| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eris Quod Sum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eris Quod Sum. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eris Quod Sum at the Reference desk. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Why ? edit
A TV show that no one knows has completely parasitized the Latin sentence with an origin I was searching. Wikipedia is useless as a tool since it has been colonized by morons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.136.35 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Translation edit
I see, after having edited this article, that there have been multiple edits on translation. There are two words in Latin that spring immediately to mind. Quod, the first, is 'because'. The second variation is the neuter gender, nominative case, of 'qui', which is a relative pronoun. Horace used the phrase "Eram quod es; Eris quod sum" to describe a state of being. It was often used on gravestones in New England. If you want to use the existential "because", then just try to apply it to the first half of the phrase: "I was because you are." That doesn't even make sense. It's properly: I was what you are, I am what you will be. The More You Know! 75.138.38.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC).
- Actually, if one translated "quod" as because, the phrase would translate to "You will be because I am" (not that I think this is how it should be translated). Actually, I think that if anyone finds a source that states that the phrase is from Horace, he/she should put the whole reference to "Eram quod es; Eris quod sum" in the text, along with the translation, and end this once and for all. I don't think it's superfluous, it might give some insight on the episode's events, but we'll see that when the show airs. --Lolmaster (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was looking this up myself, and even verified with my college Latin teacher, who said that you cannot use relational forms with the "to be" verbs. So it should be translated as 'because' - this isn't necessarily wrong, since the show does involve time travel to an extent. Asterlacnala (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Further lookup - quod can be that as a relative pronoun, but only in the accusative case, not the nominative case. Since "to be" doesn't use accusative case, it only equates nominative cases, then the word for "what" would be qua: Eris qua sum. Asterlacnala (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but you and your latin teacher are wrong. 'Quod' can be use with relatives, what is your source? Horace was a great poet so is he wrong because you can't use a relative with verb to be? Or did Horace was just someone who didn't know how to write (considering that the phrase should be translated as "You will be because I am")? English is not a romance language but almost all languages share some syntax. So in english as in spanish as in latin, you can use a relative with verb "to be" Besides, 'quod' is NEUTRAL which means nominative AND acusative cases are exactly the same. You can ask your teacher about that (no offense). 'Qua' is the PLURAL form of the NEUTRAL relative in nominative and accusative cases. Remember that the plural has three identical forms: nominative, accusative and vocative (but relatives lack vocative). On a side note, qua is also an adverb. Saturn orfeo (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)