Your Top 10 Games of All Time and Why?

ScribeD · 10 days

Well then, here is the book for you: http://www.wischik.com/lu/senses/pst-book.html

countingchickens · 15 days

Cicero is so awesome.

Since you, from great origins, married into a very famous family, why was Caelius so very connected to you?

Blood relation, mere in-law, a man of your house? None of them. What then, was it, if not some kind of recklessness or lustiness?

Weren't you, if unstirred by our manly images, not even my offspring, that Quinta Claudia, admonished any domestic rival to be a wife of praise in glory, not that vestal virgin Claudia who embraced her father and at his triumph did not suffer to be drawn by wagon by her enemy the tribune of the plebs?

Why have brotherly vices, rather than good fatherly and ancestral ones, and so on, from us stirred you again in again as much to men as to women?

Therefore, I interrupt the peace of Pyrrhus in order that you might make alliances of your most filthy daily trysts, therefore I state you would use that water uncleanly, therefore I supported the road, in order that you might be accompanied and occupied with strange men?

Solid.
Solid.
I got a little mixed up by how much of the the sentence esse governed, since I assumed Quinta would be admonishing somebody named in the sentence. In retrospect, I see that it makes a lot more sense to just assume that Clodia is getting slammed again, and my reading wouldn't make sense unless we had aemulas rather than aemulam, or an actual "any". In my defense, Quinta does seem very imposing and I didn't want to get on her bad side. I also messed up the stuff with the triumph and the wagon, but only because I thought Quinta was so awesome that somebody would probably be trying to kill her (seems like a Roman thing to do). But it makes a lot of sense that by embracing her father she prevented his being dragged away, especially with all those fancy laws protecting VVs. Didn't tribunes enjoy similar protections? Seems like a battle of the ages!
Ooooook...maybe I'm going a bit beyond Cicero in calling her unchaste here. I think I have a bad habit of seeing datives where I should be seeing ablatives. The dative doesn't really make sense with the "in", anyway. Shucks!
I guess I took the wrong tone here, I need more indignation -- "for this, I did all this awesome stuff, so you could gallivant?!" And I was certainly missing some of the context of the "speaker" being a material pillar of Rome. And now I see that the road is being occupied, but I really liked the wordplay involved in Clodia being accused of being too occupied by men...oh well! GOOD STUFF!

countingchickens · 16 days

Sp. Lucretius went with P. Valerius, the son of Volesus, and Collatinus with L. Iunius Brutus, with whom he had been brought together by chance on his return to Rome by his wife's announcement.

They find Lucretia grieving, supine, in her bedroom. On their arrival, her tears welled up, and her husband asked "are you okay?" "No," she said; "what is left to a wife having lost her chastity?"

Traces of a strange man, O Collatinus, are in your bed; besides, merely the body has been violated; the spirit is pure; death will be the witness.

But give your right hands and loyalty that the adulterer will by no means be treated with impunity.

Sex. is the Tarquinius who last night, armed with force, proved to me and himself that he is a villain instead of a visitor, if y'all are men, and took his pestilential pleasure.

Wasn't quite able to hammer down even some things we discussed last week, but overall I'm pretty happy with it.

Somebody should really tell the Romans that commas aren't words. I see now also that I should have gone with announcer rather than announcement, but this is one of those quirks, I think, where a direct translation just won't serve me that well. The wife's announcer...is the one announcing things about the wife. OK!
I knew, knew, knew that viro being dative meant somebody was talking TO A MAN, but couldn't make the leap and connect it to the second thing being said. But since only she gets the verb (inquit), maybe I should depend on that? I guess it only makes sense that way anyway, because why would she be asking if they're OK, and why would they be talking to a man...but still!
Solid.
She's just being way too clever by half for me in this phrasing. Mihi sibique both terrified and alarmed me, but now I see the threat it can carry, which gives the whole si vos viri estis a lot more bite. I wound up interpreting it as I "By your manhoods, he was the one who took his pleasure from me," but I'm sure Latin has better ways of doing that.

It does make me wonder why Sextus Tarquinius thought he was going to get away with it...

mnjordan · 20 days

This pretty much sums it up: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Howland_Reed

Howland isn't in ADWD (that we know of), I'm just predicting that when he actually shows up it's going to be a very dramatic and revelatory moment.

Feel free to ask if you still have questions.

mnjordan · 20 days

That all makes sense, except that I can't see how Jon could ever accept not being Eddard Stark's son. Embracing his true heritage would mean denying that connection, and while Uncle Ned doesn't sound so bad, I just think that being Ned's son is the only real identity he's ever had, and he wouldn't be so keen to give it up just so he could claim to be descended from the Mad King. (Of course, there are political reasons for him to do so, but as it's unclear how much of a political factor Jon will even be from now on, on top of the question of how much of himself he'd be willing to give up in order to join forces with a stranger).

