# ... another ancient tongue.



## Alaedious

Salūtem plūrinam dīco!

Ecce a follow-up question to my post from herī with which Wandle helped me.  This time I wish to say "I've already learnt one ancient tongue; I don't need to know another."  Once more I hesitate between 'alius' and 'praeterea'. :/   Here's my attempt:

Iam ūnam cognovī linguam antīquam. Mihi non necesse est praeterea ūnam scīre!

N.b. This is obviously not my true sentiment.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

_Praeterea ūnam scīre_ does'nt express  the idea of another language , as _praeterea _ is an adverb with the meaning of _moreover_. So it's necessary to use a Latin equivalent of _another_ :  _Mihi non necesse est aliam scīre!  _The adverb can be added as a way of emphasis.


----------



## wandle

Here I would use *alter* ('another', in the sense of a second):

_*Unam iam didici linguam antiquam, alteram novisse haud opus est.*_


----------



## Alaedious

Gratiās vobīs ago! I'm sooo happy that this site exists!  It makes learning languages by oneself a little easier!


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

wandle said:


> Here I would use *alter* ('another', in the sense of a second):
> 
> _*Unam iam didici linguam antiquam, alteram novisse haud opus est.*_



_ Haud_ is rarely used with verbs except with _scio_ and _dubito_. As for _alter _, I was thinking to use it at first, but, as far as I know, it means the other , the second , and not another. So it would imply only two ancient languages.


----------



## wandle

J.F. de TROYES said:


> _ Haud_ is rarely used with verbs except with _scio_ and _dubito_.


Rarely, yes, but *haud* is used with other verbs, for example:

Cicero De ND

2 4 *haud sane intellego*

2 138 *haud sane difficile dictu est*


> As for _alter _, I was thinking to use it at first, but, as far as I know, it means the other , the second , and not another. So it would imply only two ancient languages.


Alter does mean 'the other (of two)' but it is also regularly used with the meaning 'second' and is a standard alternative to 'secundus', for example, in Cicero:

Phil. 1, 32.
*proximo, altero, tertio, reliquis consecutis diebus non intermittebas ...*

De ND 2, 13

*Cleanthes quidem noster quattuor de causis dixit in animis hominum informatas deorum esse notiones, primam posuit eam ..., alteram ..., tertiam ..., quartam ...
*


----------



## Alaedious

I don't understand why we use the form 'novisse' here... (which I haven't yet learnt, admittidly)... and not 'noscere'.


----------



## wandle

> I've already learnt one ancient tongue; I don't need to know another.


The present infinitive *noscere* means 'to get to know, learn'. The perfect infinitive *novisse* ('to have learned') thus means 'to know'. 
If one has got to know something, then one now knows it.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> *novisse*


For the poets among us: _​nosse._


----------



## Alaedious

Thanks, wandle and Schimmelreiter! 

I had read that about noscere, but I hadn't thought to carry that logic over to the perfect infinitive as well!


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

wandle said:


> Rarely, yes, but *haud* is used with other verbs, for example:
> 
> Cicero De ND
> 
> 2 4 *haud sane intellego*
> 
> 2 138 *haud sane difficile dictu est   *




In these phrases _Haud _seems to be related to the adverb _sane_ and no to the verbs.

Thanks for the examples of _alter_ answering the questions I was wondering about.


----------



## wandle

I had thought that *sane* was parenthetical in those cases ('I do not, at any rate, understand'; 'it is not, certainly, difficult to say'). However, L&S regard *haud* as modifying *sane* ('I do not properly understand'; 'it is not really difficult to say'). At most, then, those examples are only debatable support for *haud opus est*. My feeling was that the phrase was virtually adjectival in force and could thus be suitably negatived by *haud*.

I have not found any other prose authority for *haud opus est* from the classical period, though it occurs often enough in Plautus, also in Ovid and Horace. There seem to be plenty of examples in Late Latin, though, which suggests a good number of later scholars have shared my impression!

However, the fact that Cicero and Caesar did not use it suggests that they considered it a matter of strict grammar or good style to treat *opus* as purely substantival and thus deliberately avoided _*haud*_.  Therefore, to follow classical prose usage, I must agree with *J.F. de TROYES* and change _*haud opus est*_ to *non opus est*.


----------

