 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-03-19 20:29
A (hopefully) simply question:
What is the difference (syntactically, grammatically) between the words aeternum and aeternam in liturgical textx (ex. the Latin mass)?
I was singing through the Faure Requiem and realized as I read "Requiem aeternam..." that I've sung the "um" form in many other settings (ex. Bruckner Te deum: "Te *aeternum* Patrem omnis terra venerratur.")
Are they different parts of speech? Do they represent different Latin dialects?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-03-19 20:37
Not on topic, but if you want a totally mind blowing experience, search for the Celibidache rehearsal of the Faure on YOUTUBE.
AMAZING !!!!!
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Curinfinwe
Date: 2014-03-19 16:42
I'm not an expert on Latin, but I did study it for a few years in school.
Latin "conjugates" nouns in a similar way that other languages conjugate verbs, and the adjectives that are applied to these nouns follow the same patterns as the nouns. For example, the base form of the adjective is "aeternus," but depending on the purpose in the sentence, if it's plural or singular, and the gender, the ending will take on different forms. It gets confusing because many of these forms are the same and you have to rely on context in the sentence to figure it out.
That being said, the form "aeternam" is the singular feminine accusative form, meaning that it refers to the object, not the subject, of the sentence.
In the sentence "The man sees the dog," "the man" is the subject and "the dog" is the object.
"Aeturnum" is more tricky, because it can be one of several things- refer to the first section of this chart to see all the possibilities!
http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/adjective:aeternus
Hope that helps! If you want any clarification let me know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bennett ★2017
Date: 2014-03-19 20:43
um is a masculine, am a feminine ending of the adjective. The adjective has to agree with the gender of the noun it is modifying. requiem is feminine, patrem is (obviously) masculine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wanabe
Date: 2014-03-19 17:29
Curinfinwe, you are almost right. Nouns are not conjugated. Verbs are conjugated as to tense and person and number. Nouns are declined according to their case, Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative or Ablative. The case of a noun or pronoun depends on what form of the word is used or how the word is used in the sentence. The suffix of a noun tells us the gender and number. In English we do not use gender, but we do indicate number by adding the suffix s or one of the variations thereof. In Latin it is a little different, but the principle is the same. The suffix changes depending on whether the noun is singular or plural.
Post Edited (2014-03-19 17:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-03-19 18:55
Thanks. I understand the gender difference. But, while I'm on the subject, the end of the Te deum text (at least in the Bruckner) is "non confundar in aeternum." What is this instance of aeternum?
Paul, I'll look the Faure performance up that you mentioned. I was singing through it last week following a stunningly beautiful performance I had just heard of the Requiem with the Philadelphia Singers and Philadelphia Orchestra conducted by Alain Altinoglu.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wanabe
Date: 2014-03-20 01:35
"Eternity" or "forever"
p.s. Latin is not "eclisiastical" although the music may be. Latin is a dead language, that is not spoken anywhere. Because of that it is used in religeous and some scientific texts because, being a dead language, the meanings of the words will not change with time as does our own language. Just think of how the meaning of the word "gay" has changed over the last 30 or 40 years. However "puela" still means the same thing today that it did when Julius Caesar said it. It means "girl".
Post Edited (2014-03-19 21:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-03-19 22:11
wanabe wrote:
> p.s. Latin is not "eclisiastical" although the music may be.
> Latin is a dead language, that is not spoken anywhere. Because
> of that it is used in religeous and some scientific texts
>
True. The term "ecclesiastical" Latin, as I've always understood it, differentiates the Latin of the (Catholic) Church from the "vulgate" that was ostensibly spoken by everyday Romans (although apparently many of them spoke and wrote Greek). I think it was largely dead by the 4th century when the Catholic Church's liturgy was codified at Nicea. It may have been chosen by Church leaders of the time because because of its unchanging nature (which still hasn't prevented variety of textual interpretation up to the present), as you've described and wasn't, of course, formulated specifically for the Church's use.
This is, of course, *completely* off-topic for this BB, but I wonder if the Latin of the Catholic liturgy is the same Latin used in scientific writing or if they've evolved apart (other than adoption of specifically scientific terms that wouldn't appear in Church texts). Was the Latin that was taught in American high schools when I was a student the same Latin as that used in the Catholic canon?
Feel free to just drop this topic - it has no connection at this point to music or the clarinet (which wasn't invented for centuries after the Nicean Council). :-)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dick
Date: 2014-03-20 18:30
The primary difference between ordinary Latin and church Latin is in the pronunciation. Church Latin was "Italianized," which included the softening of the "c" and "g" sound before "e" and "i." There shouldn't be any real difference in grammar or meaning.
Dick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
