In reply, the problem is that Latin has a subjunctive mood and it is commonly used; English has only vestiges of it so we use the conditional tense (I should or, more informally, I would ...). Latin is definitely not English in code. In Latin the difference is between volo (= I wish for, I want in the indicative mood dealing with matters of fact) and velim (I may wish/wish for, I would like subjunctive mood dealing with possibilities, wishes, fears etc. ). Sorry if this is not clear enough but perhaps someone will give you a better reply.
Thank you for your answer. So you're saying that "I would like" means I want the stuff, but not at 100% strength, it's like "it would be nice to have it" instead of " I really need to have it" / "I want to have it now or else"? My poor understanding of this difference may come from English not being my first language, while my own language is really close to Latin.
In French: je voudrais (I'd like) vs je veux (I want).
For instance. If you say "Je veux un café" in a café, it's very rude, as it's a command, it's strong. If you say "I would like a coffee" = Je voudrais un café (s'il vous plaît), it's the subjonctive, it's a wish. It's the polite form for asking someone something.
Quand je serai grand (future: when I'll be a grown up), j'aimerai être médecin. (I'd like to be a doctor: not the future, but a wish, my desire, it's subjonctive as it's not real yet). English would use the future, not in French because it's only a wish, and not a future that is certain.
With the future, it's also possible in French, but it sounds like a certainty: Quand je serai grand, je veux être médecin/je serai médecin.
Translated in English: When I grow up I'll be a doctor.
See, English use the future, "will" as it was a reality.
Subjonctive is very used in Spanish and French, for instance.
It's not, however, clear that Romans actually used the present subjunctive of "volo" (velim, etc.) as a 'polite request,' although it's certainly true that English has "I would like" and French has "je voudrais" plus foodstuffs.
The present subjunctive of volo, in examples I've found, governs a whole clause ("I'd like that you do something "), not a direct object (such as a fat fish, or wine, or bread).
Better syntax would be ""Piscem pinguem habere velim." See also "Dogs usually sleep on the floor", which is "Canes in pavimento dormire solent", literally "Dogs are accustomed to sleeping on the floor".
I don't think subjunctive velim + habēre is any better than indicative volō + habēre.
The subjunctive velim 's I've seen introduce a subordinate-clause subjunctive:
"I would like that he should have" (= I would like for him to have); velim + ut (which can be omitted) + a subjunctive like habeat .
Try this explanation.
The English is in the "conditional mood." That is to say, under certain conditions, "he will like something." Thus "He would like something" under certain conditions, typically hypothetical or currently non-existent .
See this reference:
Here is a more complete explanation: https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/clarifying-the-conditional-tense/
You see, it's about the verb used. The phrase has the irregular verb "volo, vis, volui,velle" which is roughly "to want". Beware of the other two verbs that are also irregular just like "volo". They're "nolo " ( from ne-volo, thus "to not want") and "malo" (from magis-volo, thus "to prefer") English is not my first lenguage, please let me know if there are any mistakes. Hope i was helpful.
SuzanneNussbaum is right on that classical Latin almost certainly did not use the subjunctive on its own as DL Latin is teaching with polite requests. DL Latin may need to redo these velim sentences in the next iteration. You would typically use imperative or indicative. If you want to soften the imperative, you could use obsecro, quaeso, amabo, as the following link explains: https://www.latinitium.com/blog/politeness-in-latin Jerome frequently softens the imperative in his translation when someone uses an imperative to a superior. The core problem with DL Latin sentences such as this one is that it does not sufficiently attend to ancient Roman cultural communication factors including honor-shame, patron-client, status markers such as enslavement, freedmen/ women, citizenship. One could do a sentence such as piscem pinguem velim so long as there is an implied ellipsis. Frequently, classical Latin uses subjunctive as part of a subordinate clause, and when that is not the case, then there is a signal word to help determine the sense, such as utinam in a context of an unobtainable wish. E.g., Augustine writes in Conf. 6.8 atque utinam et aures obturavisset, "would that he [Alypius] had shut his ears also!" If you walked into a taberna or popina, you probably would order using imperative or indicative. If you were an elite in a context of reclining in a triclinium, you simply ordered your slave who brought you things on command. Unfortunately, we have no evidence for how a plebeius might request food in a taberna. My hunch is that velim for a request begs for ut + subjunctive. See Eleanor Dicky, "How to say 'please' in Clasical Latin" CQ 62 (2012) 731-48. Maybe DL is teaching an ellipsis of something such as velim [ut mihi des] pisquem pinguem? but would someone say that at a taberna?
The word adeps, adipis (m or f), meaning "soft fatty tissue" of animals and birds, and sēbum, sēbī , n., meaning "hard fat" of animals, both exist. I don't know how to look up a word that refers to "the fat of fish," however, so I can't say whether the Romans had a word for it.
It seems right that the Romans referred to the fat of an animal with adeps, although they could also use pinguis (Virg, Aen. 4.60 aut ante ora deum pinguis spatiatur ad aras probably refers to the fat of the sacrificial animals). Texts dealing with sacrificing will have the vocabulary and phrasing. In the Vulgate we find adeps arietis (Lev 4:35), for instance.
Yes; in the Vergil quotation, note that adj. pinguīs (accus plur fem, can also be written pinguēs ) modifies the noun ārās , which is object of preposition ad : "or she walks before the faces of the gods, to the rich altars" (meaning, no doubt, "rich with the fat of the animals," as you say). There's a similar line at Aeneid 4. 201-201: ...pecudumque cruōre / pingue solum ... "and the ground/soil rich with the blood of herd-animals" (where adj. pingue is accus. sing. neuter, modifying solum , object of sacrāverat ("he had consecrated").