> In a message dated 9/4/2007 4:54:53 PM Central Daylight Time,
> laokou@... writes:
>>>>>Num quis illud negat?
>>Well, now, this makes some sense. I was under the impression we were
>>supposed to sing this to "I've Been Workin' on the Railroad" (and why would our UK
>>cousins be such aficionados of Foster?) which wasn't working for me at all. In
>>fact, it's "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow," which works infinitely better,
>>though I'm still not loving it. At least the first line falls in line with the
>>way I sing it.
> But the last line of the Latin scans all wrong for that melody.
No, you are, I fear, mistaken. If you read back through earlier posts in
this thread you will find that the last line over here in the UK is "and
so say all of us."
If indeed you scan the English according to the classical Latin & Greek
rules of light & heavy syllables, you find that 'Num quis illud negat'
is an exact match.
However, we are more likely to be thinking, in a neo-Latin version of an
English song, of stressed and unstressed syllables. Again the two
and SO say ALL of US
num QUIS ilLUD neGAT
OK - it's not the stress of Latin prose, but it is certainly a possible
stress pattern to be thrown up by the Latin heavy & light syllable verse
If we consider Roger's 'quod nemo negare potest' version, this is
intended to follow the US version in which the last line is "Which
nobody can deny." Now here there is an apparent conflict - the Latin has
eight syllables but the American has only seven. However, as Roger Mills
pointed out, the American version makes 'can' a "virtual disyllabic" - I
> US: ...which nobody ca-an deny (8 syllables, extended "can"; or 7 if not)
As Roger is American and I am not, I must take his word that this is so.
This again we have a correspondence:
which NObody CA-an deNY
quod NEmo neGAre potEST
Indeed the stresses in 'quod nemo negare potest' actually correspond
with ordinary prose stressing except for the last word.
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.