Question for Latin scholars

docmattc · Post by **docmattc** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:58 pm

My brother has just asked me whether RIP stands for
Requiescat in pacem or
Requiescat in pace

Both seem to be in commonish usage but which is correct, and what is the difference between pacem and pace? What is the exact translation? Presumably they are 2 different forms of the word.

Latin was not taught at school when I were a lad!

dunstan · Post by **dunstan** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:00 pm

pacem is the accusative, pace is the ablative. The case affects the meaning of "in".

In with the ablative means "in accordance with", with the accusative it means "in the midst of".

I would always use pacem.

gwyn · Post by **gwyn** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:57 pm

I'm off to look up "ablative" and "accusative".

I'm genuinely fascinated.

dunstan · Post by **dunstan** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:34 am

I've often wondered about producing a leaflet with some of the Latin texts for the ordinary of the mass with a word by word explanation leading to a literal translation, so that those who didn't study Latin can have some comprehension of what they are singing rather than just knowing what the English translation of the whole prayer is.

"Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris"

"Sedes" is the second person singular present tense of the verb to sit: the pronoun subject of the verb "you" is implied in the absence of any other subject. "Qui" means "who". "ad dexteram" means "at the right hand" - one of those words which takes two English words to translate it. "Patris" is the genetive form of the word father - in English the genetive is expressed as "of the X"

So, putting this all together we get

"Who you are sitting at the right hand of the Father"

And all that is needed is a bit of word order shuffling to get:

"You who sit at the right hand of the Father"

gwyn · Post by **gwyn** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:58 am

Dunstan said,

I've often wondered about producing a leaflet with some of the Latin texts for the ordinary of the mass with a word by word explanation leading to a literal translation,

That would be excellent. Can I pre-order a copy?

dunstan · Post by **dunstan** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:06 am

Gwyn wrote:That would be excellent. Can I pre-order a copy?

I knew that was coming. Does anybody know what the copyright position is on the English and Latin texts for the ordinary of the New Mass?

Merseysider · Post by **Merseysider** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:18 am

dunstan wrote:...so that those who didn't study Latin can have some comprehension of what they are singing

Which kinda makes me wonder about the point of singing in Latin in the first place. (Quickly dons crash helmet!) Yes, I know it's the official language of the Church and all that but it's also the official language of the legislature and I wouldn't fancy being tried in Latin next time I'm up before the courts.

Dot · Post by **Dot** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:40 am

OK guys - I'm not arguing for or against the use of Latin, but when it comes to the grammar and the meaning, well there are all sorts of levels at which you can analyse it. Like, I know the accusative and the ablative and once upon a time I knew which prepositions took the accusative. But the nuances of the meaning of "in" when followed by the accusative/ablative (thanks Dunstan) had escaped me. Having a passing knowledge of Latin is not going to solve the problems of understanding. In any case, we might be talking of problems in translating a language other than Latin. If they are familiar texts in English, then you sing them in Latin, it's not going to put a terrific barrier up to understanding them, is it?

There are all sorts of places where translation affects the meaning of words or dilutes their potency. The first sentence of the Gloria is a case in point, and "peace to his people on earth" misses the point completely.

Dot

Merseysider · Post by **Merseysider** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:53 am

I've just finished my first Latin Mass (well, Eucharistic Acclamations) and it's all in English. The Latin is in the left hand â€“ it's a tango!

docmattc · Post by **docmattc** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:49 pm

Thanks Dunstan, all is now clear. I knew someone here would know.

mcb · Post by **mcb** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:47 pm

dunstan wrote:pacem is the accusative, pace is the ablative. The case affects the meaning of "in".

In with the ablative means "in accordance with", with the accusative it means "in the midst of".

I would always use pacem.

Wrong, I'm afraid. In with the ablative means located in or on, literally or figuratively; in with the accusative means into or towards, again either literally or figuratively.

Examples:

et ascendit in caelum - accusative - 'into heaven'
vere passum, immolatum in cruce pro homine - ablative - 'on the cross'

RIP is requiescat (or requiescant; singular vs plural) in pace. You can look it up - it comes up many times in the Requiem Mass, the Burial Service, the Office for the Dead. (I've got my Liber Usualis open in front of me as I type.)

M.

dunstan · Post by **dunstan** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:50 pm

mcb wrote:Wrong, I'm afraid. In with the ablative means located in or on, literally or figuratively; in with the accusative means into or towards, again either literally or figuratively.

M.

Well that's put my very rusty Latin where it belongs.

oopsorganist · Post by **oopsorganist** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:53 pm

Oo er
What a thread! Very scholarly. They wouldn't let me in the Latin class at my school because I was a bit dim.

I think it is a beautiful language and glad I do not have to worry much about wether the translation means this or that.

It is the official language of the church but I have to wonder if it would be if the Reformation had not happened and if a reformation had happened from within the Church in the C16th or C17th century. There was, if I remember right, (from History lessons, not because I was there), a movement towards the translation of the Bible into English from a group called the Oxford reformers (including Erasmus) which got a bit lost when our Henry started his Reformation. The universal language of the West was Latin up to when? but this has changed today and French and English are more universal. Not to mention Chinese.

Is it writ somewhere that Jesus wanted us to conduct our services in the language of the Roman Empire? Surely all the Gospels are in other ancient languages and we are looking at a translation of a translation of a translation? Is it because the "Church Fathers" wrote in Latin that it has stayed with us for so long? I wonder if we should be using Hebrew. That would be nice. Make a change. Link us to other faiths such as Judaism. Tradition is good and so is this excellent knowledge of ancient languages, I admire it but I wonder if it truly helps us to understand what we are to do and believe.

Taking cover under the table.