(27-10-2020, 04:17 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.New version of the work. Shorter pieces were removed, longer (at least paragraph) were kept.
The Latin produced by this is ungrammatical and the translation is incompetent.
Let's look at the first Latin sentence: "Dēsōlō fōrmī aequus, aciē fōrmum. Assulā hastifōrma."
The latest version allegedly translates this as
Giving up favorable forms, to sharp forms, to sharp-formed splinter.
Is the Latin good and the translation correct? As an initial matter, the translation isn't a sentence, but lets power on.
Dēsōlō means "I leave alone" or "I abandon/forsake/desert." In the middle ages it is used to mean "I ravage" or "lay waste" or "leave desolate". Itr can mean "I deprive" (if used with the ablative) or "I distress." In reference to a church, it means "I leave vacant." The reason I put in all the "I"s is that the verb is a first person present indicative. It is not a participle (or maybe a gerund), so "giving up" is wrong. To say that, one would need a participle "
desolans" and a better, more idiomatic verb (perhaps "
deficiens"?).
Dēsōlō is a transitive verb, and its object should be in the accusative case (or in the ablative with the meaning "I deprive"), but
formi is in neither case. It's is either a genitive singular or a nominative plural, both options being ungrammatical. Plus, the word for "form" is a
forma, a first-declension feminine, not a masculine. To mean "giving up forms" it needs to read something like "
desolans formas". (It turns out there is a masculine
formus, so that the "
formi" is a valid word, but that word is an archaic adjective that means "warm.")
Turning to
aequus, it is an adjective that means "even" or "level"; in some contexts it can mean "favorable" as in reference to a place or time. It also has to agree in case number and gender with its noun, but this nominative masculine singular, and neither
formi nor
formas are. It needs to read "
aequas" to be in the same ballpark as the translation. Otherwise, it means something like, "I, a favorable person, abandon ..." (sorry, can't fit
formi into the sentence).
So the first clause translates
the ungrammatical Dēsōlō fōrmī aequus as if it said desolans formas aequas instead. Clearly the translation method is to look up meanings in the dictionary, ignore the grammar, and produce something that could make sense. This expedient is necessary because the Latin text is neither grammatical nor does it make sense.
Going on,
aciē is not an adjective as the translation wants, but a noun in the ablative case. It means something like "by/with a sharp edge," though idiomatic Latin will have a preposition, which is missing. Indeed, none of the "Latin" texts in the paper have prepositions, which is a problem. To get the adjective "sharp" as the translation wants, "
acras" is needed.
Formum does not mean "to ... forms"; the preposition is missing, and the noun is singular. It is also the wrong gender, and therefore means "a warm thing." "
in formas" is better reflective of the translation.
Assulā is ablative singular, "by/with a splinter", which is the wrong case and wrong meaning.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]hastifōrma is not the dictionary but appears to mean "spear-formed". It is also in the wrong case, here nominative.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I could go on. Every Latin sentence and its translation has similar problems. [/font]