# omnia alterans



## Azure

Dear All,

I'm reading a novel that basically uses English while sometimes there are words of other languages that confuse me. For example:

"When she confronted him in his disgrace, he affected a beatific smile and quoted Scripture in a raggle-taggle Latin. Omnia alterans, he would say in response to any criticism. She was educated classically, better than he was, but he needn't worry about getting his references straight. His errors served to illustrate his general befuddlement."

I'm completely lost after the phrase "Omnia alterans". Does anyboday know what this means?


----------



## Brioche

I don't think it is actually correct Latin.
I think it is one of the errors which illustrated his general befuddlement.

Omnia = everything
alterans isn't Latin, but is probably meant to mean "changes"

My Latin is very rusty, by _everything changes_ would be something like _omnia mutant_
possibly _omnia alternant._


----------



## dwipper

I wonder if it's a typo.  If it were _omnia alter*n*ans_ it could translate to something like "everything wavering/going back and forth."  You might have better luck posting this on the Other Languages sub-forum, though.


----------



## Anne345

changing everything 

from altero, as are, - : to change (in Caelius Aurelianus)


----------



## mgarizona

At the ARTFL site you can search the complete Vulgate bible. No variant of 'omnia altern*' or "omnia mutan*' shows up anywhere. The very notion of 'everything changes,' while common in philosophy from Heraclitus though the Stoics to Nietzsche, is rather antithetical to a biblical worldview. Ecclesiastes' _To everything there is a season_ comes close I guess, but that doesn't relate to the passage cited at all, and besides begins _omnia tempus habent ..._

Seeming like a wild goose chase at this point.


----------



## Kevman

I think, like Brioche said, that it's _supposed_ to be wrong.

Whenever someone (she?) criticizes him he just smiles and says, "omnia alterans."
She was educated classically, => She has been educated in Classical languages like Latin.
better than he was, => She knows Latin better than he, and probably catches his mistake.
but he needn't worry about getting his references straight. => It doesn't matter whether he's quoting correctly.
His errors served to illustrate his general befuddlement. => His mistakes indicate something about his character or situation. This last sentence is probably clearer in the context of the novel, when you have some familiarity with the characters.

Good eye, Brioche, noticing the bad Latin. I wouldn't have known that either, and the passage doesn't make much sense unless you know it's wrong!


P.S. That would be, apparently, what is meant by "raggle-taggle Latin"--that it's inaccurate.


----------



## mgarizona

Kevman said:
			
		

> I think, like Brioche said, that it's _supposed_ to be wrong.


 
We know it's supposed to be wrong; that information is in the original posting. 

My problem is with this novel's assertion that _omnia alterans_ is a bit of flubbed Latin that some woman was able to identify as being an ill-expressed biblical reference. This assertion begs the question, what is the reference? What bible passage is this flubber supposed to be alluding to, however maladroitly?

From what I've been able to find, it doesn't exist.


----------



## Kevman

Another possibility: "Omnia alterans" isn't the Biblical reference, it's just his similarly raggle-taggle response whenever she criticizes him for misquoting something.


----------



## brian

Hi everyone,

If I understand it correctly, this is actually a very funny joke.  OK here we go:

Consider the fact that he quotes this after any criticism, no matter what it is.  Then he must think it's a very general quote, right?  Also, if someone did not know Latin, they would think that "alterans" would equate to the English "alter" which also means "change."  And knowing that "omnia" (as in "omnipotent," "omniscient," etc.) means "everything," we can conclude that he probably thinks the phrase means "Everything changes."  This would be a pretty good response to criticism, right?

Ok, well there is no Latin verb (according to all my Latin dictionaries here at home) _alterare_.  In fact, the only verb starting with _alter_- is _alter*n*are_, as was mentioned above.  This sort of means "to change" but more specifically means "to _inter_change" (as in _alternate_).

Moreover, the grammatical function of an -_are_ verb ending in _-ans_ is a masculine, nominative, _singular_, active participle--and since _omnia_ is _plural_, _alterans_ certainly cannot modify _omnia_.  Hence, _alterans_ acts transtively on _omnia_.

So putting it all together, we conclude that he _thinks_ he's saying "_Everything changes_," but in fact, he's really saying "_(Inter)changing_ _everything_" (i.e., he's interchanging the right Latin words for the wrong ones).   This may even have more significant meaning within the context of the book; perhaps if he's one to always mix things up or change things around.  Personally, if this is what the author is getting at, I think it's pretty hilarious myself.  (but this is coming from a Latinist...)


