1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Venti per plateas antiquas p…

"Venti per plateas antiquas perflant."

Translation:The winds blow through ancient courtyards.

September 4, 2019



This is almost poetic.


Reminds me of visiting the ruins of Pompeii


Those ain't winds, they're ghosts!


Agreed! Such a beautiful phrase


Platea is street as well as courtyard


«platea» etymon est verborum romanice: plaça, plaza, piazza, respective in lingua catalana, hispanica et itala, inter alias linguas multas. pridem, denominavit «via/callis» aut quasi «cohors hortulana», et hodie significat in illas linguas unam plateam proprie dictum: ipsum spatium grande et publicum. significationes verborum, quam mutant per tempora.

[«platea» is the origin of: plaça, plaza, piazza, in Catalan, Spanish and Italian respectively, among so many others. From a courtyard/street to a public square, how meanings evolve and change over time].


Why does it soun like she's saying fantiquas


Probably because she's not pronouncing the s in the preceding plateas, she's saying platea. And then eliding some sound--you're hearing an f--at the beginning of antiquas.


The article, though optional, should be accepted


Her pronunciation is not proper.


Surely 'squares' also?


I said squares, which is better than courtyards for platea. It's a Greek word, platea, not a Latin word, in origin, and it means square/plaza/piazza/πλατεία, not "courtyard". But it's a postclassical word and shouldn't even be here to begin with (if the course designers are to be taken at their word). Not that I'm complaining that it's here.

Anyway, if you are talking about the open-air space inside a Roman domus, that would be hortus or peristylium, not platea, no?


Even though it's wrong, somehow I prefer "the ancient winds blow through the courtyard."


I didn't know winds could be ancient. It would be venti antiqui, wouldn't it?


It could be Eolus.


Why is there an additional adverb "per" when the verb "perflant" seems to account for this already?


"Per" is actually a preposition, but even though the verb has the preposition built into it as a prefix, it's still considered "more correct" to include the preposition separately anyways, even though it might seem superfluous.

That said, real, authored Latin doesn't always follow the "more correct" way of doing things, so in a real Latin text you might see the author drop the preposition (making this sentence for example "Venti plateas antiquas perflant"). This is especially common with verbs beginning with the prefixes "e/ex" (e.g. "educere," to lead out (of/from)) and "de" (e.g. "descendere," to descend (from)), which (prefixes) also function as prepositions when used separately.

Source: Been studying Latin for nearly 5 years at this point.


I wrote " throughout" and it was marked wrong. Can't see why.


I don't know quite why, but this sentence puts me in mind of one of the the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:

Into this Universe, and Why not knowing,

Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing:

And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,

I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.


Blowing through streets rather than courtyards makes more sense - and should not be marked wrong


Any time she wants to slow up on the readout


Isn't the initial "per" unnecessary here? Since "perflant" already means blow 'through'?


Not necessarily; prefixed verbs like perflō, construō and adveniō rarely are simply equivalent to the base verb with a prepositional complement, but rather give a different shade of meaning. So perflat is "blows everywhere", and if you want to say that it "blows [everywhere] through the courtyards," then you have to put in a complement using per so: per plateas perflat.

In the same fashion, ad locum venire is "to come to a place;" advenire is "to arrive," but if you arrive at a place then it's ad locum advenire "repeating" the ad.

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