# Gothi inter se Gothice loquebantur, sed plerumque Latine



## Kolan

Hello everyone, and please help with the translation (extracted from https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/1051/1/279_072.pdf , p.286)

_Gothi inter se Gothice loquebantur, sed plerumque Latine, et omnia acta Latine conficiebant usque quo devicti, et iam antea Gothice loqui desinebant, sed corruperunt linguam Latinam, quae in Hispanicam degeneravit_

My try:

The Goths spoke Gothic between them, however, Latin in general, too, and used to conduct (their) common paperwork in Latin until its complete victory and yet before Gothic vanished and managed, however, to corrupt the Latin language, which degenerated into Spanish.


----------



## pacobabel

I think your translation is quite good. For the end of the text I'd translate:

"and yet before they (=the Goths) (had) stopped speaking Gothic, but they managed... Hispanic language" (spanish didn't exist at that time, so you can't properly speak of "Spanish")

In Spanish (my English is bad): "y ya antes dejaban (*estaban dejando*) de hablar gótico, pero corrompieron el latín, que degeneró en lengua hispánica.

saludos desde barcelona,
p.


----------



## Kolan

pacobabel said:


> "and yet before they (=the Goths) (had) stopped speaking Gothic, but they managed... hispanic language" (spanish didn't exist at that time, so you can't properly speak of "spanish")
> 
> in spanish (my english is bad): "y ya antes dejaban (*estaban dejando*) de hablar gótico, pero corrompieron el latín, que degeneró en lengua hispánica.
> 
> saludos desde barcelona,
> p.


Muchas gracias y hola de Montreal,

Tenía una otra pregunta, ¿cuál es la diferencia entre la lengua hispanica et el español?


----------



## Kolan

Who was defeated, according to the phrase, the Gothic language or the Goths themselves?


----------



## Cagey

Kolan said:


> Who was defeated, according to the phrase, the Gothic language or the Goths themselves?



Notice that _devicti_ is mas., pl, nom., and so describes the Goths.  Here, _devicti = devicti sunt_ : (they=the Goths) were defeated.

Regarding your query as to when Hispanic Latin became the Spanish language: it's a complicated question, and subject to debate.  However, your author clearly thinks that the Goths are speaking a debased form of Latin and not an separate language with its own rules, so pacobabel's point is well taken in regards to the text you are translating.

I hope this is helpful.


----------



## Kolan

Cagey said:


> Notice that _devicti_ is mas., pl, nom., and so describes the Goths.  Here, _devicti = devicti sunt_ : (they=the Goths) were defeated.


Oh, great! Thank you, I have to admit that skipped the regular omission of _sunt_. Now when the sense of the entire extract becomes more clear, the improved version can be like the following,

The Goths spoke Gothic between them, however, Latin was common also (for them), and (they) used to conduct all of (their) paperwork in Latin until they  were defeated, and yet before having Gothic given up the Goths managed, however, to corrupt the Latin language, which later degenerated into Hispanic.

How's that, what do you think, fellows?


----------



## Cagey

Kolan said:


> Oh, great! Thank you, I have to admit that skipped the regular omission of _sunt_. Now when the sense of the entire extract becomes more clear, the improved version can be like the following,
> 
> The Goths spoke Gothic between them, however, Latin was common also (for them), and (they) used to conduct all of (their) paperwork in Latin until they  were defeated, and yet before having Gothic given up the Goths managed however, to corrupt the Latin language, which later degenerated into Hispanic.



Remember that _Gothice_ and _Latine_ are not nouns but adverbs.  The English equivalent would be something like "they spoke Gothicly" or "Latinly".   Instead, in English, we say "they spoke Gothic" or "they spoke in Latin".  In some places you have it, but not in others. 

Here _plerumque_ is an adverb too.  As an adverb, it means "generally, commonly".

"having Gothic given up" I'm not sure what you mean here.  Perhaps it's a problem with the word order.  In any case, you shouldn't have a participle.  Take another look at _Gothice loqui desinebant_.

I am not certain where "managed to" comes from.  

It's a matter of smoothing out a few rough spots.  Clearly, you have the basics.


