1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Iuppiter aedificium vento de…

"Iuppiter aedificium vento delet."

Translation:Iuppiter destroys the building by wind.

August 31, 2019



This sentence sounds weird in English. Wouldn't a better translation be "with wind"? Ablatives of means are often translated as "with ___", right?


Yes - Ablatives are by, with or from


It's to mimic the "destroyed by fire" and "destroyed by water,.. So why not "destroyed by wind"?

As a general construction "destroyed by" + noun, is always possible (destroyed by love, destroyed by fear, etc...)

Maybe "destroyed by the winds" could be added. It's right in the grammar and in the meaning, but is less emphatic and grandiose than "destroyed by wind".

It's hard to find examples in the active voice (destroys and not destroyed) as only God or a supernatural force can "destroy by...".. So it's a kind of sentence really exceptional and unusual.

"God destroys by fire" is okay. God destroys by flood" also. So God could also destroys by wind. (another element).

In the Bible, both "destroy by" and "destroy with" can be found.
And I really think both don't have the same meaning at all.

Destroying with water = using the water(s) to destroy something, with the "help" of water.

Destroying by water = completely destroyed by the use of the water. The water is the weapon. A massive destruction weapon.

It's the reason why both expressions are in the Bible. Not the same meaning.
And it's also the reason why people think it's strange, usually an element is not used as a weapon of massive extinction.


"Sodom and Gomorrah, notoriously sinful cities in the biblical book of Genesis, destroyed by “sulfur and fire” because of their wickedness"
(Not "destroyed with")


He really shouldn't have had those refried beans....


Iuppiter non venti regit, sed Aeolus venti regit.


tamen Iuppiter Aeolum regit.


Does "Iuppiter" mean a god in Roman myth or the planet Jupiter?


Both. But in this sentence it is rather the god Jupiter, who is the king of gods in Roman mythology.

[deactivated user]

    It’s a contraction of “Father Jove” - Iovis pater. Iuppiter in the nominative and vocative; in other cases of Jupiter we have Iovem, Iovis, Iovi, Iove (acc. gen. dat. abl. respectively)


    Which itself comes from the Greek for "father Zeus", Zeu piter.

    [deactivated user]

      Various forms of the Latin and Greek descend from PIE *dyḗws ph₂tḗr. The Latin forms in this instance are not taken from Greek.


      Quite right, it is a common heritage from the Proto-Indo-European phrase meaning "father sky" that Ivor quoted, like dyáuḥ pitā́ in Vedic which couldn’t have been borrowed from Greek.


      I could not say whether it was common to all Indo-Europeans but in several IE languages there are words which reflect dyḗws and which are applied to a deity: Greek Ζεύς, Latin Iu(piter), Sanskrit dyauḥ "sky" or the god Dyauḥ. Their etymological meaning is "diurnal sky", as they are derived from the PIE root dyeu- "to shine". There are some other data in this article:



      Thanks for the correction. How do we know this to be the case? Was a "sky god" a common belief among all PIE speakers? Surely the Zeus beliefs were well-developed before Latin became common, and we all know the Romans idolized Greek knowledge and culture.


      ... says the architect who built it.


      "With wind" would be the proper instrumental preposition in this translation


      Admit it, how many of you are thinking up senteces with “flato”?


      Yes the sentence does not really sound correct in English, 'with' is certainly more appropriate than 'by'.


      Would "destroy by fire" sound incorrect for you (just asking)?

      I personally think people make a confusion about the real meaning of this sentence.

      [deactivated user]

        By firing squad, by means of fire, with fire, not necessarily in that order of preference. I’d probably say that fire destroyed something in any case, rather than use the passive.


        It's used in newspaper articles. They usually use the passive voice rather than the active voice to relate a tragedy.


        By sounds better in passive contexts (it was destroyed by a fire) where as with sounds better when someone is performing an action (an arsonist destroys things with fire).


        "Destroy by wind" is unidiomatic in English and should not be the preferred option in the word bank. I think the problem is actually in the word "destroy." What I mean is that the idiom in English is that when the verb destroy has a subject, the subsequent preposition "with." The house was destroyed by fire. (no subject) He destroyed the house with fire. (subject) But also: He destroyed the house by setting it on fire. (participial phrase)


        Am I wring in thinking "edifice" should be an acceptable alternative to "building"?


        "Edifice" is uncommon, but I don't see a big problem with it.


        when did the letter J finally become part of the alphabet?


        Jove it s not accepted?


        Jupiter not accepted either.


        Right, "with" is associated primarily with instrument; "buy" is associated with means - something natural, not created. Thus, the system wants "with fire" rather than "by fire." Latin is quite precise.

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