At 10,31 +0100 01/14/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear Tony :
> the word "Letumq." is an abbreviation of "Letumque",
> where "Letum" means "death" ("lethal" comes from this word)
> and "que" is nothing but the conjunction "and" .
> Inermus is referred to "me" .
> The verb Invado means also "to catch someone by surprise"
> Therefore in my opinion the translation is :
> "Time runs away fast and death catches[me,being]defenceless"
>
> Best regards
>
> Alberto Nicelli
> Italy ( 45* 28' N ; 7* 52' E)
I think Alberto is overlooking the fact that the adjective 'inermus' is in
the nominative case and so *as the inscription stands* cannot modify an
understood 'me' construed as direct object of 'invadit' in
Hora Fugit Rapide Letumque invadit inermus.
The problem is that the inscription is syntactically a bit of a mess. The
question is whether one should read
(a) Hora Fugit Rapide Letumque invadit inermum
which can mean
1. Fast flies the hour and peaceful death enters
2. Fast flies the hour and enters peaceful death
or
(b) Hora Fugit Rapide Letusque invadit inermus
3. Fast flies the hour and peaceful death enters
The difference between 1 and 3 lies in taking Letum (neuter) or Letus
(masculine)---both attested in classical Latin---as subject of 'invadit'.
The difference between 2 and 1,3 lies in taking 'Letum' as an accusative
object of 'invadit' rather than as a neuter subject.
As for 'inermus', it derives from 'in + arma' and literally means 'without
arms'. So 'defenceless' is possible as is 'peaceful'.
I am not overwhelmed with my 'enters'. Perhaps we should follow Alberto's
lead and try 'takes us by surprise' or 'catches us' in this context (at
least in 1 and 3). By the way, I am not so sure about Alberto's 'catches
*me*': it seems a little odd to me for the sundial to be announcing its
demise alone.
Best to all, Alan
Alan C. Bowen
IRCPS
3 Nelson Ridge Road
Princeton, NJ 08540-7423 Tel./FAX (609) 466-2098
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
