# Veteris Aegypti tabula ex variis auctoribus...



## cherine

Hi,

I'd like your help translating this book title, I understand it's about Egyptian tables or something like that  

 Veteris Aegypti tabula ex variis auctoribus decerpta, atque Itinerariis adornata, conatibus geographicis Robert geographi regii 

Thank you very much for your help 


P.S. The "Robert" mentioned in the title is the author.


----------



## Lorixnt2

cherine said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'd like your help translating this book title, I understand it's about Egyptian tables or something like that
> 
> Veteris Aegypti tabula ex variis auctoribus decerpta, atque Itinerariis adornata, conatibus geographicis Robert geographi regii
> 
> Thank you very much for your help
> 
> 
> P.S. The "Robert" mentioned in the title is the author.




This one is easy 


Map of the old/ancient Egypt derived from various authors and adorned with
itineraries thanks to the geographical efforts of Robert, the royal geographer.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Bonsoir,

 I am unsure about translating this title; these are my guesses:

 " A table ( or: register) of Ancient Egypt collected from various authors and illustrated with Routes, thanks to the royal geographer Robert's geographic  work ".

That's the only way I see to understand "geographicis" and "geographi regii": this genitive form needs to refer to another noun or nominal group, here the one that is implied by the adjective "geographicis", something like "studies" or "work". Robert is not an ancient name, that's why I suppose it's not declined as it should be.

Let's wait for more answers.


----------



## Lorixnt2

J.F. de TROYES said:


> Bonsoir,
> 
> I am unsure about translating this title; these are my guesses:
> 
> " A table ( or: register) of Ancient Egypt collected from various authors and illustrated with Routes, thanks to the royal geographer Robert's geographic  work ".
> 
> That's the only way I see to understand "geographicis" and "geographi regii": this genitive form needs to refer to another noun or nominal group, here the one that is implied by the adjective "geographicis", something like "studies" or "work". Robert is not an ancient name, that's why I suppose it's not declined as it should be.
> 
> Let's wait for more answers.



Hi J.F. de TROYES

I've read Geographicis not as a genitive but as a plural ablative of the second declension adjective "geographicus" referring to the  plural ablative of the fourth declension "conatus".   So imho the case seems easy and Geographicis simply refers to Conatibus.


----------



## cherine

Thank you guys for the help 

I'm so sorry I didn't give more details about the author, I don't know about the Latin case and didn't imagine that it would make such a difference in the translation (shame on me    )

Well, the author of this book is Gilles Robert de Vaugondy (1788-1766) who was "géograph du roi". So, I guess J.F.'s analyse is more accurate to the context.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Lorixnt2 said:


> Hi J.F. de TROYES
> 
> I've read Geographicis not as a genitive but as a plural ablative of the second declension adjective "geographicus" referring to the plural ablative of the fourth declension "conatus". So imho the case seems easy and Geographicis simply refers to Conatibus.


 


I think I did'nt make myself clear: “conatibus + “ Robert geographici regii” (possessive phrase). Maybe there was some misunderstanding because you beat me to it! and I wrote my post before reading yours. Let’s come back to the point: When I write “this genitive form”, it can only refer to "geographi regii" and not to “geographicis” that refer to “conatibus”. So we agree with the general meaning. But I confess I was partly wrong in considering “conatibus geographicis” as an ablative absolute, whereas this word is obviously an adjective, as I know, but I only thought of the verb "conor" and not at all of the noun "conatus,us !Thanks for your reply.


----------



## cherine

I'd like to renew my gratitude.
You formed a great teamwork  I used the two translations to make my sentence (I needed to translate the Latin title into Arabic).
When doing so, I realised that there was no big differences between the two suggested translations.

Thanks again


----------



## Lorixnt2

J.F. de TROYES said:


> I think I did'nt make myself clear: “conatibus + “ Robert geographici regii” (possessive phrase). Maybe there was some misunderstanding because you beat me to it! and I wrote my post before reading yours. Let’s come back to the point: When I write “this genitive form”, it can only refer to "geographi regii" and not to “geographicis” that refer to “conatibus”. So we agree with the general meaning. But I confess I was partly wrong in considering “conatibus geographicis” as an ablative absolute, whereas this word is obviously an adjective, as I know, but I only thought of the verb "conor" and not at all of the noun "conatus,us !Thanks for your reply.



Il n'y a pas vraiment de quoi me remercier J.F. de TROYES. Le Latin et le Français sont des plaisir dont j'ai rédecouvert le parfum depuis peu de temps après une eclipse d'une trentaine d'années. Et naturellement je compte sur vous tous pour les refraichir.


----------



## Lorixnt2

cherine said:


> I'd like to renew my gratitude.
> You formed a great teamwork  I used the two translations to make my sentence (I needed to translate the Latin title into Arabic).
> When doing so, I realised that there was no big differences between the two suggested translations.
> 
> Thanks again



I am glad it was of help cherine

Laetus sum hoc tibi auxilio fuisse


----------

