Is qui me vult subsequi... (ludus)

[KingHarvest]

Partem parvam "Commentariorum de Bello Gallico" lexi.

Illae personae sub me placet esse pizzam.

[Jalethon]

[la] Minime, casei me piget.

Eam personam sub me liturgia placet.

[HerrFraeulein]

Eh, not "eam personam placet" (nor, for that matter "illae personae placet") but "ei/illi personae placet". Though I think, as a whole, a better translation for that phrase would altogether look slightly different, like "personae quae est sub me placet" or something along those lines.

Anyway, my active Latin's hardly good enough to be trying to formulate a response right now.

[Osias]

[la] Minime, casei me piget.

Eam personam sub me liturgia placet.

Unicum statio radiophonica. Nunc ausculto "Radio Espérance": http://www.radio-esperance.fr/20.0.html

[Jalethon]

Eh, not "eam personam placet" (nor, for that matter "illae personae placet") but "ei/illi personae placet". Though I think, as a whole, a better translation for that phrase would altogether look slightly different, like "personae quae est sub me placet" or something along those lines.

Anyway, my active Latin's hardly good enough to be trying to formulate a response right now.

Eam personam from what I know is proper Latin. Personal pronouns are sometimes used as the relative pronoun. This, from Tacitus: "Plusque infamiae id incendium habuit..."

And from what I know, 'placere' doesn't forcibly require a dative, or does it?

[HerrFraeulein]

Well, I'm fairly sure "placere" takes the dative, but don't take my word for it: check your grammar!

As for the demonstrative pronoun "eam" with "personam": as your example with "id incendium" seems to show -unless I'm misreading it, it means something like "and that fire was rather more infamous", you only use it to emphasise: that fire. Here we're simply referring to "the" person, no particular emphasis. But anyway, I haven't really occupied myself with Latin grammar for quite some time now.

[Jalethon]

In the specific case that I mentioned, it's indeed used to refer to a subject mentioned beforehand, and I realise that my use was somewhat stiff as stress is somewhat out of place, but possible. I was attempting to throw in a little dynamics.

You are right, it's supposed to be mihi.

[la] Eo vel eae sub me quoque musicam Latinam audire placet.

[HerrFraeulein]

Eo/eae = ei, gelijk voor mannelijk en vrouwelijk. Ja, die rijtjes kent deze jongen nog wel, hehe.

Hoe dan ook: ita est, señorita! Saepe soleo audire musicam Latine scriptam, praesipue de tempore Renasciendi (?) orientem (?).

Ahh, just fucking around.

As for the next statement:

is qui sub me est fumare solet.

[Nero]

(Ah, isn't grammar fun? )

is qui sub me est fumare solet.

Heheheh, ego non fumo.


Is / Ea sub me ludit "ludis tabulae" (board-games)

[Osias]

Vero! Latrunculi , reversi, phutball et damicus.

Is sub me ludit pediludium

[KingHarvest]

Eh, not "eam personam placet" (nor, for that matter "illae personae placet") but "ei/illi personae placet".

*facesmack*

Though I think, as a whole, a better translation for that phrase would altogether look slightly different, like "personae quae est sub me placet" or something along those lines.

Both are correct, a relative isn't necessary. Probably putting the "sub me" between illa (probably ista would be even better) and persona would be better to make sure that there's no ambiguity about it being the person who is below and not the action.

[Caligula]

probably ista would be even better

I thought "Iste/Ista/Istud" was a pronoun which indicated contempt or anger - sometimes on the border of profanity. Why might that be better than Ille/Illa/Illud?

[KingHarvest]

That's a meaning largely relegated to trials, i.e. like "that guy over there!" and pointing to the defendant. It has a much more neutral connotation outside of such contexts and signifies something nearer at hand than ille but further away than hic.

[HerrFraeulein]

I almost feel tempted to say "I know better than to get into discussions with you" , but I'm curious anyway: why do you suppose either "ille" or "iste" are necessary or even appropriate at all? Sure, the use of "ille" as an article isn't that far fetched, seeing as how in modern Roman languages their use of the article is derived from "ille/illa" ([il]la femme (fr.), [il]la mujer (esp.), [il]le fils, el[le] hijo), but even that is indicative of the fact that such is a later usage, belonging to vulgar Latin. That is: in classical Latin, "the person" is simply "persona".

[KingHarvest]

It's mostly just in deference to how it eventually evolved in the Romance Languages.

[HerrFraeulein]

Ach so!

And that's what I meant: Romance languages. God, I thought I was perfect, but it seems even I make mistakes.

[loqu]

Vero! Latrunculi , reversi, phutball et damicus.

Is sub me ludit pediludium

Pediludium non ludo, non me delectat.

Is/Ea sub me dormire vult.

[Babelfish]

Non... Paene semper defessus sum, non satis dormio Sed dormire nolo, nam somnum tempus meae vitae insciente eximere sentio

Ei sub me placet caseus.
(vidistine me hac in sententia sexum vitavisse? )

[loqu]

Non... Paene semper defessus sum, non satis dormio Sed dormire nolo, nam somnum tempus meae vitae insciente eximere sentio

Ei sub me placet caseus.
(vidistine me hac in sententia sexum vitavisse? )

Caseus valde me placet, eum saepe edo.

Is/ea sub me linguam russicam intellegit.

[Nero]

Numquam intellegi et numquam intellegam linguam russicam

Is sub me amat musicam Disco.