If I had my way, Jon would never learn his true parentage. I think a straight reveal would undercut two major themes of the series, the first of which is that the circumstances of our births are significant but not determinative; that anyone can, with enough dedication, change his station. The second theme is that life is not like a story, with neat beginnings and endings; the hero doesn't always arrive just in time, or at all, and not everything will be answered in the end. That's why I hope that R+L=J remains supported merely by evidence, rather than proof. After all, Jon never being able to learn of his parentage provides a pleasant symmetry to Ned never being able to tell him of it.

mnjordan · 20 days

It would be more than enough if Bran, Jon, or the hypothetical messenger was aware enough of the set of circumstances to interpret the vision(s)...presumably more than one, since it seems unlikely that a single vision of a secret wedding would be enough for Bran or Jon to realize the truth of Jon's parentage. They'd also need insight into the back story we get from Ned, including (possibly) the Tourney at Harrenhal and (definitely) the promise he made to Lyanna. And while there are probably enough people still kicking who can describe the former, the latter is unknown to everyone alive (except possibly Howland Reed), and while it's possible that Ned could have griped about his unfair situation out loud in a godswood at some point, it seems a little out of character, and anyway that sort of reveal lacks the subtlety and mystery I'd expect from these books.

It's not outside of the realm of possibility that Bran's visions could be the source for Jon learning the truth of his origins, but it seems a bit of a stretch for Bran to put all that together when we could just as easily get word from Howland Reed, whose entry into the story proper is already laden with that same dramatic possibility, without the need for a convoluted explanation of why Bran understands what he's seeing and why Jon knows enough for it to matter to him.

And don't forget that Jon probably won't want to believe that the man he grew up thinking to be his father is actually his uncle, and that his real parents are a Stark woman he never met and the son of the Mad King. Much as he might love Ned's honor, I suspect he'd prefer to remember Ned as a father who indulged in an indiscretion, but took full responsibility for it, than as an uncle who lied to Jon his entire life.

mnjordan · 20 days

While that's an interesting idea, it's unlikely that Bran would ever be able to deliver that evidence in a form that anyone in a position to enforce it would want to accept. You have multiple obstacles to the contemporary acceptance of a marriage between two long-dead people as binding, including issues of polygamy, an extremely novel form of evidence, and the reluctance of any current rulers to shake up the state of modest peace for someone who has basically no allies.

As to polygamy, we know that the lords of Westeros only put up with it from the Targaryens when they had dragons. Later Targaryen rulers, lacking dragons, gave up the practice. As Rhaegar was already married to Elia, it's doubtful that lords a generation later would see a second marriage to Lyanna as having been lawful.

Assuming the polygamy were accepted, we move onto the issue of the form of the evidence. It could come in two basic forms -- either Bran could leave the cave and tell someone directly, or the evidence he might see could be conveyed via another party or in writing. Bran going himself would be difficult for many reasons, least of all the basic hardships of travel. There are also the issues of whether he would be allowed to leave, and whether he could convince anyone outside that he actually is Bran Stark. If he can't deliver the message himself, for whatever reason, then the messenger is left with the unenviable task of delivering a seemingly mad pronouncement by a supposedly dead child who has apparently developed magical powers of insight that have shed light on a claim to the throne through a line that has been overthrown on the part of his half-brother/cousin, because he isn't actually a bastard, based on a vision of a polygamist wedding, witnessed entirely by people who are now dead and therefore unable to corroborate the story either way. And if somebody besides Bran had to deliver that message, it would be hearsay.

So we have a really tough story to swallow even before coming to the biggest problem of all -- it isn't really in the interests of anyone in power in Westeros to support such a claim, so they will be inclined to disbelieve it. Even the most hardcore Targ loyalist already has two reasonable choices of ruler to support, both of whom already have substantial backing for their claims, and either of whom (assuming Aegon's not revealed as a Blackfyre, which is admittedly pretty likely) could be argued to have a better claim even if Jon isn't a bastard (Aegon through birth, Dany through dragons and already being a ruler). Sure, we have Manderly and perhaps a few other Northern lords who might be willing to rally behind any Stark they can find, but remember that they fought before for an independent King in the North, not to install a new King of Westeros. At any rate, at this point they just don't have the manpower to do it, especially considering that Stannis would immediately attack him if he claimed the throne. And that's leaving aside the issues of Jon's oaths, and his uncertain status as to being dead or alive.

