# "How little we know!" into Latin



## jwg

I would like to translate the remark: "How little we know!", from the Sinatra song, into Latin. Perhaps the translation of the question "How little do we know?" would be close enough, but if Latin has the nuance of this kind of exclamation/rhetorical-question, I would love to know that, too. Perhaps "We know so little!" is easier to translate?


----------



## XiaoRoel

quam minimum inuicem pernoscimus!


----------



## Lovelogue

XiaoRoel said:


> quam minimum inuicem pernoscimus!


Is the present tense used here right? As far as I know, _nosco _means I _get to know__, _while _novi_ in the perfect means I_ know_.
And _quam minimum _with _quam _plus superlative looks like _as little as possible.
_


----------



## Scholiast

Sweet friends,

This needs to be crisply epigrammatic: _ut insipimus!_


----------



## XiaoRoel

*Pernoscimus* es presente, el pretérito sería *pernouimus*. *Quam* (_minime_) es un _intensificador exclamativo_, nada que ver con los comparativos. La frase está en la _modalidad expresiva_, que además de por el *signo de admiración*, se marca con un *elemento "exclamativo" que marca el comienzo* de la modalidad expresiva de la que el _signo de admiración marca el final_ (sólo el español usa las marcas de apertura _*¿*_ e _*¡*_ de las _modalidades impresiva y expresiva_ del lenguaje que, en bloque se oponen como marcadas a la _modalidad declarativa_), como ese *quam* que afecta al adverbio, intensificándolo.


----------



## Lovelogue

_Pernoscimus_ means_ we are GETTING to know well. _You have to use _pernovimus_ for _we_ _know well. _Preterite or perfect, whatever you call it, all my textbooks tell me:
_*Novi*, _not *nosco*, means _*I know*. _I suppose* pernosco *is not so different.
*Quam* with superlative means _*as ... as possible*. _I don't know for sure if other meanings are possible, nor do I know if the ! changes anything. Still _quam minimum_ is misleading, if not wrong.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Lovelogue said:


> _Pernoscimus_ means_ we are GETTING to know well. _You have to use _pernovimus_ for _we_ _know well. _Preterite or perfect, whatever you call it, all my textbooks tell me:
> _*Novi*, _not *nosco*, means _*I know*. _I suppose* pernosco *is not so different.
> *Quam* with superlative means _*as ... as possible*. _I don't know for sure if other meanings are possible, nor do I know if the ! changes anything. Still _quam minimum_ is misleading, if not wrong.


Cambia de manuales. y estudia el encarecedor _quam_ con adverbios (el superlativo no viene al caso). De paso, repasa el valor de los prefijos (que son morfemas aspectuales, por lo general). ¡Ah! y compra un buen diccionario.


----------



## Lovelogue

I don't find Wheelock's Latin, BLD Latin for Beginners, Cambridge Latin Course, Oxford Latin Dictionary, etc. *not buenos.
*See, I know _quam_ sometimes introduces an exclamative sentence. I'm just not sure about _quam _with any adj. or adv. in superlative.


----------



## Lovelogue

Oxford Latin Dictionary goes:
pernosco ... To *become* thoroughly acquainted with, *get* to know well; *(pf.)* to be thoroughly conversant with.

The prefix per- does not perfect the act of knowing. The perfect tense (pf.) does.


----------



## Peano

*Ut paulum scimus!*


----------



## XiaoRoel

*Terentius* scripsi:* 



			non satis pernosti
		
Click to expand...

*


> (= pernouisti) _*me, qualis sim*_.



Lovelogue amice, satis tibi est Terentiana constructio? '*Pernosco*' latine uelut "_intus et in cute nosco_" significat.


----------



## Lovelogue

_non satis pernosti _translates _you do not know well/enough. _So? Terentius used the perfect tense. And you should do that too. That's my point.
Unless you feel it comfortable to say _how little we are getting to know well_.

You have to use _novimus _or _cognovimus _for _we know, _don't you agree?
Likewise, you need _pernovimus _for _intus et in cute _*novimus*_._

---------------------------
I just googled the suffix of _pernosco_ 

-scō, -scere (inceptive- to enter a state) "begin to, become"  
            (Note: the -sc- suffix is only in the present system; it drops in the perfect)
            īra: anger                   īrāscor, -scī, īrātus: to become angry
                                                noscō, -ere: *come to know; learn*
                                                (*pft*. nōvi, notus: *know*)

---------------------------
Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary gives:
per-nosco ... 1 to examine thoroughly ... in* perf. *to have examined or discerned, *to know thoroughly* ...​


----------



## XiaoRoel

Prefiero el presente general (neutro en cuanto a la temporalidad). La forma con perfecto  presenta la relación como acabada, la forma con presente no se pronuncia sobre el fin de la acción, ni sobre el tiempo.
Son diferentes intenciones estilísticas.
No dudo del _Lewis_, pero es un _diccionario un tanto anticuado_ y anterior a toda la investigación lexicográfica del s. XX. Mejor el _Gaffiot_ francés o el _Blánquez_ español, más modernos. Y, por supuesto, combinados con el uso del etimológico de _Ernout_.


----------



## jwg

Thanks for the discussion everyone. Translating this remark is important for a strange reason: I would like as accurate a translation as possible for the purposes of making a family crest. I have seen a couple of suggestions but would love to know if there is any consensus on this at all aside from merely individual suggestions. I am no student of Latin and greatly appreciate all of your help so far. Thanks!

So...if you agree with one of the posted suggestions would you second it in the thread? Or propose your own? I and my family would be very grateful.


----------

