, and if you knew enough words, could probably get a meal and rent a room in an inn anywhere in the Roman Empire.
TECHNICALITIES: Now ignore what's below if technical words aren't your cup of tea: but for those who want to know the grammar, I'll reiterate what I just said in grammatical jargon:
You've just learned two 'cases' of all Latin noun classes, the actor [nominative case] and the actee [accusative case.] Latin nouns come in five classes, or spelling groups, also called 'declensions'. We haven't gotten to plurals, but that will come. "Cases' are nothing more than 'instances' of words in use. No big deal.
Latin nouns [names of people/places/things/concepts] have five cases in all. More on this later. You know two.
You now know the basic word order of the Latin sentence.
PART TWO
Now that you know the ACTOR/ACTEE pattern, let's work on ACTION.
ACTIONS generally end in -t. It can be -at, -et, or -it, depending on 'class' [spelling group] of the word in question. Don't worry about WHEN a thing happened; let's assume everything we talk about happens now before our eyes. We'll not say "Brutus killed Caesar" but rather "Brutus is killing Caesar." "Caesar sees Brutus." The "is ...ing" or the "...s" form is the simplest form: think of it as newspaper headlines...or the report from that frantic fellow running toward you down the street... <ACTOR/ACTEE> <ACTION>
<Marcus Brutus/Caesarem> <OCCID-it.> Marcus Brutus Caesarem occidit! Marcus Brutus kills/is-killing/murders Caesar!
<Femina/Marcum Brutum> <VID-et> A woman sees/spots Marcus Brutus.
<Marcus Brutus/Caesarem> <NEC-at>. Marcus Brutus slays/slaughters/messily-kills Caesar!
Three different ACTION words in three different spelling classes. There are OCCIDere types, VIDére types, AUDire types and NECare types. How to tell the ending to use, whether it's -it, -et, or -at? Well, you'll notice for one thing the endings don't sound much different. Romans regularly misspelled them. [if you mistake them, no one's going to notice if you're speaking. Writing, well, I don't expect you to do too much better than the Romans.]
But here's the way you tell: NECare type verbs use -at; OCCIDere and AUDíre types use -it, and VIDére types use -et. The dictionary always lists verbs with the -o form and with the -[*]re form, plus two others. Take the capitalized part of the word, put the correct ending on it, and [trumpet fanfare] you've got it.
A sample of how to do this
§ occido...occidere [kill/murder] say: OK-kee-doh...ok-KEE-deh-reh [no mark on the e. I hate to break the news that the Romans didn't use those pesky marks, but they didn't. They did it all by ear. If there's no accent mark, the accent goes BEFORE the -ere ending. If there is one, it goes ON the -ére. The other two kinds, the íre and the áre types, are always long: it's only the 'e' that can be one or the other. The worst you'll do is have -it when you should have -et. If you have to pick fast, pick -it: why? There are more of that kind of verb!
§ So occido...occidere becomes: occidit. [kills, murders, does in, slays]
§ habeo...habére becomes habet. [has, owns]
§ amo...amare becomes amat. [likes, loves]
§ Video...vidére...[see, spot] say: WEE-day-oh...wee-DAY-reh [that accent mark drags the accent back to the é] Latin is pronounced a lot like Italian, by the way. [No surprise!] Which is why the -e- sound is -ay- , particularly to the American ear. But why is the -v- pronounced 'wa'? It always is.
§ Neco...necáre [kill messily/slaughter] say: NAY-ko...nay-KAH-reh
§ Amo...amáre [love] AH-mo...ah...MAH...reh
§ Capio...capere [catch/take/pick up/snatch/arrest/understand, as in gotcha!] KAP-ee-oh....KAP-ayr-reh
§ Audio...audíre [hear, listen to, pay attention to] OW-dee-oh, ow-DEE-reh
§ teneo...tenére [get/understand/hold/have] TAYN-ay-oh...tayn-AY-reh
Review: Mechanics: To make the -it/-et/-at form: cut off the -ere/-are/-ire/-ére from the second form of each ACTION...and put on -et for the -ére types; -at for the áre types, -it for all the others. Do not double i's, a's or e's.
Correct answers? : occidit, videt, necat, amat, capit, audit, tenet. Kills, sees, slaughters, loves, takes, hears, has.
[tenére and habére mean very close to the same thing. Both mean 'have', but tenet besides meaning 'has' can mean 'hangs on to." And habet can mean, in street slang, "he's kilt the guy!" As you know from English, where 'get down' has quite a few meanings, what happens to those words 'on the street' may be something quite different than you see in the average dictionary.
