this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
23 points (92.6% liked)

Latin Language

215 readers
51 users here now

Salve! Haec communitas de lingua Latina in lemmy est.

Everyone is welcome here, from absolute beginners to practically fluent speakers.

Dictata:

  1. All type of content is allowed, from questions to memes, as long as it is about Latin.
  2. Think before you post or comment.
  3. Be kind.

If you are learning Latin, be sure to check the Codex.

Some other great communities to check out:

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Corpus Christi? Quaeso - nescio quidem ubi claues meae sint! (Christ's body? Please - I don't even know where my keys would be!)

[–] b_tr3e 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Christi, indeed. Genitivus. If it had been "Jesus", however, it'd be Jesu. Because Latin is strictly rule based./s Seriously, Jesus is irregular, it's not even proper Latin and the genitive is for reasons only Iupiter might know, Jesu.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

the genitive is for reasons only Iupiter might know, Jesu.

Blame Greek:

Case Latin Greek
NOM Iēsūs Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs
ACC Iēsūm Ἰησοῦν Iēsoûn
ABL Iēsū N/A
GEN, DAT, VOC Iēsū Ἰησοῦ Iēsoû

Latin didn't borrow just the name, it borrowed the whole declension for the name. And at least in theory this should've happened with Chrīstus too, the genitive would end as *Chrīstū; but I think it was regularised because it looks like a native 2nd declension name way more than Iēsūs does.

[–] b_tr3e 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes. Most of the middle eastern transcripts were into ancient Greek. I doubt, however, that anyone out in rural Palestine of 0 BC was speaking Greek so the origins should be somewhat more obscure.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I doubt, however, that anyone out in rural Palestine of 0 BC was speaking Greek so the origins should be somewhat more obscure.

The root was likely borrowed from Aramaic or Hebrew. However the origin of the genitive itself is Greek - unlike Latin, Greek typically didn't borrow full declension tables, it borrowed the root and plopped a native Greek declension. And that's clearly the case here, none of the Semitic languages use an -s for the base form, so Greek changed even the nominative:

  • Aramaic: ישוע yešūʿ /jeˈʃuʕ/
  • Hebrew (syncopated, Tiberian reading): יֵשׁוּעַ /jeːˈʃuːʕ/ [jeˑˈʃuː.aʕ]
  • Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs /i.e:.su:s/