Dal 1982 a guardia della Capitale
- Thread starter ciaone
- Start date
Hello and welcome to this forum
Please let us know the context (preceding and subsequent sentences) and possibly the source. It is impossible (particularly with a language like Latin) to translate such an isolated expression without at least knowing the grammatical cases (era a guardia? lo misero a guardia?....etc.).
The context is crucial, and the more you can provide, the better.
Please let us know the context (preceding and subsequent sentences) and possibly the source. It is impossible (particularly with a language like Latin) to translate such an isolated expression without at least knowing the grammatical cases (era a guardia? lo misero a guardia?....etc.).
The context is crucial, and the more you can provide, the better.
My suggestion:
Ab anno 1982 custos Urbis
or - with capital letters and Roman numerals -
AB ANNO MCMLXXXII CVSTOS VRBIS.
Ab anno 1982 custos Urbis
or - with capital letters and Roman numerals -
AB ANNO MCMLXXXII CVSTOS VRBIS.
Yes, I think it is.
I feel that 'ab + number/numeral' would not comply with Latin usage.
Please note that I already omitted ''Domini'' (normally, ''anno Domini'' would indicate 'after Christ' in Latin texts, but it's too long in a tattoo…).
Better suggestions could come to you from real experts (I am only an amateur as concerns the Latin language). I therefore recommend you to wait a few more days for other members' responses.
I feel that 'ab + number/numeral' would not comply with Latin usage.
Please note that I already omitted ''Domini'' (normally, ''anno Domini'' would indicate 'after Christ' in Latin texts, but it's too long in a tattoo…).
Better suggestions could come to you from real experts (I am only an amateur as concerns the Latin language). I therefore recommend you to wait a few more days for other members' responses.
Exactly what I thought. Thank you so much.
I will wait to see if someone else may have other suggestions.
Greetings, ciaone and bearded.
I agree fully with bearded that ANNO is necessary, and that the Latin should be capitalised. And his suggested CVSTΟS VRBIS is elegant, and epigrammatic.
Σ
I agree fully with bearded that ANNO is necessary, and that the Latin should be capitalised. And his suggested CVSTΟS VRBIS is elegant, and epigrammatic.
Σ
I interpret bearded's translation as stating the person has been a guard since 1982. The preposition a in Italian expresses a change. The person was born in 1982 and much later in life he or she became a guard. If that is so, I think the Latin would have to contain a preposition that shows this transition, maybe Ab anno... in custodem..., but I'm not sure if in is the right preposition here. An alternative would be constructing something with the verb fio, fieri, but then it would be much less epigrammatic, which seems to be a quality Scholiast appreciates.
Sorry, I have to disagree. In Italian ''essere a guardia'' is a fixed expression meaning ''to be protecting/to stay in protection'' of something, so in this case 'a' does not indicate a transition. What the jokey tattoo will express is that from the very moment of the person's birth, Rome acquired a protecting 'guard'. And according to the questioner's explanation (#4: this guy…) the person is a male friend.
PS. Being from Brno, you probably understand also German. The Italian phrase means Zum Schutz Roms seit 1982.
Last edited:
Yes, thanks. Please note also my PS addition 
.
.
Greetings all round
Σ
(Jazyk's # 11 in this thread): no, 'IN' here is superfluous, so I think is GENERATVS, affronts to Latin's natural tendency to epigrammatic terseness.
Σ
Maybe superfluous for you but not incorrect. Not because you like everything to be epigrammatic you have to force your taste down everybody's throats.
Anyway, the misunderstanding had been cleared up. It was your comment that was totally superfluous.
If there is something affronting, that's your comma separating a subject from its predicate, which is not only superfluous but also incorrect.
Anyway, the misunderstanding had been cleared up. It was your comment that was totally superfluous.
If there is something affronting, that's your comma separating a subject from its predicate, which is not only superfluous but also incorrect.
