# Quaestiones cum Antiquis Disputandae



## Lorixnt2

*sive/or*

*Arguments to be discussed with the Ancients


*Quaestio prima (nomina<>animalia)

...(Ad tertium dicendum quod) homines in statu innocentiae non indigebant animalibus ad necessitatem corporalem, neque ad tegumentum, quia nudi erant, et non erubescebant, nullo instante inordinatae concupiscentiae motu; neque ad cibum, quia lignis Paradisi vescebantur; neque ad vehiculum, propter corporis robur. Indigebant tamen eis ad experimentalem cognitionem sumendam de naturis eorum. Quod significatum est per hoc, quod Deus ad eum (here Thomas means Adam) animalia adduxit, ut eis nomina imponeret, quae eorum naturas designant.

(Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Summa Theologiae I q. IVC - III)


​This is imho a case in which the apparent easiness of the Latin could hide semantic traps. So, primum tollere menda scripturae, deinde philosophari - first correct the mistakes then philosophize. Thanks for your attention and corrections.


First Argument (names<>animals)


(Thirdly, since) human beings in state of innocence didn't need animals for bodily needs, neither to make clothes since they were nude and never blushed moved by a single moment of disorderly concupiscence, nor to get food since they were fed by the Paradise trees, nor as a mean of transport thanks to the (original) corporal strength. Nevertheless, they needed them to engage themselves in an experimental knowledge about their natures.
What is expressed by this (is) God introduced to Adam (ad eum-him) the animals because he could give them the names that designate their natures.​

​


*

*​


----------



## Whodunit

First I thought you were translating from English into Latin, however after having visited this page, I think you'd like us to correct your English translation. 



Lorixnt2 said:


> (Thirdly, since) human beings in the state of innocence did not need animals for essentials for the body, neither to make clothes, since they were nude/bare, and never blushed moved by a single moment of disorderly concupiscence, nor to receive food, since they were fed by/since they lived on the Paradise trees/trees in Paradise, nor as a mean of transport due to the (original) corporal strength. Nevertheless, they needed them to engage themselves in an experimental knowledge about their nature.
> What is expressed by this (is) God introduced to Adam (ad eum-him) the animals so that he could give them the names that designate their nature.






I think you translation was excellent. 

Here's my version:

_(Thirdly, thus) human beings in the sate of innocence were not in need of animals for essentials for their body, not to make clothes, due to their bareness, without any blushing caused by a movement of disorderly concupiscence, and not to receive food, since they lived on the trees in Paradise, nor as an (animal-drawn) vehicle, as their bodies were inherently powerful. Nevertheless, they needed the animals in order to experience the nature around them._
_What this is supposed to signify is that God introduced the animals to him to name them according to/designating their environment._​


----------



## Lorixnt2

Whodunit said:


> I think you translation was excellent.
> 
> Here's my version:
> 
> _(Thirdly, thus) human beings in the sate of innocence were not in need of animals for essentials for their body, not to make clothes, due to their bareness, without any blushing caused by a movement of disorderly concupiscence, and not to receive food, since they lived on the trees in Paradise, nor as an (animal-drawn) vehicle, as their bodies were inherently powerful. Nevertheless, they needed the animals in order to experience the nature around them._
> _What this is supposed to signify is that God introduced the animals to him to name them according to/designating their environment._​




Si vales, diserte amice, bene est, valeo. Gratias tibi ago et spero te  Victimae Paschalis Sacrum Anniversarium multis cum  libationibus celebrasse. Quam apta interpretatio tua ad confirmandum sit quod,  in epistula mea quem antea misi, cursim attinxi, gratia discrepantis 
significationum selectionis  probatur.
Scilicet enim verbum "natura" multitudinem virium ostendere posse ac nunc tu mihi videris  idem vocabulo "locorum natura" significantem vim eligere. Quod autem eligens idem vim siginificantem vocabulo "essentia"  ceterum censui, quaestio mihi videtur fieri obscura . Ideo, inquam, de explicatione nobis est quaerendum et de hac haec ante omnia mihi veniunt in 
mentem:     

ad primum dicendum  Thomas, philosophus et theologus, in tertio decimo saeculo post Christum natum, vixit nec umquam vir fuit studiosus locorum scientiarum;

ad secundum dicendum alia opera quorum  praeclarum  "De ente et Essentia" opus fuit scripsit;

ad tertium dicendum experimentalis cognitio non patet sumenda "de natura vel de natura circa ea" sed "_de naturis_ eorum".

Ac nunc, quia tenebrae oboriuntur et me potitur Morpheus, de hoc satis.
Vale.


----------



## Lorixnt2

Lorixnt2 said:


> ad tertium dicendum experimentalis cognitio non patet sumenda "de natura vel de natura circa ea" sed "_de naturis_ eorum".



Ob usum pluralis numeri erga naturam aliter igitur hoc verbum interpretandum esse puto nec dubito quin nisi Thomas impediretur meam sententiam confirmaret quod, divinae unae et trinae unitatis natura unitati naturae subiciens,  fidem multiplicibus naturis tribuere ad rectam fidem 
non pertinere patefacit. Non ergo mea humili sententia natura in Britannici sermonis verbum "environment" vertenda est sed in verbum "nature" tamquam in significatione "by nature". Convenisne mecum de hoc Whodunit?


----------



## Lorixnt2

Optime! Quod post iucundam iuventutem molesta adpropinquat mihi senectus et qui tacet, ex temporibus  Bonifacii decretalis, consentire videtur, pariter mihi iam videtur Whodunitis, Flaminii ceterorumque silentium, meae quaestioni obsecundare. Si de naturis animalium igitur, in hac Thomae sententia, non de locis sed qualitatibus eorum  fabula narratur, putate cum alicui aut non  voluntas aut non  prompta fides ad hoc credendum esset nisi ratio humana 
 induceretur, quo hinc humana ratio nos ducere potest?


----------



## Whodunit

Lorixnt2 said:


> ... et qui tacet, ex temporibus Bonifacii decretalis, consentire videtur, ...


 
Ut nihil responderim, me tibi assentiri non significat. 

Quod dicere volui, est quod "nature" in Anglice nulli plurali habet, sed in Latine est. Me te respondendi fusius non vacare molestum mihi est, sed si vaco, praetermissa compensabo.


----------



## Lorixnt2

Whodunit said:


> Ut nihil responderim, me tibi assentiri non significat.
> 
> Quod dicere volui, est quod "nature" in Anglice nulli plurali habet, sed in Latine est. Me te respondendi fusius non vacare molestum mihi est, sed si vaco, praetermissa compensabo.



Dummodo ne haec  immolesta sit, pro certo habeo quamdam vicarietatem optandam esse. Sic, sine ulla festinatione, non de te dubitans  tibi praestolor 
adsonas dissonasque voces ac praecognitiones praegustans.


----------