----------



## Kolan

Many, many thanks, Cagey and pacobalel for the valuable remarks leading to the more extensive thoughts. I can see now my mistakes, all corrections are taken into consideration, and this helps to improve not only Latin, but my English too, since it is not native for me.

I added "managed to" in order to underline the transition onto a direct object and keep the original Latin root. A straight construction like "they corrupted smth" does not sound very good to me (maybe, I am wrong),  because of the everyday news where it sounds too politicized, usually like "_they corrupted themselves_". But I agree in this context it's redundant, and may keep it, or, maybe, not. My final conclusion will have to be drawn up in Russian.





Cagey said:


> Remember that _Gothice_ and _Latine_ are not nouns but adverbs.  The English equivalent would be something like "they spoke Gothicly" or "Latinly".   Instead, in English, we say "they spoke Gothic" or "they spoke in Latin".  In some places you have it, but not in others.
> 
> Here _plerumque_ is an adverb too.  As an adverb, it means "generally, commonly".
> 
> "having Gothic given up" I'm not sure what you mean here.  Perhaps it's a problem with the word order.  In any case, you shouldn't have a participle.  Take another look at _Gothice loqui desinebant_.
> 
> I am not certain where "managed to" comes from.
> 
> It's a matter of smoothing out a few rough spots.  Clearly, you have the basics.


----------



## Cagey

Hi Kolan,

Sorry.   In trying to be brief, I probably sounded too harsh.

Yes, "managed to" has the effect you say. Leave it in.  It's a nice touch. 

I was trying to catch possible problems only with your Latin.  The interpretive choices you make in the wording of your translation are rightfully yours.  

Because you had grasped the basic meaning of the Latin, I realized that some of what I saw as "Latin errors" might be difficulties in the English wording, or my own limitations.  

Cagey


----------



## Spectre scolaire

My understanding of the context around the passage in Latin is that _Gothic was not normally considered as a written language_. The whole article is about whether or not Scaliger really knew about a New Testament written in Gothic, and whether this ms. could have been the famous _Codex Argenteus _(which is by all standards unique). The author (de Jonge) is doubtful about both hypotheses. 

The passage – partly in oldish French, partly in clumsy Latin – says something about the lack of Gothic influence in Spain. Whether the “author” has a wish to diminish any possible Gothic contribution to civilization to zilch, or whether it was a fact that “Les Goths n’ont point laissé de trace de leur language ny[sic] en Espagne, ny[sic] en Gaule”, I am not qualified to judge. The only interesting points I am able to glean from the Latin passage are the following:

1) Gothic was not a written language. When writing was an imperative, the Goths – as everybody else! – would use Latin.

2) A language shift had already occured among Goths before they were completely subdued. 

So, paraphrasing the Latin passage, we would get something like:

“The Goths used to speak Gothic between them, but generally they [also] spoke Latin.a) Until they were completely subdued, they would do all their paperwork in Latin.b) Even before that [i.e. their complete subduction], they had ceased to speak Gothic and instead they butchered the Latin language,c) the language which eventually developed into Spanish.”d) 

a) This does not make sens unless we see “Latin” as “rustica Romana lingua”. When this passage was written there was no understanding of Romance languages having developed from a colloquial variety of Latin and not from (Classical) Latin itself. Of course, the Goths did not speak bookish Latin. They would speak the same vernacular as people around them. But I am sure there were some _scribes_ among them who could generate good enough Latin for administrative purposes. 

b) I suppose that _after_ their subduction there would be no more need to write anything administrative...

c) Everybody “butchered” the Latin language – even the descendents of those who arrived in the first place with their Latin vernacular. 

d) The process of language change was earlier considered to be a “degeneration”. It still is in certain cultures where a prestigious written language and its modern vernaculars live side by side in a _diglossic_ relationship (as Arabic). Today corruption is called “[normal] language change” and degeneration is called ...well, “generating a new language.”

I don’t know whether these comments are of any importance except to myself.
 ​


----------



## Cagey

Spectre scolaire said:


> I don’t know whether these comments are of any importance except to myself.
> ​



Your comments are illuminating and on a subject in which I have a great interest.  

Thanks, 

Cagey


----------

