1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Coquus ignavus non coquit."

"Coquus ignavus non coquit."

Translation:A lazy cook does not cook.

September 1, 2019



Grumio! Get up you lazy man!


Coquus ignavus coquus non est?


That wouldn't carry a present meaning...


Reminder: "coquus" is pronounced "KOH-kwoos," not "KOH-kooos". The -qu- represents the KW sound.


"coquus" is pronounced "KOH-kwoos," not "KOH-kooos".

Tell that to the Romans themselves, who often pronounced quu as cu and sometimes even wrote e.g. ecus for equus.


Plenty of native English speakers mispronounce (and misspell) words, by which I mean they pronounce (and spell) the words in nonstandard ways. That doesn't mean that we therefore teach English as saying whatever sounds you want to say to mean whatever you want those sounds to mean. Same with Latin. If the "-quu-" combination was originally intended to represent the sound "-kwoo-", then that's what's appropriate to teach for classical Latin, even if contemporary speakers sometimes elided that sound to "-koo-".


If the "-quu-" combination was originally intended to represent the sound "-kwoo-"

That's the thing in question, isn't it.

-ti- in English not pronounced the same way in "native" and in "nation", is it? Does it seem so strange, then, that -qu- in Latin might possibly be pronounced differently in "coquit" and "coquus"?

If "-quu-" is written for etymological reasons but was commonly pronounced -cu-, then it would be appropriate to teach the actual pronunciation, not the "logical" pronunciation.


This is a great point, and I gladly concede your logic. But the real question is: How did actual native speakers of standard classical Latin pronounce the -quu- letter combination?

I am no Latin scholar, so I depend on the expertise of others in such areas. Since the consensus seems to be that -quu- was pronounced "-kwoo-", that is my default belief. That some speakers may have pronounced it "-koo-" instead may be well attested, but I have no reason to believe that was anything other than a variant pronunciation.

Well, that is, I do have your word, which I don't discount. But then I have to decide between scholarly consensus vs. the observations of some guy/gal on the internet. You may well be right, but what's the best course of action? How would you decide the matter?


...and that's why the soldiers beat him up...


we sent them to the foro to... take care of him


Eo interficit—literally, "He did him in."

[deactivated user]

    Coquus navus quoque non coquit (well, not necessarily - but he could be busy with something else, preventing him from cooking).


    So, navus is the opposite of ignavus?

    What would be "Coquus navus quoque non coquit", as "quoque" is related to "navus" (because right after), could it be "The cook is active too, doesn't cook". I don't understand this sentence. There's something I made wrong.

    [deactivated user]

      ignavus - navus; ignobilis - nobilis; ignominia - nomen; The negating prefix “in-“ followed by “gn-“ results in “ign-“. The positive words once had a g before the n - gnavus, gnobilis, gnomen (etc., there are several words like this). Cf. gnobilis with “know”. A noble is someone knowable.


      Or rather "known" = famous. (well-known).
      I learned "*gnobilis" = knowable. Cool, thanks!


      If I understand your meaning, yes. He seems to be dropping the -t. Maybe the recording is cutting out early, I don't know. But he seems to do this quite frequently.


      He likes to run the words together. For example, what I hear is "coquu signavus…"


      This is how authentic spoken languages sound.


      Is "The lazy chef does not cook" actually wrong, or just marked as such?


      coquum ignavum non cocquit.


      is this why the soldiers hit the lazy cook?

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