Which, again, isn't to say that this isn't an interesting idea, and I certainly hope we get to see some more of Rhaegar and/or Lyanna through Bran's green-eyes. I just think that the potential obstacles to pursuing, or even bringing forth, such a claim would make it a cumbersome (at best) insertion into the story. Martin would have to spend so much time explaining away the problems with Jon's claim, and any support he might gather, that I feel it would seriously bog down the story. And were he to dispense with that and just make it so, it would tear a hole in fabric of this carefully constructed world.

Lithros · 28 days

Well, once they actually GOT married they produced a son almost immediately, he just wanted to stay a bachelor forever. But that's good advice, time for a more judicious use of the dismiss alert button!

Lithros · 28 days

Edited to reflect that point. Have you ever seen any instances of the AI even arranging betrothals, much less completing them?

countingchickens · 1 month

Indeed I would first ask from her whether she prefers me to lead with her severely, sternly and traditionally, or gently and loosely, as in the city.

If, by that strict custom and manner besides, I must summon forth from the depths not the downy one who is enamored with herself, but and indeed those bearded ones, those prickly ones whose likenesses we see in ancient statues, and if they might chastise a lady of experience, they speak for me, so she might by chance not be angry with me.

Let him step forth, therefore, from this very same family, anyone other than that most capable Caecus; for that is to say, he would lay hold of the least sorrow, who will not see her.

If he should step forth, he assuredly would lead thusly and, besides, speak thusly: "O Lady, what have you to do with Caelius, what with an adolescent man, what with a foreigner?

Why either have you been that familiar to him, so that you might give him gold, or so hostile, that you feared poison?

You had not considered your father, nor your uncle, nor your grandfather, nor your great-grandfather, nor your grandfather's grandfather, nor your grandfather's great-grandfather, nor heard and reflected on their counsel; Nor finally in what way you knew to hold the marriage of Q. Metellus, a very well-known man, and very brave besides, who loves his country greatly, who at the same time goes above and beyond nearly every citizen in virtue, glory, and dignity?

OK, I thought my translation was going to be far worse than it turned out to be! My comments on my failings (ahem, learnings!) follow:

"Deal" is obviously better than "lead," but being as wiktionary has 15 different definitions for agere, I'll just go with it. Next time I might try "plunder," though, as it seems that's what he's doing to her reputation.
OK, I got all mixed up in the second paragraph involving who was summoning whom, but I eventually got there thanks to his explication later on; still, I assumed he was referring to Clodia herself because barbula was feminine (I must remind myself that is not so significant to the actual gender of the person described), he was already insulting Clodia, and I hear some Italian women have a reputation for being hairy. So I thought "downy" would be a nice passive-aggressive jab, but I'm meaner than Cicero, I guess. And just to be clear, can the "speak for me" bit mean both "speak in my place" and "speak in my favor"? My first thought was to translate it as the latter, as in "they say good things about me, so she won't be mad at me," but the former really makes a whole lot more sense.
So I wound up with "anyone other than Caecus" because I translated that dang ac as "besides." Too much ac, Cicero! It's like a dang Cathy comic in here. Maybe it could be something like "someone from this family like the most capable Caecus?"
THIS PARAGRAPH HAS NO ERRORS IN MY ESTIMATION, JUST KEEPING THE NUMBERS GOING.
Again I am awesome, although originally I mixed up who was giving gold to whom. As wiktionary allows that commodo might also mean "bestow" or "provide," should we just expect that this means lend unless context dictates otherwise?
Hoo boy, it got pretty rough in here. I over-relied on wiktionary and, instead of going with the obvious choice of CONSUL, I got stuck with trying to translate consulo (since that is all wiktionary gives you when you search consules, oddly), so you can imagine how well that went for me. And the whole idiom around marriages was a little intimidating for me -- I wasn't sure if matrimonium teneo was its own thing, like memoriam teneo, so I just shot from the hip and hoped for the best. But what did you do with audieras?

Denique, I assumed that bringing your feet across the threshold was an idiom and tried to adopt a similar enough English idiom rather than just going literally, but it seems I missed the meaning of the original idiom. It's still a little confusing to me, but then, I don't worship a god of doors, either.

Thanks!

countingchickens · 1 month

The Greeks consider the highest sophistication to be the positioning of the fiddles and voices in songs; and Epaminondas, by my reckoning the chief of Greece, therefore is said to have sung with the lutes most brilliantly, and when Themistocles, some number of years before, refused the lyre at feasts, he was held the stupider for it.

Therefore in Greece the musical arts flourished, and everyone came to know them, and he who was ignorant of them was not considered to have been sufficiently cultured by his instruction.