Mistakes? Figure out why the right answer is the right answer. Look closely at those accent marks.
<Marcus Brutus Caesarem> <audit.>
Caesar Marcum Brutum amat.
Femina Marcum Brutum capit.
Make up your own.
Want a few exclamations to enliven your language? Try:
Ecce! [AY-kay] Wow! or Look! or Yipes! Also: Lookoutforthatchariot! Pay attention!
and the more somber: eheu! [EH-hew] which can be translated as an expression ranging from oh, dear! to: s--t!
Well...
You've just learned every plain action in the language. If you want to, find Cassell's Latin Dictionary at your friendly newsstand, and you can handle any plain ACTION in that very thick book. When you look up an action, learn both forms. Say them to yourself aloud. This will be useful.
Caution: those of you taking Latin in school: my methods are decidedly unorthodox. If your teacher tells you differently, respect what your teacher is telling you and do things his way: he's giving you the grades! My way is simpler, and quite different, intended to get you speaking first, knowing grammar second. But I don't want to confuse you. We end up saying exactly the same words; only our routes [and rules!] are different. And please don't repeat the bad words.
TECHNICALITIES: Above, I've given you the third person singular verb of all 4 'conjugations' or verb 'classes' and shown you how to derive the 'root' from the 'infinitive [-re form]...1st conjugation verbs are the -are's, and always use -at. 2nd conj. verbs are the -ére's and always use -et. 3rd conj. verbs are always -ere and use -it. 4thd conj. verbs are always -íre and also use -it.
FOR TEACHERS AND GRAMMARIANS: [The standard method is to derive the 'stem!' from the infinitive, taking off only the -re, and adding -t, then for 3rd and 4th classes, making transformational changes] Why do I use this unorthodox method? Because when in future, imperfect, and other forms, the student can always use the same 'root', with infixes, without the additional changes and vowel shifts the 'stem' requires. For the student struggling with the early forms, I've found it easier to explain, easier to do, easier to memorize, because there's no change in the root.]
PART THREE
OK...so you now know the basic statement.
<ACTOR/ACTEE> <ACTION>
Marcus Brutus/Caesarem occidit.
Suppose we just wanted to say not "Marcus Brutus" but "he" is killing Caesar?
I have a deal for you. You get this lesson for free. You already know how.
How? Leave out the actor. Leave the words "Marcus Brutus" out.
The verb happens to be the 'he' form. Or the 'she' form. Even the 'it' form. You just say...
Caesarem occidit.
And it means He is killing Caesar! or He's killing Caesar!
Magical, eh?
Latin is a language of very few words.
Of course...Antony could say, after Caesar had been out on the town, referring to Caesar's wife Calpurnia, "Caesarem occidit," meaning "She's killing Caesar." Rome was a small town, comparatively speaking. He, she, or it.... Everyone knew what you meant.
Femina Caesarem occidit. The woman is killing Caesar. Caesarem occidit. He is killing Caesar, she is killing Caesar, or you could even say, Cena Caesarem occidit. Cena? That means dinner. [say: kay-na] It's killing Caesar. Calpurnia's cooking, perhaps.
How's that for free knowledge?
I know, I know, now you want to know how to say I'm killing, you're killing, all that sort of gory thing. But let's not confuse ourselves. Stick to this simple pattern.
[ACTOR/ACTEE> <ACTION> or [missing actor]/ACTEE> <ACTION>
More words to play with:
§ Cena...dinner
§ Lupa...she-wolf
§ Lupus..he-wolf
§ Cervus....deer, male
§ Taurus....bull
§ Vacca....cow; say: WAH-ka [all v's are pronounced as w's]
§ Gallus....a Gaul
§ Britannus....a Briton; say: bree-TAHN-noos
§ Britannia....Britain; say: bree-TAHN-yah
§ Italia....Italy
§ Facio...facere [make, do, construct, create]
§ Forum...a public meeting place, a forum [actor/actee identical: forum]
§ Roma....Rome [yes, r's are rolled]
§ Florentia...Florence: say: flow-RAYN-t-ya
§ Gloria.....reputation [good], fame
§ Ars...[goes to artem]....art: say: ARSSS. AR-tem.
§ Calamitas..[goes to calamitatem] disaster ;say: kah-LAH-mee-tahs.
