Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [pepysdiary] That 'other Diary' again.

Expand Messages
  • Eric Mills
    Terry, Thanks for the link which is really helpful - However, the aforementioned roman numeral grouping does not fit, as far as I can see, any of the valid
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 13, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Terry,
      Thanks for the link which is really helpful - However, the aforementioned roman numeral grouping does not fit, as far as I can see, any of the valid permutations. Accordingly, I've assumed a "printer's error" as (translated) CMDXXXIV still doesn't seem possible but what about MDXXXIV which I think is 1534 as the date 1538 (arabic numerals) is mentioned in the text nearby.

      If you, or anyone else, can confirm or elucidate further I would appreciate it no end.

      In friendship,
      Eric.





      To: pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com
      From: terry.foreman@...
      Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:12:16 -0500
      Subject: Re: [pepysdiary] That 'other Diary' again.

       
      Eric this is a link to Roman numeral deciphering (sorry, bad pun):  http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/roman/howtheywork.htm

      Terry



      On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Phil Gyford <lists@...> wrote:


      Hi,

      I'm not sure if you realise you sent this to the list, rather than just me, Eric, but I'll reply to the list because... I know little about Latin or the details of Roman dates, so maybe someone else here has an idea...?

      Similarly with your request for someone to help with Latin translations. Anyone?

      Re the current/next days... I'd concentrate on what would make most sense for the reader, rather than making things difficult for you and them by trying to stick to what seems "authentic". For example, occasionally Pepys' entries seemed to span from one day to the next, but I broke them into two separate days, often separating them mid-sentence, because it just makes more sense as a day-by-day reading experience.

      Similarly, as we know, Pepys often caught up on his diary entries several days at a time. Even if we knew exactly when he'd done this, and when he'd written what, it still makes sense to display them as separate days, as if they were written on that day. Maybe look at it as grouping text that's about a particular day, rather than written on a particular day.

      Phil

      On 12 Jun, 2012, at 17:44, Eric Mills wrote:



      Hello Phil,

      I need a little bit of help with a date quoted in a Latin inscription that is referred to by John Evelyn in his Diary. The inscribed date contains a 'backward-C' ... which seems to have many possible interpretations (one of which, I believe, is to halve the previous numeral). Any way the point is that I can't make head nor tail of it, so any help would be appreciated.

      The date in question is something like:
      CC(Backward C).I(Backward C).XXXIV.

      For your information, interest and delectation, I am in the middle of the year 1645 on a page-per-day basis of his Dairy - but his 'days' are sometimes very 'aboutish' and it results in puzzlingly double-entried dates. Only a few more (!) to go to 1706.

      On that subject - I may have to restrict myself to 'dated' entries and treat the 'Next day' as part of a day that was, seemingly retro-written and recalled later for the dated entry. 

      New subject: Can you point me at a reasonable Latinist who would be willing to help with accented Latin translations ? (My Latin stopped at being able to identify the error in the translation of "Non Rex sum, sed Caesar" into "I am not Caesar, said Caesar" that I saw recently.)

      I am still, in my spare time, ploughing the furrow regarding our mutual friend Samuel ... talk about prolific ... There are so many byways to explore - Thank Gawd, I'm retired.

      In friendship,
      Eric.






      -- 
      Phil Gyford









    • terry foreman
      Eric, MDXXXIV is 1534. Here s a decoder of standard Roman Numerals. http://literacy.kent.edu/Minigrants/Cinci/romanchart.htm There are also others online.
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 13, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Eric,

        MDXXXIV is 1534. 

        Here's a decoder of standard Roman Numerals.  http://literacy.kent.edu/Minigrants/Cinci/romanchart.htm

        There are also others online.

        Terry

        On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Eric Mills <ericmills1936@...> wrote:


        Terry,
        Thanks for the link which is really helpful - However, the aforementioned roman numeral grouping does not fit, as far as I can see, any of the valid permutations. Accordingly, I've assumed a "printer's error" as (translated) CMDXXXIV still doesn't seem possible but what about MDXXXIV which I think is 1534 as the date 1538 (arabic numerals) is mentioned in the text nearby.

        If you, or anyone else, can confirm or elucidate further I would appreciate it no end.

        In friendship,
        Eric.





        To: pepysdiary@yahoogroups.com
        From: terry.foreman@...
        Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:12:16 -0500
        Subject: Re: [pepysdiary] That 'other Diary' again.


         
        Eric this is a link to Roman numeral deciphering (sorry, bad pun):  http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/roman/howtheywork.htm

        Terry



        On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Phil Gyford <lists@...> wrote:


        Hi,

        I'm not sure if you realise you sent this to the list, rather than just me, Eric, but I'll reply to the list because... I know little about Latin or the details of Roman dates, so maybe someone else here has an idea...?

        Similarly with your request for someone to help with Latin translations. Anyone?

        Re the current/next days... I'd concentrate on what would make most sense for the reader, rather than making things difficult for you and them by trying to stick to what seems "authentic". For example, occasionally Pepys' entries seemed to span from one day to the next, but I broke them into two separate days, often separating them mid-sentence, because it just makes more sense as a day-by-day reading experience.

        Similarly, as we know, Pepys often caught up on his diary entries several days at a time. Even if we knew exactly when he'd done this, and when he'd written what, it still makes sense to display them as separate days, as if they were written on that day. Maybe look at it as grouping text that's about a particular day, rather than written on a particular day.

        Phil

        On 12 Jun, 2012, at 17:44, Eric Mills wrote:



        Hello Phil,

        I need a little bit of help with a date quoted in a Latin inscription that is referred to by John Evelyn in his Diary. The inscribed date contains a 'backward-C' ... which seems to have many possible interpretations (one of which, I believe, is to halve the previous numeral). Any way the point is that I can't make head nor tail of it, so any help would be appreciated.

        The date in question is something like:
        CC(Backward C).I(Backward C).XXXIV.

        For your information, interest and delectation, I am in the middle of the year 1645 on a page-per-day basis of his Dairy - but his 'days' are sometimes very 'aboutish' and it results in puzzlingly double-entried dates. Only a few more (!) to go to 1706.

        On that subject - I may have to restrict myself to 'dated' entries and treat the 'Next day' as part of a day that was, seemingly retro-written and recalled later for the dated entry. 

        New subject: Can you point me at a reasonable Latinist who would be willing to help with accented Latin translations ? (My Latin stopped at being able to identify the error in the translation of "Non Rex sum, sed Caesar" into "I am not Caesar, said Caesar" that I saw recently.)

        I am still, in my spare time, ploughing the furrow regarding our mutual friend Samuel ... talk about prolific ... There are so many byways to explore - Thank Gawd, I'm retired.

        In friendship,
        Eric.






        -- 
        Phil Gyford












      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.