1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Fortasse libros scitis."

"Fortasse libros scitis."

Translation:Perhaps you know the books.

August 30, 2019



What's wrong with "Perhaps you know the books"? "All" is definitely optional in English second person plural. Reported.


The course has just been released. Report it and carry on

  • 1366

Yes. Optional, and possibly even wrong. If you really were translating a Latin document and weren't sure whether it meant "you all" or "you both" I think you'd just leave it as "you".


Also, you can address a group of people in the plural (in a language that has 2ndPP) but if you add the word "all" it really means literally every single one of you. There's a slightly different twist.


"You all" is not "each of you", they are not interchangeable. But yes, for instance in French "vous tous" = "you all", or "each of you", depending of the context, yes, you're right.

*Vous tous, (you all) qui êtes ici, avez un fils qui vous attend à la maison. = not collective, there isn't a son for you all, but each of you has a son.


Wrong, no. "You all" is not wrong in English, when you need to disambiguate something. It's the only way.

See, in Obama's speech:

Extract of his speech. Disambiguation: " if I had told you all that, you might have said our sights were set a little too high."

"You all" is also taught in grammar books:

[deactivated user]

    “You all” (“y’all”) is mainly American (especially Texan), not English, except in a sentence like “I love you all”, where the “all” is separately emphasized. The English would tend to say “all of you” (“All of you are invited”; “Hello, all of you”) if required to disambiguate. We evidently found little need to disambiguate since along the way we lost the singular “thou”, “thee”, “thy”. BTW, Obama’s written words sound like “all” goes with “that” (“all that”); I’d have to hear him to reach a firm decision.


    Yes, you're right it can be "all that" in Obama speech, but we still find other examples, when there's a situation with a need to disambiguate.


    This was fixed seven days ago. But the software sometimes takes a long time to update changes to users :(


    This must be southern Latin!


    Why it is southern Latin? I don't know about the topic, neither a native english speaker.


    It is only a joke, don't worry.


    "Perhaps you know THAT the books ARE LOST / MISSING / STOLEN, etc.

    I'm not sure that scio + accus. (for other than "knowing a fact") really makes sense...


    I agree Suzanne, because the Gaffiot gives "scii" for "savoir" and not "connaître".

    There are 2 words in French, when English has only one. (and also in Spanish, German, etc, but I take the language I know best)

    Savoir = to know, with the meaning of knowing a fact, to be aware.

    Je sais que tu n'es pas marié.
    I know you are not married.

    Connaître = to know, with the meaning of intellectual knowledge. Or with the meaning of having met something before.

    Je connais l'anglais.
    I know English.

    Je connais cette rue, et je connais mes voisins.
    I know this street, and I know my neighbours.

    So, I agree, the confusion is between English/Latin.

    You cannot say:
    Je sais un livre. (scii, scio)

    But you would say:
    Je connais un livre.

    https://www.lexilogos.com/latin/gaffiot.php?q=scio (In French)


    Maybe it is better Fortasse libros noscitis.


    Yes; or same verb in the perfect tense, Fortasse libros novistis (cognate with Engl. know).

    [deactivated user]

      I agree - novistis. You have come to know = you know, are familiar with.


      Interestingly, fortasse is a contraction of «fortuna esse», lit. "to be fortune", [i.e., to be fortunate], while forte is the ablative case of the noun «fors», “chance, luck”.

      And the adverb fors, meaning perhaps, and which hasn’t appeared in the course yet, is a contraction of «fors sit», “it might happen”.


      Is "sciō" used here in the sense of "being familiar with"?

      Other languages like German distinguish being familiar with something (kennen) and knowing factually (wissen). Does Latin have that distinction?


      Yes: (cog)nōscō (Spanish conocer, German kennen) versus sciō (Spanish saber, German wissen).


      Yes, it is being used incorrectly. As others have pointed out, a better choice of Latin verb would be either nōscō or cognōscō, which mean to become familiar with, and which when used in the perfect tense mean to have become familiar with, i.e. to know (in the sense of French connaître, Spanish conocer or German kennen) . Second person plural of the perfect tense would be nōvistis or cognōvistis, but this course has not covered the perfect tense yet, so perhaps this sentence should not have been included.


      Yes, and as I understand it, English know is cognate with the Latin perfect novi / cognovi .


      Why wouldn't "Perhaps you pl. know the books" be correct? I was marked wrong. Should I just leave out marking pl. when it is an option in the future?


      (I would recommend leaving out the "pl.". I have sometimes had success with a "you all" translation, but mostly stick to "you," since it can't ever be 'wrong'.)


      The "pl" is just an accident, a bug, as explained by moderators in another thread, just ignore it.

      (That's a pity, because it could be useful for a learner to add this kind of additional difficulty)


      To my ears the 'F' is inaudible in the recording


      Sounds wrong to me. I hear "skiDis" not "skiTis". Flagged

      Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.