§ Civitas....[goes to civitatem] a city as a political unit, a state, a city-state. say: KEE-wee-tahs, kee-wee-TAH-tem.
§ Urbs...[goes to urbem] a city as an urban center, a city.
Say
Caesar is taking Rome. He has Britain. Caesar has a reputation. Brutus is creating a disaster. Calpurnia is creating art. Calpurnia is making dinner. Caesar is creating a city-state. Caesar is building a city. Rome has a reputation. The woman is taking dinner. The wolf catches the deer. The she-wolf is catching her supper. He is building a city. He is creating art. It takes the deer. Look! the woman is catching Calpurnia. The wolf watches the deer.
Make up your own. Constantly consider <ACTOR/ACTEE> and the <ACTION>will suggest itself. Try some with 'he', 'she' or 'it' as ACTOR. [Yes, there are ACTEE forms of he/she/it: later for those.]
TECHNICALITIES: There are none, to speak of. These action words are verbs. You don't need to use a pronoun with them to express 'he, she' or 'it.' If there's no [ACTOR] expressed, the verb handles it. Yes, Latin has pronouns. It doesn't use them much. You technical buffs get this one free, too.
PART FOUR
All right, you can now frame a basic interaction of people. You can state what's going on. There are a number of ways to go from here, depending on need. Let's, however, keep it simple. Let's add other people to the mix. Let's add...you!
How do you do that?
Marcus Brutus Caesarem occidit, eheu!
Marcus Antonius Marcum Brutum occidit.
Poor Caesar!
But let's say, without getting too complicated, that YOU see, you catch, you understand, you do an array of things. Easy done!
Remember how you add -it, -et, or -at to say: HE does it? To say you do it, add -is, -es, or -as.
"YOU" has become the <ACTOR/*> in the <actor/actee> transaction. Since you is YOU, the <actor> is taken care of, done, all handled!
<[you]/Caesarem occidis!>
Someone might say that to Brutus. As a matter of fact, if poor Caesar had gotten a chance to finish his sentence, [Et tu, Brute,] the rest of it would have been....you guessed it.....Caesarem occidis! And the complete meaning would have been, "Even you, Brutus, are murdering Caesar!"
Unfortunately the assassins gave him no time to be grammatical.
Oh. What's that funny form of Brutus? It's actually pronounced at both ends: BROO-tay. It happens to be a special form of the word for male names when you talk TO men. No other type of word does that. Just men's names. It was actually rude to start a sentence with a man's name in that form. It had the effect of "Hey! You!"
So you can see that Caesar, who was a very fine writer, instinctively remembered to stick SOME word in front of Brutus' name to prevent it being first in the sentence! I always said, hey, if poor old Caesar can remember to be polite under such circumstances, so can I.
In English, if we use a word that way, we set it off in commas. Hey! Mark! You have a cow!
In Latin, Heus! [HAYoos!] Marce! Vaccam habes!
§ Cenam amas. You like the dinner.
§ Carrum tenes. [carrus/carrum: cart/wagon/car] You have a car.
As you can see, conversations involving only 'you' are pretty limited.
TECHNICALITIES: The second person singular, "you", is done by adding -is, -es, or -as. End report.
PART FIVE
OK, choices, choices. So many choices. But let's try to deny something.
Let's say someone ISN'T doing something.
How?
Here's your pattern: Same as before: <actor/actee> NOT <action.>
§ Marcus Antonius Caesarem non occidit. Marcus Brutus Caesarem occidit.
Mark Antony isn't killing Caesar. Marcus Brutus is killing Caesar.
§ Cervus lupum non capit. Lupus cervum capit.
The deer isn't catching the wolf. The wolf is catching the deer.
§ Calpurnia cenam habet. Caesar cenam non habet.
Cleopatra Caesarem amat. Calpurnia Cleopatram non amat.
§ Currum non habes.
Currum non habet.
Antonius currum non habet.
Let's try a fancier word than just "not". Let's try "never", or that other word of time, "sometimes." And then for variety, "right now" or "now."
§ Numquam [NOOM-kwam] never
§ Interdum [iN-tayr-doom] sometimes, occasionally.
§ Nunc [NOONk] now.
§ Iam [yahm] now or 'by now', especially with "non", as in "non iam" ....not any more.
§ Caesar currum numquam habet. Caesar never has a car.
§ Calpurnia currum interdum habet.
§ Calpurnia currum non iam habet. Antonius currum capit. Calpurnia Antonium nunc non amat.