Sorry to be argumentative here: I find Jazyk's response (# 17) somewhat unmannerly. I am absolutely ready, pleased, prepared, to have my Latin corrected, but take not kindly to being 'corrected' on the grammar, syntax or idiom of my written English, in this or any other context.
And IN ANNO is completely wrong. In my last post, 'affronts' was a noun (I realise this is difficult for non-native speakers to understand).
Σ
And IN ANNO is completely wrong. In my last post, 'affronts' was a noun (I realise this is difficult for non-native speakers to understand).
Σ
Thanks Jazyk for this more amiable answer (# 19). Out of genuine curiosity, can you point us to any more specific instances, in the Vulgate or elsewhere?
Time does not allow me to read from Genesis to Revelation to find them. And what did you mean by 'Google Books'?
Σ
Time does not allow me to read from Genesis to Revelation to find them. And what did you mean by 'Google Books'?
Σ
Just write "in anno" in quotation marks followed by the word Vulgate on Google, and you will see the occurrences.
Write "in anno" on Google but instead of hitting Enter, go to to the line below where you will see Maps, Videos, Images, etc. Choose Books (it may be hidden behind three dots) and press it.
Write "in anno" on Google but instead of hitting Enter, go to to the line below where you will see Maps, Videos, Images, etc. Choose Books (it may be hidden behind three dots) and press it.
@jazyk (# 21 here)
I have done as you suggested, and found only the merest handul of such references, almost all (in e.g. Exodus, Daniel, Ezra, Haggai) referring to the numerated years of a kingly or priestly rule, in the sense of 'during...' or 'in the course of...' (e.g. the 'second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar' in Daniel 2).
In other words, it is at least unusual, and I would still claim that for calendrical dates on e.g. monuments it is almost unheard of.
Σ
I have done as you suggested, and found only the merest handul of such references, almost all (in e.g. Exodus, Daniel, Ezra, Haggai) referring to the numerated years of a kingly or priestly rule, in the sense of 'during...' or 'in the course of...' (e.g. the 'second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar' in Daniel 2).
In other words, it is at least unusual, and I would still claim that for calendrical dates on e.g. monuments it is almost unheard of.
Σ
Excuse me, but "Anno Domini" does not mean "After Christ", which would mean the years after Christ left the earth and ascended into Heaven. It means "In the year of the Lord", which means the years from Christ's notional birth date, approximately 33 years earlier.
Quite right, KevιnB.
That is how I have always understood the Latin.
Σ
That is how I have always understood the Latin.
Σ
No need to apologize, yours is a very precise remark.
However (in this country at least) we commonly understand 'after Christ' as a time obviously starting from Christ's birthdate, and likewise 'before Christ' as previous to Ch.'s birth date. That's why I thought that 'anno Domini' would coincide with 'after Christ', and I'm a bit surprised to see that for you (in the UK?) it is different.
Last edited:
Over here, d. C. (después de Cristo) is the same as AD (Anno Domini) "after Christ's birth", not "after Christ's death".
Octavian died 14 years after Christ was born (AD 14).
Augusto (en latín, Augustus; Roma, 23 de septiembre de 63 a. C.-Nola, 19 de agosto de 14 d. C.)
Augustus (Latin: Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus;[nb 1] 23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14)
Octavian died 14 years after Christ was born (AD 14).
Augusto (en latín, Augustus; Roma, 23 de septiembre de 63 a. C.-Nola, 19 de agosto de 14 d. C.)
Augustus (Latin: Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus;[nb 1] 23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14)
Well, quite simply, "A.D." are the initials for "Anno Domini", which means "in the year of the Lord". We translate it literally. I don't know about other forms of English, but in BrE, to say that something occurred "after" somebody would be taken to mean after that person had come and gone.
