While translating this song (https://lyricstranslate.com/en/alles-ist-vorbei-its-all-over.html#songtr...) from the German language musical Artus Excalibur, it seems that a portion of the lyrics are in Latin, which no one has yet been able to transcribe. Can anyone take a look at the lyrics and see if they know what's being said? Here is the relevant part:
Link to song: https://youtu.be/jDd5N-iCCHQ?t=37
Relevant timestamp:
0:37-1:12 (It's possible they're just repeating what Morgana sings from 0:55-1:12, but I can't be sure)
For context, this is a musical about King Arthur, and what's happening in the song is that Morgana reveals to him that Lancelot and Guinevere have betrayed him. Morgana apparently uses Latin to cast a spell revealing the truth to Arthur.
There's more Latin in other parts of the song, but the previous part is the most important. If anyone wants to take a crack at the other parts, here are their timestamps, but these are less important than the beginning:
1:13-1:34 (the ensemble singing behind Morgana)
2:40-3:03 (the ensemble singing behind Arthur)
Whatever Morgana is saying from 3:10 to 3:23
Thank you in advance for any and all help!
It doesn't sound like real Latin, whatever may be the pronunciation.
1° I clearly hear the sound "ö", which is totally unknown in Latin;
2° All the words seem to have a paroxyton stress pattern, while about 2/5 of Latin words have a proparoxyton pattern ("dactylic" in technical terms, "sdrucciolo" in Italian where a similar stress system survives): stress is a major feature of Latin prosody.
On the musical ground, there might be reminiscences of K. Orff's "Carmina Burana". But we don't find here the characteristic patterns of liturgical or medieval poetry.
Thanks for your input. I wonder what language it could possibly be then. I did notice while going through some of the other songs that someone did manage to transcribe what I thought was Latin (https://lyricstranslate.com/en/s%C3%BCnden-der-v%C3%A4ter-sins-our-fathe...):
Vinculum, facti, inimicum, capient,
sagitta, magica, capturae,
agite tenebrai abyssi
ensis incendium caliginis.
It can be heard here: https://youtu.be/ZPgYnRgU7ag?t=109
Is this part in Latin? Perhaps they tried to use Latin but flubbed it somehow...
It is clearly one of those fake magical formulas, made up with latin words picked at random.
"Tenebrai" does not exist in Latin (it should be "tenebrae").
I find a number of tentative translations on the Net, all equally wrong and contrary to Latin grammar.
It is very indicative that there is not any one-syllable word, not any short grammatical word (preposition, conjunction, pronoun or adverb) which would be necessary to have real text. It is impossible to build up with that a valid Latin sentence obeying the rules of syntax.
It definitely is Latin and possibly are meaningful sentences.
I shall proceed to write what I heard and embarrass myself:
Factum obumbratum saeculo aeterno rota volvitur
(The obscured fact/deed, the wheel is turned by eternal time)
et gloriae [...] visum
(and the glories [...])
Venite adorato spiritu [...]
(Come ye, [by/through] honored soul [...])
That is all that made any sense to me. The awkward accent is not helping either.
Things seem a bit clearer in the 'sins of the fathers' bit:
Vincula, vincite omnia!
(chains, bind everything!)
Sagittam magicam fatalem [iacite]!
([hurl ye] the deadly magical arrow!)
Agite, viris [edit: vires] caliginis!
(Act ye, poisons [edit: forces] of the darkness!)
Injustam gloriam extinguite!
(destroy the glory that is unjust!)
The accent is still not helping.
"someone did manage to transcribe what I thought was Latin"
That transcription seems to be a mixture of these:
https://percyjacksonfanfiction.fandom.com/wiki/Basil_Hawkins/Spells#Sagi...
https://negima.fandom.com/wiki/Incendium_Gehennae
Maybe it is sung in a different version.
Sorry, I was wrong. But I must underline that I judged only from the words that were provided, without attempting to make a fresh transcription.
You made a fine job - but it is still perfectible: there is no need to suppose "iacite": "agite" in the following line works just the same. (And "viris" should be "vires", strengths/forces; "viris" for 'poisons' would be an unjustified ablative.)
For "Factum obumbratum saeculo aeterno rota volvitur" , I understand: "A concealed deed is rolled in eternal time (a plural would be expected) by/on a wheel (or possibly an awkward translation of 'turned round', which would be 'circumvolvitur')": there is no other way to have a subject for "volvitur".
"Adorato spiritu" is rather "after adoring the spirit".
Now, it must be admitted that it is very poor Latin: "vires caliginis" is just a schoolboy's translation of "forces of darkness" (or the like). Good Latin does not use "vis" with that meaning, but "potestas".
Agreed, the virus thing was totally wrong. As for iacite, it could indeed be a repetition of agite, very hard to tell with the accent. (Not judging anyone, I probably have a very pronounced south Indian accent when I speak any other language.)
I did not get the meaning of the square brackets around "iacite". According to our (French, and other) usage, they are used to show supplemented words. If I understand properly, you use them jus to show dubious words?