TECHNICALITIES: Not many...but "non" or "not" is an adverb; and adverbs come in that position no matter what they are. Yes, they can vary and change position for emphasis. But you're pretty safe putting them here. Better do one thing all the time and then vary it only after that pattern is set in your mind.
PART SIX
Asking questions.
Tolerably easy, too. Latin didn't have question marks. We use them, simply because it's our habit. To ask a question about a word or idea put "an" [say: awn} in front of the sentence next to the word you want to have information about and put that word first in the sentence. [see where it's going to be really useful that words have endings that tell about their function no matter where they appear in the sentence?]
To question an action: ---add the ending -ne [say: nay] to the action and put it first.
To question a not-action---add the ending -ne to the "not" and put it first.
Back to poor old Caesar....
An Brutus Caesarem occidit? Is Brutus killing Caesar?
An Caesarem Brutus occidit? Is Brutus killing Caesar?
Occiditne Brutus Caesarem? Is Brutus killing Caesar?
Nonne Brutus Caesarem occidit? Isn't Brutus killing Caesar?
Num....now there's a word. Say: noom. It means, "Oh, surely not"
Num Brutus Caesarem occidit. Oh, surely Brutus isn't killing Caesar!
Cenam habes. Num cenam habes? Nonne cenam habes?
An vaccam habes?
An cervus lupum capit?
An lupa cervum capit?
Nonne lupa cervum capit?
Let's have some new words to work with.
§ Gladius gladium [sword]
§ Gladiator gladiatorem [gladiator, swordsman, fighter]
§ Scutum scutum [ah! a neuter word! same form for actor and actee!] say: SKOO-toom
§ Saxum saxum [say: SOX-oom] loose rock or material of rock, as in a big cliff; stone
§ Iacio iacere [say YA-kee-oh, YA-keh-reh] heave, throw like a spear or ball.
§ Paro parare [PAH-ro, pa-RAH-reh] fix, prepare, get ready
§ Aqua aquam [AK-wah, AK-wahm]
Gladiator gladium tenet. Gladiator saxum tenet.
Femina tabulam parat. Calpurnia aquam habet. Tenetne Calpurnia urnam? An femina aquam habet? An gladiator saxum iacit? Tu, Brute! Num saxum iacis? Capitne lupus Calpurniam? Marcus Brutus lupum videt. Nonne Brutus lupum videt? Lupa gladiatorem capit. Gladiator scutum parat.
Someone asked, by the way, if I'd provide more practice: just wait! When I get you online folk up to speed [not too many more lessons] I can start providing you the comics I used to use when I taught. I drew and wrote them, and they provide a visual connection for words, so you learn new words with an image in front of you.
TECHNICALITIES: These words of question tend to be classed with adverbs [verbal modifiers]. That's not, in my mind, accurate, because they are a group, some of which go with verbs, some of which go with nouns, and it seems to me we're working too hard to make Latin agree with English, a language it never heard of. I call them Interrogative Particles, and that's probably as good a description as exists, a little word you stick in fast to advise your hearer you're asking a question.
PART SEVEN
Note; I just had a reader remind me of a scene in the film Life of Brian. Those of you who have gotten this far will appreciate the "Romans go home" sequence. I wish I could render it here.
We're getting close to basic fluency.
Today we learn that "is" is no ordinary action...in fact, it's not an action at all! So there's no actee! EVERYBODY'S an actor in an "is" sentence! And you have [actor/actor] "is"!
est.....[he, she it] is
You put the words in the usual positions...."is" comes last.
Caesar Romanus est.
Caesar is Roman. Caesar is a Roman. Caesar is the Roman.....all those things are the same. One thing IS the other. There's no transaction. She IS Sally. "She" = "Sally." No -ums!
Marcus Brutus Romanus. Femina Calpurnia est.
Non est! ....[He] isn't!
Nonn'est? ...or Nonne est? Isn't he?
Nonne est Calpurnia? That's Calpurnia, isn't it? She's Calpurnia, isn't she? See how English has a lot of nuances for that question....but Latin's pretty straightforward, one plain question...Isn't she Calpurnia?
Femina Marcum Brutum videt. Marcus Brutus Romanus est. Calpurnia Romana est. [Note that Romanus is Romana for a Roman [female].]
TECHNICALITIES: est is an intransitive verb. The "be" verb [am, is, are, was, were, be, been] is highly irregular in most European languages: it's one of those oddments you just have to memorize. You can see our own language is pretty irregular on this point, itself!
