Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

The majority of Tumblr users, 36%, are aged 18-34, a coveted market for most companies.

Trending Blogs
#lingua latina

There’s going to be a German Netflix production called “Barbaren” about the battle in 9 CE in Teuteborger Forrest and the Romans will speak Latin in this… I am simultaneously scared and excited, because this is a pretty cool and unique concept, but the chances that they fuck up are literally soooo high….

44 notes · See All


How you render “romance” into Latin depends on what you mean.

If you mean “romantic love,” then we can use just amor. If you mean “love affair,” then we can use amores (the plural of amor) or intercapedo amatoria. If you mean “love story,” we can use fabula amatoria or fabula romanica. (Romanticus is a Neo-Latin adjective and modern Latinists generally avoid using it.) If you are talking about a story which deals with idealized events remote from everyday life, we can use fabula or narratio ficta. If you mean “romance movie,” then we have pellicula amatoria. “Romance novel” can be mythistoria romantica.

You might be wondering how I would render the “Romance” in “My Chemical Romance.” Since Classical Latin does not have a word for “chemical,” and we have to look to Neo-Latin for the word chemicus, I am inclined to reader the word as just Romantica and have that depend on fabula or mythistoria, and so the whole name becomes: Mea Chemica Romantica.

Utinam hoc tibi prosit! I hope this is helpful to you!


26 notes · See All

I have a Latin grammar question. I’m confused cause my notes from class don’t match the grammar overview so I’m??? Anyways this is regarding the genitive of the personal pronouns: is this genitive subjective or objective? I wrote down it can only be objective in class but the grammar overview seems to suggest subjective is also possible so…

4 notes · See All

hi yes I started a new Latin text so get ready for a lot of questions. It seems like I actually can understand this text pretty well but I was wondering about this sentence: “Vulcanus cum resciit Venerem cum Marte clam concumbere et se virtuti eius obsistere non posse, catenam ex adamante fecit…”. So I’d translate it as “When Vulcanus found out Venus was secretly sleeping with Mars and he couldn’t oppose his strength…” but I actually don’t know where I got that subject “he” from? Like is it the se? Is there a hidden main verb? Little rusty on how this works in Latin

7 notes · See All

hi yes i’m back i know what you’re thinking “two questions in one day? she must be really bad today” but I’m actually just doing a lot of work so yay for me!

anyways i don’t get why the discipulos in this sentence is an accusative and not a genitive: plural de officiis docentium locutus discipulos id unum interim moneo ut praeceptores suos… (i’d translate it as: …I warn the students for only one of them)

the italian translation i found translates it as “degli alunni” so “from the students” which only enlarges my confusion cause it’s literally translated as a genitive?? but as you see in my translation i do translate discipulos as an accusative only i translate id unum as datives which is also not right so,,,, pls send help

6 notes · See All

hi i’m back with my daily Latin question thanks for putting up with me xoxo. Today I cannot figure out for the life of me what multa is doing in the following sentence: ipse aliquid immo multa cotidie dicat quae secum auditores referant.

I’d translate it something like “he himself must daily declaim something that his listeners can take with them”. Which means I have quae refer to aliquid but that doesn’t make grammatical sense (I think?? nothing is sure anymore) and I think it refers to multa but I just don’t know what multa is doing?? Like it’s an adjective but there’s no corresponding substantive? 

12 notes · See All

new Latin question for the void!

I’m struggling with the phrase “nec tamen eorum quae emendanda erunt dissimulator”. I have analysed it like this:

eorum: gen. m/n pl.
quae: acc.n.plr.
erunt: act.ind.fut.s.
ddisimulator: nom.m.sing.

but this would mean dissimulator is my subject here but the subject is in singular and the verb in plural? I can’t make sense of it. Does anyone see where I went wrong?

(the entire sentence goes like this: minime iracundus, nec tamen eorum quae emendanda erunt dissimulator, simplex in docendo, patiens laboris, absiduus potius quam immodicus)

14 notes · See All
Next Page