Geometry was at the highest honor among these people, and therefore nobody was nobler than mathematical men; but we limited the extent of measuring and reckoning by the use of this art.

But on the other hand we have quickly embraced the speaker, and not that which was at first taught, suited nevertheless for the task of speaking, but instead that which was taught later.

For Galba, Africanus, and Laelius are to have instructed it be handed down, however they were ahead of their time compared to the zealous one, Cato, but after Lepidus, Carbo, and the Gracchus bros., thus yielded not many, or at least not all of the great ones from our age to the Greeks.

Philosophy has lain continuously dormant from that age, and nobody has held forth the light of Latin learning; which must now be illuminated and brought out by us, in order that, if we have been occupied in any way to have benefited our citizens, we even now benefit them, if we are able -- we, the idle.

Well geez! This one was a real rush. I'm pretty pleased with how it turned out, though of course there are a few tortured spots -- the end of para. 2, for instance, threw me because I wasn't sure what to do with the ablative doctrina -- ablative of respect?

Para. 3 confused me a bit because it wasn't clear exactly how the Romans were limiting the use of geometry, but I rolled with it.

And para. 4 is my first real crash and semi-burn, I think because I got so caught up trying to link eruditum with aptum (on both ends) that I completely forget about oratorem waving its arms for attention back there. And I was thus trying to cram it into a neuter "that which was taught," which strategy failed me.

And para. 5, O para. 5, why do you hurt me so. I'm pretty pleased with what meaning I managed to hammer out of it, though it was certainly a brute force approach.

And the ending was just super classy! I love this guy!

countingchickens · 1 month

Approximately 510 years after Rome was founded, Livius gave a story to C. Claudius, the son of Caecus, and M. Tuditanus, the consuls in the year before Ennium was born.

Who was older than Plautus and Naevius.

Therefore it was later these poets were either known or accepted by us.

Although it is customary, in Origins, at feasts to sing to the sound of a flute about the virtues of famous men to your dinner companions; I nevertheless must not honor that the oration of Cato has made clear to this kind, in which he reproached M. Nobilior as disgraceful, because he would have led the poets into a province; however, the consul had guided them into Aetolia, that we know as Ennium.

By which degree the less offices went to poets, by that same degree their descendants were studious, and not, still, if anyone by great talent stands out in that field, they do not sufficiently correspond to the glory of the Greeks.

Or we assess, if the very noble gentleman Fabius, had been praised, because he painted, would not still many among us have been Polyclituses and Parrhasioses?

Honor nourishes handiwork, and everything is kindled to zealous glory, and always casts out those things, that are disapproved among everyone.

So...I assumed, at first, that the consuls were dative, and that this was in some way being dedicated to them...perhaps because I haven't seen "give" used without a target very often (in English, even!), and so my subconscious demanded some. I also thought it was weird that he felt it necessary to give the year by two different reckonings.

If convivas is acc. plu., why did you translate it as though it was a subject? I'm still a little confused about how singing, either canere or cantare, works with accusatives, so that might be the source of this error on my part.

I also got extremely messed up as to what was going on with honorem (subjunctive active present 1st sing, right?), and it threw me off ridiculously throughout that sentence. And then wiktionary told me that provincia could mean office, so I ran with that way too far. But why is he guiding poets anywhere! Are they warrior poets?

I did think that his line about Polyclitus and Parrhasioses was pretty clever, though. It always ways me a bit when I realize that a sense of humor is so timeless, especially because sarcasm generally feels modern to me, seeing so little of it in the (admittedly) bland history I've learned.

The translation notes you gave for quosque seemed pretty inclusive (anyone, whoever, and such), so I was surprised when your final translation was "some people," which seems, while not exclusive, much less broad. Is it just not that important a distinction?

uchoo786 · 1 month

Not such a terrible plan when the "hostage" has sworn a sacred oath and forsaken all other parts of his life so that he can dedicate it wholly to protecting the life of the King.

Jaime swore an oath to protect Aerys; Aerys was under no such compunction regarding Jaime, and could have had him killed at any time. Coupled with the fact that Tywin never really accepted the ramifications of Jaime's oath, and it does seem like a pretty good plan, assuming that Jaime is honorable. Whoops.

countingchickens · 1 month

For what so great seriousness, so great steadiness, greatness of mind, honesty, faithfulness, what virtue was so greatly excelling in every kind, in anyone, so that it must be compared with our ancestors?

We surpassed Greece learning by every type of scholarship; in that, they not fighting back, it was easy to overcome them.