Greetings all
A note of clarification. The fixture, in what has become universal chronometry, of AD 1 as the year of Christ's birth was the intellectual progeny of the 4th-century Christian historian and biographer of Constantine, Eusebius, fossilised in our history-books by Jerome in the Vulgate. But it is wholly incompatible with the secular historical record, which sets the death of Herod and the Augustan census, associated in the Gospel narratives with the Nativity, between 6 BC and 4 BC (Sir Ronald Syme, Roman Papers III, 881ff.). Eusebius was doubtless trying his best to calculate, and must be forgiven for this minor error. Academic historians of the Early Church are these days agreed about this mistake, and will concede that Jesus was born ca. 6-4 BC, and crucified about AD 29.
And I should add: there is no evidence whatever about the date within the year of Christ's birth. But in the course of the 2nd-4th centuries 'AD' it came to be associated with the ancient Roman Saturnalia, a winter-solstice festival to greet the re-arising sun (much-needed, doubtless).
Σ
A note of clarification. The fixture, in what has become universal chronometry, of AD 1 as the year of Christ's birth was the intellectual progeny of the 4th-century Christian historian and biographer of Constantine, Eusebius, fossilised in our history-books by Jerome in the Vulgate. But it is wholly incompatible with the secular historical record, which sets the death of Herod and the Augustan census, associated in the Gospel narratives with the Nativity, between 6 BC and 4 BC (Sir Ronald Syme, Roman Papers III, 881ff.). Eusebius was doubtless trying his best to calculate, and must be forgiven for this minor error. Academic historians of the Early Church are these days agreed about this mistake, and will concede that Jesus was born ca. 6-4 BC, and crucified about AD 29.
And I should add: there is no evidence whatever about the date within the year of Christ's birth. But in the course of the 2nd-4th centuries 'AD' it came to be associated with the ancient Roman Saturnalia, a winter-solstice festival to greet the re-arising sun (much-needed, doubtless).
Σ
Last edited:
...and here you certainly mean about 29 years after his birth, don't you, Scholiast? Glad to see that for you ''Anno Domini'' means 'after Christ('s birth)'- like (to my knowledge) for the rest of the world.
saluete de nouo, amici
A propos bearded's # 29 in this Thread: there's a slight misunderstanding here: what I meant, and still believe, is that Christ was born around 6/5/4 BC, and was executed in his early-mid 30s, probably in the year we now call 'AD 29'. But I shall consult with theologians of my acquaintance and report back.
And as always, I am very willing to be corrected by anyone whose scholarship or knowledge outstrips mine, which is not hard!
Σ
A propos bearded's # 29 in this Thread: there's a slight misunderstanding here: what I meant, and still believe, is that Christ was born around 6/5/4 BC, and was executed in his early-mid 30s, probably in the year we now call 'AD 29'. But I shall consult with theologians of my acquaintance and report back.
And as always, I am very willing to be corrected by anyone whose scholarship or knowledge outstrips mine, which is not hard!
Σ
You would have been better not to post that. It contains inaccuracies, but it would be off-topic for me to reply.
The question was about how "AD" is interpreted in English, not about whether the dating is right or wrong, or about other issues like taking over pagan festivals.
I agree. I will open a new thread in the 'English-only' Forum.
saluete omnes, praesertim KevinB et bearded
If I have offended, profound apologies. Yes I realise this may constitute 'Topic Drift'. I will dismount my post when I have heard from a Moderator. But for my own improvement, I would like to know what what the 'inaccuracies' are.
Σ
If I have offended, profound apologies. Yes I realise this may constitute 'Topic Drift'. I will dismount my post when I have heard from a Moderator. But for my own improvement, I would like to know what what the 'inaccuracies' are.
Σ
Last edited:
I'll PM you about it soon.
Dear Kevin,
In the process of tidying up (and scrapping) some old WR files, I came of course across this. Naturally, if I have offended, I apologise. I am as it happens an observant Anglican, but with strong sympathies (i.e. High Church) with the Oxford-Movement/Newman tendency. I seriously wonder where I was 'off-topic', and what you consider my inaccuracies to be.