Brian


----------



## cajzl

There IS a Latin verb *alterare*.



> *altĕro, āre, ātum : - tr. - changer, altérer.
> alterātĭo, ōnis, f. : changement.
> alterātus, a, um : part. passé de altero.
> *
> *alterno, āre, āvi, ātum : faire tour à tour, faire alterner, alterner; hésiter.
> alternans, antis : part. prés. de alterno. - 1 - alternatif, qui va et vient. - 2 - incertain, irrésolu, indéterminé.
> *


 
Thus *omnia alterans* is something which changes everything.

BTW, *alterans* is nominative singular for all three genders.


----------



## Azure

To brian8733:

How come "Everything changes" is a pretty good response to criticism?
As a non-native English speaker, I don't get the idea. Can you explain it for me?


----------



## brian

cajzl said:
			
		

> There IS a Latin verb *alterare*.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus *omnia alterans* is something which changes everything.
> 
> BTW, *alterans* is nominative singular for all three genders.


I found out why I couldn't find _alterare_ in any of my dictionaries: it's _Medieval Latin_, which I generally don't deal with.  On Perseus, there is an "entry" for _altero_ but no definition, and it occurs 0 times throughout their exhaustive classics collection (Livy, Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Suetonius, and everyone in between).  They even have the Latin Bible text by Saint Jerome, meaning it doesn't occur in that text either, so it may not be scriptural. (A search for _alter*n*- _came up with 65 results, none of which were from St. Jerome's bible.)

Point being, it doesn't seem to be a very popular Latin word.  Which dictionary did you use to look it up?  And did it give any references or quotes from authors who have used it?  I'm very curious.


Brian


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

brian8733 said:
			
		

> I found out why I couldn't find _alterare_ in any of my dictionaries: it's _Medieval Latin_, which I generally don't deal with. On Perseus, there is an "entry" for _altero_ but no definition, and it occurs 0 times throughout their exhaustive classics collection (Livy, Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Suetonius, and everyone in between). They even have the Latin Bible text by Saint Jerome, meaning it doesn't occur in that text either, so it may not be scriptural. (A search for _alter*n*- _came up with 65 results, none of which were from St. Jerome's bible.)
> 
> Point being, it doesn't seem to be a very popular Latin word. Which dictionary did you use to look it up? And did it give any references or quotes from authors who have used it? I'm very curious.
> 
> 
> Brian


 
I agree with you; "*alterare*" does'nt seem to be used in classical Latin. On *Gaffiot*, the reference Latin-French dictionary, this verb is quoted, but with only one reference from an unknown (to me !), Caelius Aurelianus, a 5th(?) century-old  doctor


----------



## brian

Azure said:
			
		

> To brian8733:
> 
> How come "Everything changes" is a pretty good response to criticism?
> As a non-native English speaker, I don't get the idea. Can you explain it for me?


 Hi Azure,

It really depends on the context of the book and the ways & times in which the character uses the phrase.  But to me, it seems like a likely response since it has the sense of _Since *everything changes*, no answer to or explanation of anything is always correct or always incorrect_; therefore, whenever the character says something that is wrong, and he is corrected, he can just spout off, _Everything changes_, in order to defend his response.  This wouldn't make very much sense for someone to say just once as a response (it would be a bit out of place), but personally, I could definitely see a character in a book or movie constantly saying something like this, as if it were his _trademark response_, something by which the audience gets to know the character.



			
				J.F. de TROYES said:
			
		

> I agree with you; "*alterare*" does'nt seem to be used in classical Latin. On *Gaffiot*, the reference Latin-French dictionary, this verb is quoted, but with only one reference from an unknown (to me !), Caelius Aurelianus, a 5th(?) century-old doctor


Hi J.F. de TROYES,

Thanks for the reference!  Caelius Aurelianus is best-known for translating some Greek medical texts into Latin (somewhat important since we don't have the original Greek texts).  But for the most part, he's not that significant a figure in Latin literature (as far as I know), so if his is the only use of _alternare_ in pre-Medieval Latin, I'd personally cast the word aside as being not much of a Latin word at the time.


Brian


----------