For although there may be the teaching that the origin of poets is among the Greeks, since there was Homer and Hesiod before Rome was founded, and Archilochus with Romulus ruling, but later we took up the mantle of poetry.

. .

Ok, so clearly I got the middle part wrong...forgot that nos could be both nom. and acc., which threw me off quite a bit in the end. "Greece learning" is also dumb, but I don't really see how you worked that out. I assumed the two nouns to be in apposition, but I can't make that translate in my head in a way that makes sense, although that might be my Anglo-brain interfering. What's the deal? EDIT: reading it back, doctrina must be ablative, and I feel like a doofus. A doofus who can learn! Doofus sagax.

I should have recognized, with superabat, that since Cicero, at least, frequently uses the perfect tense in a way we should translate as straight-up "was" or "did," that the imperfect should have a more special treatment in translation.

And the last part was a bit muddied, I suppose, but Ciceronem vitupero, not myself. E doctis, particularly, confused me, because I couldn't tell if that ablative of separation in the 'E' was supposed to be taken as part of the word or separate. In the end I just winged it!

I definitely need to study participles harder, as I have the feeling they're going to be coming up a lot.

As for cum...we know it can govern the ablatives of manner and accompaniment, and it seems here we have an ablative of comparison as well. I must be missing some, though, as I'm sure you wouldn't ask if it were that simple!

Thanks to Doug Parker, I now know the word "parageography," and my life is a little more complete.

countingchickens · 1 month

Wednesday works for me! Although you would not believe how my face fell when I saw this announcement...well, more time to translate I suppose!

countingchickens · 1 month

Profecto really messed me up...wiktionary says it is dative/ablative sing of profectus, "departed, left, having left". Not being able to find another dative or ablative to hook it to nearby, I decided it must be an ablative of time - "when they have left" or something, and translated as "in the past."
Possessive pronouns can be substantive! I guess this works in English too, so I don't have much of an excuse. The separation of lines between "what should I say..." threw me off a bit too, I was all too ready to move on from talking about the military; priamel is too effective against me.
I looked up Graecia when I was translating, and what I found made me take a lot longer on that part than perhaps it should have; wiktionary has it as "Greece," (noun) and Graecus as "Greek." (adj) Am I crazy, or is wiktionary mistaken?

I'm now understanding the purpose of your sentence charts. I should give one a try next time!

countingchickens · 1 month

We regard better and more finely the customs and institutions of life and domestic and household things, that are in the past, for indeed the ancestors managed this public thing of ours with better policies and laws.

What should I say with regard to the military?

As it has been greatly strong through our excellence, that strength comes even more so from training.

At present these things, which by nature they have not pursued through letters, must be compared neither with Greece nor with any other people.

nostri as gen. sing. - I have a choice between "our ancestors" and "the public thing of ours" -- firstly, I think that the "our" in ancestors can broadly be taken for granted in this context. Second, I think that (barring outside knowledge of the usage of res publica), it's a bit odd to be referring to just ONE public thing like this. We're talking about the laws and policies, plural, that the ancestors used, so "our ancestors managed the public thing" seems to lack a special distinction that I feel the public thing deserves in this case -- to me, making it "OUR public thing" implies the whole range of public activities of the Romans, in much the same way a mafia don refers to his organization as "our thing." EDIT: just looked up the etymology of republic and now I feel silly, but I guessed right that I was missing the outside knowledge that it comes directly from res publica!
Quod vide - which see you (imperative), but nowadays we tend to just tell you to "See So-and-so's work on this"
I seem to have gotten mixed up here because of a bunch of recycled clauses that I forgot to reinsert, darn you Cicero for being so efficient!

countingchickens · 2 months

Cato! They all sound awesome, actually. It's nice to have a lot to look forward to. But ad deleta est, I think we must learn about how bad a place Carthage is! Or whatever else Cato decides to tell us about.

I'm still working on Cicero, and actually I'm really enjoying doing the translation without the pressure of real-timing it. That's not to say we should stop doing readings in class, but maybe in addition to what we do now, you could assign some optional translation homework? That's basically what Cicero is going to be for me this week, but I enjoy being able to work at my own pace on it.

My only further comment is that I love the class and I think you're doing an awesome job! Thank you so much for volunteering your time and making each class a really enjoyable experience!

embolalia · 2 months

Sometimes a man needs a little G.

Lithros · 2 months

Oops, "inimicos" of course. I apparently came across very much as I meant to, except (although I know this is untrue) I wanted the first sentence to read "there has not ever been a king of Rome." I guess that syntax is a bit beyond me as yet. Thanks!

Three-Year Club	reddit mold
Charter Member	Verified Email

Lithros

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login