PART EIGHT
New words: new type of word.
Joinings of two actors or joinings of two actees.
§ Et....and
§ Que...and [in a set, usually a pair] and not BETWEEN the words, but after the pair. Gladius scutumque. Sword 'n shield. Rare with persons, more common with things.
§ Et A et B....means "both A and B" Et Caesar et Cleopatra....Both Caesar and Cleopatra...
§ Atque...and [very strong; we'd use italics on such a word] and; also means: "and, what is more," : Calpurnia Caesarem atque Cleopatram videt .....Caesar and Cleopatra, both, ....or...Calpurnia spies Caesar, not to mention Cleopatra....You can be fairly loose translating this one, as the main idea is a really strong and.
Marcus Brutus et Caesar Cleopatram......ah! but what do we do with the action? No longer "he", but "they"!
We make it a plural [more than one actor] action....and the basic change? Where there was -t, use -nt.
§ It > unt/iunt [audire and its type, the -ire words, have the extra "i".]
§ Et> ent
§ At> ant
New words:
§ Miles militem: say MEE-lace, MEE-lee-taym means "soldier"
§ Gladius gladium.....sword
§ Scutum...scutum...shield
§ Baculum...baculum....staff
§ centurio...centurionem... sergeant.
§ Dux....ducem.....leader; general
§ Consul....consulem...a consul [highest civil rank: president: there were two at any one time.]
§ Centuria....centuriam......a "century", 60 to 100 men, smallest operational unit of the Roman army.
§ Legio.....legionem.....legion [3000 to 6000]
§ Aquila...aquilam.....eagle [legion standard; also an eagle, as in wildlife]
§ Pilum....pilum....javelin [one of those no-sex words, like scutum and baculum]
Ecce! Et Marcus Brutus et Caesar Cleopatram vident. Cleopatra Romam videt. Cleopatra Caesarem atque Marcum Brutum videt. Cleopatra Caesarem amat. Cleopatra Caesarem et Antonium amat. Gladiatores Caesarem audiunt. Caesar militem ducit. . Miles scutum pilumque habet. Gladiator gladium et scutum habet. Caesar militem audit. Miles Caesarem atque Antonium videt. Cervus cervaque lupum vident. Milites Cleopatram vident. Caesar legionem ducit. Centurio centuriam ducit. Caesar centurionem ducit. Gladiator et miles Roman vident. Cleopatra Calpurniam videt atque audit. Centurio baculum tenet. Dux militem ducit. Dux Cleopatram et Antonium videt. Legio aquilam habet. Aquila legionem ducit. Centurio scutum et gladium parat. Miles pilum iacit. Miles non scutum iacit. An legio aquilam tenet? Tenetne Brutus aquilam?
TECHNICALITIES: Every language has its favorite points of elaboration. Several words for "and" may seem excessive, but if you listen to English very carefully, you'll notice we have more than one way of saying "and" such as salt 'n pepper [like -que] and and, spoken very strongly, for really, really, really "and". Then just plain "and" and "both...and"...These are, you may remember from high school, "conjunctions." The "both...and" is a "correlative conjunction".
PART NINE
Directions: There are 2 kinds of directions in Latin.
Latin uses a spelling change in the basic word after the directions IN and OFF. [To satisy your curiosity, the other direction is TO, and that's another matter!]
After "in".............lupus and such words > lupo
.......................scutum and its type > scuto
.......................lupa, tabula and such words > lupá, tabulá, etc.
.......................dux, miles, and other words that become -em in the actee form > duce, milite, etc.
That same spelling change can express HOW a thing happens, as in WITH a sword: gladio. For that, no other word: "gladio" in and of itself means "with a sword".
You're right....it could get really confusing if there were no distinction at all between IN, OFF, DOWN FROM, WITH...so there are specific words for these directions and one must use them. For the technophiles, these directions are called prepositions. Why are they called that? Because they come "in front". They're "pre-positioned" to give you the right direction...like signposts.
§ In.....in [yes, "in" is a Latin word.] also means: "within", "inside" or even "on"; simplest location...remember it's only English that has 4 words for this idea. Latin has just one. "In." [say een.]
§ E[x] ...."out of " [the difference between e and ex is that between a and an in English: it's sound, not meaning. Same with a, ab.]
§ A....from, as in "away from the town." or "from the town"
§ De...."down from, off," as in "off the table." "down from the hill." [Note: English "stacks" directions one atop the other. Latin is quite happy with just one, thank you!
