# Tiberim accendre nequaquam potest



## grubble

Hello

I think that  "Tiberim accendre nequaquam potest" means something like "You can't set the Tiber on fire"  (impersonal _you_).  However it is many, many years since I studied any Latin.

Am I close to the meaning?


----------



## uchi.m

Nequaquam Tiberim accensus

It seems that nequaquam needs a noun clause soon after itself. That's why I used a verb in the participle tense.


----------



## Flaminius

uchi.m said:


> Nequaquam Tiberim accensus
> 
> It seems that nequaquam needs a noun clause soon after itself.


An adverb like _nequaquam_ (never) can be inserted quite freely in the sentence.  It does not alter the sentence structure.

The correct Latin sentence is _Tiberim accendere nequaquam potest_, which is structurally:
It is never possible to set the Tiber on fire.

As the subject of _potest_ is the infinitive _accendere_ you might want to use the impersonal _you_ for a natural English translation.


----------



## Ricardinho

uchi.m said:


> Nequaquam Tiberim accensus
> 
> It seems that nequaquam needs a noun clause soon after itself. That's why I used a verb in the participle tense.



What would be the most direct and literal equivalents possible for "se" and "possivel" in Latin?   Example:  "não é possivel acender o Tiber" or "não se pode acender..."?

Assuming, of course, that a literal and direct equivalent even exists...


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes



> I think that  "Tiberim accendre nequaquam potest" means something like "You can't set the Tiber on fire"  (impersonal _you_).  However it is many, many years since I studied any Latin.
> 
> Am I close to the meaning?



Yes you are. But (i) the infinitive is _accend*E*re_; (ii) _pace_ Flaminius (#3), _nequaquam_ implies, but does not say, "never". It means "in no way what[so]ever", "by no means (whatsoever)".

Flaminius  is however right, that the position of the adverb in a sentence is (as  in English), entirely flexible according to the emphasis of the sentence  as a whole.

To ricardinho (#4)



> What would be the most direct and literal equivalents possible for "se"  and "possivel" in Latin?   Example:  "não é possivel acender o Tiber"  or "não se pode acender..."?



This is perhaps rather for the English Forum rather than the Latin, but here are some possibilities:

"One can by no means set fire to the Tiber"
"No-one can in any way set fire to the Tiber"
"It is impossible/not possible to set fire to the Tiber"
"You [impersonal - as in grubble's original query] can't in any way set fire to the Tiber"
"The Tiber can in no way be set alight"

Late Latin (and probably vulgar classical Latin, at least as is reflected in Romance) probably allowed the impersonal reflexive _se_  + verb for a general statement (It. "si danserá", "there will be  dancing"), particularly in the light of such well established classical  usages as the impersonal passive with verbs of motion (_ventum est_, "there was an arrival" = "They came").


----------



## Ricardinho

Scholiast said:


> This is perhaps rather for the English Forum rather than the Latin, but here are some possibilities:
> 
> "One can by no means set fire to the Tiber"
> "No-one can in any way set fire to the Tiber"
> "It is impossible/not possible to set fire to the Tiber"
> "You [impersonal - as in grubble's original query] can't in any way set fire to the Tiber"
> "The Tiber can in no way be set alight"
> 
> Late Latin (and probably vulgar classical Latin, at least as is reflected in Romance) probably allowed the impersonal reflexive _se_  + verb for a general statement (It. "si danserá", "there will be  dancing"), particularly in the light of such well established classical  usages as the impersonal passive with verbs of motion (_ventum est_, "there was an arrival" = "They came").



No, I know all the ways of saying that in English; I meant what are the equivalents in Latin of "se" and "possivel".     While, for example, "se" is reflexive and can be used to say "se pode", "se" also means "one" and can thus be either taken as a reflexive passive "it is possible" or it can mean "one can".   So I was looking for, is there specifically a word in Latin which means "one"?   Or do you simply say "id facere potest" and the "_one_ can do it" is understood with no direct word in Latin to represent it?    

And then for possivel/possible, does a word in Classical Latin exist such as "possibile"?


----------



## Scholiast

salvete iterum!

I regret to say that uchi.m's proposal (#2) 





> Nequaquam Tiberim accensus



is virtually meaningless. At best it could be taken as "[having been] set alight in no way as regards the Tiber..." and it lacks a finite verb to complete the sense.


----------



## Scholiast

Salve Ricardinho

I apologise, I had perhaps not fully understood your query.

_possibilis_ exists, but it is post-classical, and does not exactly equate either to English "possible" or Portugu. "possivel".

As to your question about specifically English idiom, this may still belong in another forum, but at risk of incurring a Moderator's wrath:

To the best of my knowledge, there are no _idiomatic_ English ways of expressing strictly in conformity with the Latin (or Fr., or It., Portugu.) reflexive pronoun the impersonal "one" or "you".

I suspect that this has more to do with the way in which English, historically, has developed, than with the underlying grammar: in Anglo-Saxon, there were plenty of reflexive verbs. But modern English has, so to speak, "lost" the rules there - but not wholly the plot, because (precisely for this reason) English remains the richest _poetic_ language in western Europe. Ooh, there's a subject for contention...

Best regards,


----------



## grubble

Many thanks to all. I was unsure particularly about  _nequaquam. _It is more emphatic than I thought.


----------