In another context, I would translate the first line as "tie every bound"; but I am unsure that "they" are aware that word-order is (almost) free in Latin.
I am not a professional linguist (?) and I have no idea about standardized notations. The square brackets simply enclosed the more dubious guesses. Is there a proper notation for that?
There is no universal system. The rules ane sometimes different for papyri & graffiti, epigraphs, clsasical texts, medieval texts, medieval charters, etc. They mainly depend on the academic journal or series you are writing for. Usually, footnotes make the things clear.
For guesses, the most obvious mark is a question mark, whatever be the style of bracket you use.
Thanks to you both for your input. Now I see a bit more clearly what the Latin in the song is supposed to be about. I really wonder how the production went about writing these Latin lyrics now!
"In another context, I would translate the first line as "tie every bound"; but I am unsure that "they" are aware that word-order is (almost) free in Latin."
Hah, I didn't catch that one. Now the OP has an answer, I am the kind of person who might write them broken Latin poetry that still sounds highly impressive. Quidquid Latine cantatum sit etc.
Now if anybody wants a more complete wildly speculative transcription of the first, with no attempt to fix the grammar:
factum obumbratum saeculo aeterno rota volvitur
et gloriae [qua mulierum calix dina visum (navisum?)]
venite adorato spiritu [Abaddon vel veo]
quis [avidu mares peto] meo adorita[s]
That is the best I can do. For once I agree with the guy shouting "das ist unmoeglich!" all over it. Much as I don't buy his story about strange women lyin' in ponds, distributing swords.
Oops! I meant "bond", of course
A very courageous effort indeed; but it seems desperate.
"dina" is not Latin, nor "navisum", "avidu", "adoritas". Could "veo" possibly be "veho" ? "mares", 'the males' is unlikely...
Unfortunateky, I am awfully bad at getting texts by earing, and quite unable to help you on this ground.
Think of it as a sort of phonetic transcription. If I could wrangle it into anything meaningful I would've posted a translation as well.
'navisum' would appear to be the plural genitive of 'navis', ship.
'adoritas' likewise from 'adorire', attack.
'avidu' could very well be 'avido', no telling with the accent gap.
'velveo' seemed like a single word. Come to think of it, maybe something to do with 'volvere'? It doesn't sound like 'veho'. On a tangent, the IE root 'veho' exists in my non-IE mother tongue, completely differently declined, and of course borrowed from Sanskrit. A vehicle is a vahanam.
Congratulationbs for your efforts. But imagination can't substitute grammar -- sorry for that.
There is no other plural genitive to "navis" than "navium". "-isum" cannot be a desinence by itself, either nominal, pronominal or verbal.
"Adoritas", if it is intended as a form of "adoriri" (not "-rire": deponent!) is a sheer barbarism. It should be "adortas" (or possibly "adorsas", unclassical).
"Avidu", with a final "-u", can only be a singular ablative of a name of the fourth declension (-us, -us). Is it a mistake for "avida", "avide", "avidi", "avido" (all possible) ... Who can tell?
"velveo" would be another monster. No philological process could account for a desinence "-eo" to be added to the "velv-/volv-" root. -- In "veho", the "h" is silent.
I'm afraid that we finally should regard this text as "would-be Latin" (rather that "fake Latin" ?).
"quis [avidu mares peto] meo adorita[s]" /////
Now I think it might be along the lines of
"quis avido malo spirito meo adorita".
meaning something like
"she who was assailed by a lustful evil soul/breath of mine"
""Adoritas", if it is intended as a form of "adoriri" (not "-rire": deponent!) is a sheer barbarism. It should be "adortas" (or possibly "adorsas", unclassical)." ///
Like I said, I am no expert and depend a lot on online dictionaries:
https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/1294/adorio-adorire-adoritus
I have "adorio" in my dictionary too, with the specification that it is an incorrect/archaical form found only on one occurrence in one of Naevius's fragments (3rd cent. before C.E.).
In any case, it would not give "adoritas".
"Quis" is interrogative: who?
"avido mali spiritu meo" would be possible (with the correct endings): by my spirit longing for evil; or possibly "... mali... mei" = my woe.
But "adorita" resists analysis.
"In any case, it would not give "adoritas"." ///
What is the feminine accusative plural of the perfect passive participle of the putative archaic fourth conjugation "adorire"?
That was a mouthful :-)
"Adortas", just the same as with the deponent form "adoriri".
After checking, there is also a late "deviant" form "Adorsas" in ecclesiasrical and mediaeval Latin.
Just to clarify, are you saying the website is wrong and 'adoritus' is wrong; or are you saying the m. sing. nom. is adoritus but f. pl. acc. is adortas?
"Adoritus, -i" is definitely a barbarism, throughout its declension.
Now, we can try to fix it by imagining something like "adoratus" (adored), "adoretis", (pres. subj., 2nd pers. plur.: that/let you adore), "aduretis" (you will burn),... or whatever you like.
:D