§ @#$%..."with", used with people! He went "with Alice." Think of "com"pany. As a matter of fact, "com" is a countrified variant of "@#$%" [say: koom]
§ [Nothing]..."with", used with things, as in HOW a thing was done, with what instrument: he hit the mark "with his sword". Using "@#$%" conjures a really silly picture...he and his sword together plotting to hit something...but if you just say "gladio" ...you've said "with a sword".
Bene! Femina aquam urná portat [carries.] Caesar et Antonius militem scuto portant. Caesar Antonium e casá portat. Femina @#$% Antonio Caesarem videt.
Now, we need to say something about order in which things happen. The original actor/actee group holds firm. BUT if it's "the-woman-with-Antony", that whole expression can come together as a package. If the woman sees "Caesar-with-Antony" the order would be "Femina Caesarem @#$% Antonio videt." [Latin would tend to stick in "who is walking", but that's a bit advanced yet.]
New words:
§ Nauta nautam [looks like female, but rarely is] sailor
§ Navis navem [ship]
§ Navigare navigat sail. Note: you sail "on a ship" rather than "sailing a ship". Nauta nave navigat. "A sailor sails on a ship." Not quite as bad a tongue-twister in Latin as in English!
§ Ambulare ambulat ...walk
§ Ager agrum [field: agricultural]
§ Stare stat [stand [still]]
§ Pirata piratam [rarely female] pirate
Pirata navem gladio capit. Nauta scutum gladiumque capit. Navem defendit. [defendere defendit: defend]
Nauta navem amat. Nauta nave e Sicilia navigat. Caesar navem habet. An Antonius nave navigat?
Femina e casá ambulat. Femina @#$% gladiatore a foro ambulant. E foro ambulant. Caesar Brutum in foro videt. Calpurnia Antonium in foro videt. Lupus de colle [collis collem: hill] ambulat. Caesar Brutum in agro videt. Caesar @#$% Bruto in agro ambulat. De colle ambulant. Nonne Cleopatra nave navigat? An Caesar in agro ambulat? An lupum videt? An gladio navem capiunt?
This is where one really begins to need practice. Put together a lot of sentences and run them past your eye until you get really used to this curious way of doing "in," "from," "with" and "with." It's quite different, and it takes some getting used to. Practice, practice, practice.
TECHNICALITIES: That new "case" is the "ablative," used for certain words of direction or instrument. Those are called "prepositions" in English.
Even more obscure technicality: in really, really early and rural Latin there used to be a "locative" case. It was gobbled up by the "ablative", since in most instances, it looked a lot like it. There used to be an "instrumental" case, too, which was also devoured by the "ablative" for exactly the same reason: most people couldn't tell the difference and consequently forgot there was a difference. That's why there's that "plain" usage of "gladio," "with a sword," for instance, or "urná", "in a jar". It's really an instrumental case in sheep's clothing, but no one cared any more what it was, grammatically: the average Roman didn't have a degree in linguistics and just cared what it sounded like...which was just like the ablative. So the ablative ended up with a whole truckload of jobs, a catch-all case for anything left over.
One of the only survivals of the old cases was the word "domum": home, and curiously...we talk about going "home" or being "home" too. Would you believe the pesky locative has a survival in English, too?
That's the way languages change, growing simpler and simpler in one sense, that everything sounds alike, until people absolutely have to make distinctions and recomplicate things to make sure the difference is heard. The usual impetus for simplification is a massive influx of new speakers, as in an immigation, and the usual reason for complication is a long period without them.
-
Lol, Google Romance
-
The game Nemesis of the Roman Empire allows players to assign up to 50 units to a Hero or Commander. This allows the units to move in formations, gives unit bonuses (attack, hp, ect.), and can be set to do some minimal automatic fighting. Also, when the commander is selected all the units under his command are selected.
-
My traveling days are over for the moment. My monetary funds are quite deflated by my recent trip to Rome
Carthage: The Four Main Gods of Carthage
in History Articles
Posted
Hmm, looks like you have never heard of a the excavations in Carthage that uncovered almost 20,000 urns containing the bodies of small children and babies. The dates of the deaths of the children corelate with the well-being in the city- during times of war or poor harvests child sacrifice seems to have been more frequent.
The Carthaginians were Phoenicians, and there is substantial evidence to prove that the Phoenicians practiced child sacrifice. Why should their colonies be any differant?