In going through some of my father's old things, I came across an old ceramic plate with my family name (Reynolds), our family crest, and motto, which reads either "favenie Deo " or "favenre Deo " -- it's hard to tell on that one letter, due to some paint being chipped off. I've gone to several Latin-English on-line translators and dictionaries, and can't come up with anything. I'm assuming it's Latin, as doesn't Deos mean God in Latin? I'd appreciate any help translating this from the erudite members of this forum! Cheers, Adrienne
Ah-ha! You're right, oxpecker, that pesky letter must be a "t", now that I look at it more closely (it's in Old English script). Thanks so much. I wonder why I can't get a translation to turn up on any of the on-line dictionaries. Cheers, Adrienne
It's one of the most-commonly used mottos on family crests and coats of arms. http://www.family-crests.com/online_library/mottos.html
Thanks! Gregg, cool site. Thanks for directing me to it. Leave it to the Reynolds to have a common motto! Actually, there are some nice products on that site, particularly the marriage coat of arms plaque. I'm thinking of ordering that one. Cheers, Uncle Janko, for the backup!
Sure thing. It's what's called an ablative absolute construction and is quite common. It works by putting a noun and an adjective in the *ablative* case, the adjective often being a participle. Since a participle is an adjective formed from a verb, it carries its verbishness along with it; if you use a regular noun, to translate you just plug in the right form of "to be". It's *absolute* because it sits on its own and is not dependent on anything, sort of like this: So long as God favors [us], the family will have a coat of arms. With God favoring [them], bla bla bla Since God favors [them], bla bla bla Deo favente OR Favente Deo, etc. It's actually one of those neat and flexible things that gives Latin its suppleness.
Hi Uncle Janko, A couple of questions for you about this, if you don't mind. First, you say that the adjective found in the ablative case is often of the participial form. Can it take a different form (say, nominal) and still be used in the ablative case? Second, is the ablative case unique to Latin grammar? I'm of course familiar with nominative, accusative, genitive, etc. cases, but this is the first I've run across the ablative. Also, would the ablative case have been used in verbal discourse, or is this construction most often found in writing? *sigh* I've always regretted not studying Latin. It wasn't offered in my high school, and by the time I got to college (after the Army), I was well versed in Korean, so then began to tackle Chinese. Nowadays, I know oodles of Latin and Greek roots and affixes, thanks to teaching modern English grammar for the past 7 years. However, I am still quite ignorant of Latin grammar. Cheers, Adrienne
Oh sure. Tullio principe=while Tullius is leading personage (say, of the Senate), Caesare imperatore=since Caesar has been acclaimed "imperator", or what have you. When it's a plain noun, the verbal action is understood and usually involves the verb "to be." No, the ablative case is not unique to Latin. It existed in old Greek as well, but pretty much merged with the genitive in function and in all events in form, so that you get a "genitive absolute" in old Greek that corresponds pretty exactly to the ablative absolute in Latin. Picky types might argue that it's still really an ablative absolute in Greek, but who cares? There's also an ablative in Finnish, along with many other cases, many more than Greek or Latin (that's about all I recall from high school Finnish). Anybody who knows Korean or Chinese is beyond my small universe! Well done!
Okay, that makes sense. Interesting. How many cases are there in Finnish? I was always under the impression that Russian had the most cases in use; nine, I think. Pish-tosh, Uncle Janko, no one who's familiar with your postings on this board would accuse your universe of being small! BTW, did you know that Korean falls under the Ural-Altaic language family? Yup, it's actually more closely related to Finnish than to, say Chinese! Japanese is, as well (the grammatical structures of Japanese and Korean are almost identical). The greatest similarities I found between Korean and Chinese were some of the sounds, as well as vocabulary, particularly those words in Korean that were borrowed or morphed from the Chinese. When I was first learning Chinese pronunciation, and was still unfamiliar with pinyin (one of the accepted Romanization systems of Chinese), I would write the sounds of the words phonetically in my textbook . . . using Korean script (Hangul). If I tried to transcribe it using the Roman alphabet, I couldn't approximate the sound, whereas I could using Hangul. Probably more than you ever wanted to know about Korean or Chinese! Thanks again, Uncle Janko!
15. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/finnish-cases.html Hungarian is even worse. I've seen claims for 17, 20 and even two dozen cases! Angela
Oh, my. I think I'll stick to Asian languages, thanks -- much simpler, no unending case forms to remember! Cheers, Adrienne
I dunno what it is, but I just can't seem to stop referring Adrienne to cool web sites. The ablative case: http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=ablative
Whatever it is, Gregg, don't stop! I'll even return the favor: http://www.dl.ket.org/latin2/grammar/ablativeabsolute.htm http://www.nd.edu/~archives/abl.htm http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aides/allgre/allgre.398.html Cheers, Adrienne
Yes, West Carpathian (Magyar) is worse with one or two more cases than Finnish, but I don't recall exactly how many in either instance. Yes, I knew that it is claimed that Korean is a Uralic-Altaic language, but I think there's dispute among linguists (beyond me) about what is and isn't related in that family of languages. I've always taken the expansive view just 'cause I thought it was cool. This stuff is really interesting. Thanks for the information and all the links.
That's very true, there is dispute. Some linguists will say there is general acceptance of Korean in this language family, whilst others will vehemently argue that it is not. Now, if we could only convince high school kids that linguistics and grammar are interesting and cool -- I can't tell you how many essays I've read that are close to incomprehensible. Twu grammer friendz 4 eva . . .
Unkle Janko, I also enjoyed your erudite, previous messages. It is indeed an ablative acting as a circumstantial complement. Sometimes you speak like the little girl of the film The Exorcist but others, like this one, you are absolutely brilliant. Greetings
