# quia, si scitum esset, aurum pro luto haberemus



## Buonaparte

Forum

My text book translates: 

_quia, si scitum esset, aurum pro luto haberemus _

as:

Because, if it were known, we should consider gold as cheap as dirt.

Would the following translation be acceptable:

Because if it had been known we would have gold for dirt.

? 

Many thanks, Buonaparte


----------



## Starfrown

Buonaparte said:


> Forum
> 
> My text book translates:
> 
> _quia, si scitum esset, aurum pro luto haberemus _
> 
> as:
> 
> Because, if it were known, we should consider gold as cheap as dirt.
> 
> Would the following translation be acceptable:
> 
> Because if it had been known we would have gold for dirt.
> 
> ?
> 
> Many thanks, Buonaparte


Yes, your translation remains true to the original mixed conditional in the Latin, while that which the book provided is slightly freer--unless I'm missing something.

The combination of pluperfect subjunctive in the protasis with imperfect subjunctive in the apodosis is probably one of the more common types of mixed conditionals.


----------



## Stoicorum_simia

Starfrown said:


> Yes, your translation remains true to the original mixed conditional in the Latin, while that which the book provided is slightly freer--unless I'm missing something.
> 
> The combination of pluperfect subjunctive in the protasis with imperfect subjunctive in the apodosis is probably one of the more common types of mixed conditionals.


 
As the quote is from Petronius, I wonder if _scitum_ is really felt as adjectival, rather than part of the passive of _scio_ (pluperfect with _esset_); then we would have imperfects in each clause. Or perhaps 'if it had _become known_'? Also, _pro_ _x habeo_ is 'to consider something as x', so the textbook is right there (though it has added 'as cheap as' to clarify the meaning).


----------



## Fred_C

Starfrown said:


> Yes, your translation remains true to the original mixed conditional in the Latin, while that which the book provided is slightly freer--unless I'm missing something.


Hi,
The given translation is not a far-fetched or a free one. "habere aliquid pro aliquo" often means "consider something as something".
Therefore, the meaning of the sentence alone is ambiguous, but we can guess that the context helped the translator make a choice.


----------



## Starfrown

Stoicorum_simia said:


> As the quote is from Petronius, I wonder if _scitum_ is really felt as adjectival, rather than part of the passive of _scio_ (pluperfect with _esset_); then we would have imperfects in each clause. Or perhaps 'if it had _become known_'?


Do you have any sources to suggest that in Petronius' Latin the combination of a perfect passive participle and an imperfect form of _sum_ would not be considered pluperfect? If so, I would be interested in seeing them. (This is not a challenge, but simply a request for more information.)



Stoicorum_simia said:


> Also, _pro_ _x habeo_ is 'to consider something as x', so the textbook is right there (though it has added 'as cheap as' to clarify the meaning).


 


Fred_C said:


> Hi,
> The given translation is not a far-fetched or a free one. "habere aliquid pro aliquo" often means "consider something as something".
> Therefore, the meaning of the sentence alone is ambiguous, but we can guess that the context helped the translator make a choice.


Both of you misinterpreted my earlier post. I was not commenting at all on the translation of that particular phrase, but rather on the translation of the sentence as a mixed conditional--in this case, a combination of past contrary-to-fact and present contrary-to-fact conditional--rather than as a simple present contrary-to-fact conditional.

That said, it is still fair to say that Buonaparte's translation of _aurum pro luto haberemus_ is _truer_ to the original than the text's. That is, the meaning "consider" is clearly a figurative extension of the verb's fundamental physical meaning "have; hold." Now, as everyone here knows, it is not always best to translate as literally as possible, and the text has certainly made a very reasonable choice in this case--I agree completely with Fred that it is not particularly free, and certainly not far-fetched. This is one instance, though, where I would have no problem at all with Buonaparte's literal translation; as Fred pointed out, there may be some degree of ambiguity in it, but I believe context would correct any possible misunderstandings.

EDIT: I've done a little more thought on the translation of the apodosis,and I've come up with the following:

"...we should hold gold as dirt."

I especially like using "hold" here, because like the Latin _habeo_, it can also be used by extension to mean "regard; consider." This translation is essentially just as succint as the original (I don't like the addition of "as cheap as" in the text's translation).


----------



## Cagey

Buonaparte's translation actually tells us something different from the book's.  It says that if something had been known in the past, "we should (now) hold gold as dirt", to borrow from Starfrown:
Because if it had been known [then] we should [now] hold gold as dirt.​ It is from a story about a man who invented unbreakable glass.  He showed it to the emperor, who had him beheaded, _because if the secret leaked out we would consider gold as dirt_. (The unbreakable glass would be more valuable by comparison with gold, which dented when thrown to the ground.) 
 Chapter 51:_The Satyricon_ By Petronius Arbiter,  Petronius,  Patrick Gerard Walsh, trans. 
Latin version in the Latin Library.​


----------



## Stoicorum_simia

Starfrown said:


> Do you have any sources to suggest that in Petronius' Latin the combination of a perfect passive participle and an imperfect form of _sum_ would not be considered pluperfect? If so, I would be interested in seeing them. (This is not a challenge, but simply a request for more information.)


 

It was a wild guess - that's why I said 'I wonder'. I was just thinking that P shows some features which resurface in later Latin and derivatives.


----------

