[The Club Dumas] Can you crack this Latin code?

[jester47]

Note: Medieval latin is a very different creature than classical latin. I think you might be translating medieval latin.

Aaron.

 

[tarchon]

Note: Medieval latin is a very different creature than classical latin. I think you might be translating medieval latin.

Me you? Inasmuch as the syntax can be determined, it sounds like it's using Medievalish grammar, since in one place it may be saying po(l)l(i)ceor q(uam) so-and-so. The vocabulary is distinctly Medieval.
Trust me on this - if you can't read Latin, you can't appreciate how corrupt this text is. "for.icab tr.d.o,.os.ta int." What the hell - so to speak - is ".os.ta" supposed to mean? Some word that starts with one or more letters, contains "os" and may end in "ta," though the text feels free to leave off inflections at random with no notation, so really all we know is that this is some word that contains "os" and "ta" probably followed by inter. Under no circumstances does any historical convention allow abbreviations that drop the first letter. hospitalitas, sororitas,positarum? There are hundreds of possibilities.
The words before it - from context probably fornicabis but the next one is dicey traducto, traditione?
It's possible that it got mangled in transcription, since portions of it make sense. When I used to do these on genealogy groups, 90% of the time, the poster would copy a large fraction of the letters wrong, so I'd have to go back and forth for 3 or 4 posts with stuff like "Are you sure 'daptix.' isn't 'baptiz.'?" It can work with formulaic texts, but it you don't already know what 90% of it says, it's just a lot of speculation.

 

[nikolai]

Tarchon, thanks for all your assistance. You've been fantastic, I'm very grateful.

It's possible that it got mangled in transcription, since portions of it make sense.

I think my transcription is accurate. I went over it as carefully as I could. There may be one or two minor slip ups, but nothing to cause the level of corruption you say is there. I've checked and all your examples are in the text.

The deliberate obscurity may be deliberate. The Nine Doors is supposed to be an arcane text that only initiates who have studied that sort of stuff intensely would be able to interpret. The intention may be that you'd have to be intensely familiar with esoteric language to substitute some of what's there.

What the hell - so to speak - is ".os.ta" supposed to mean? Some word that starts with one or more letters, contains "os" and may end in "ta," though the text feels free to leave off inflections at random with no notation, so really all we know is that this is some word that contains "os" and "ta"...

I get what you're saying. I thought I'd enter some of the other examples of interpreted code (from the woodcut captions, translated in Chapter 11). How correct is the latin given, and its translation into english?

I: Nem. perv.t qui n.n leg. cert.rit
I: Nemo pervenit qui non legitime certaverit
I: Only he who has fought according to the rules will succeed.

II: Claus. pat.t
II: Clausae patent
II: They open that which is closed.

III: Verb. d.sum c.s.t arcan.
III: Verbum dimissum custodiat arcanum
III: The lost word keeps the secret.

IIII: For. n.n omn. a.que
IIII: Fortuna non omnibus aeque
IIII: Fate is not the same for all.

V: Fr.st.a
V: Frustra
V: In vain.

VI: Dit.sco m.o.
VI: Ditesco mori
VI: I am enriched by death.

VII: Dis.s p.ti.r m.
VII: Discipulus potior magistro
VII: The disciple surpasses the master.

VIII: Vic. i.t Vir.
VIII: Victa iacet Virtus
VIII: Virtue lies defeated.

VIIII: N.nc sc.o ten.br. lux
VIIII: Nuco scio tenebris lux
VIIII: Now I know that from darkness comes light.

Thanks.

 

[tarchon]

II: Claus. pat.t
II: Clausae patent
II: They open that which is closed.

IIII: For. n.n omn. a.que
IIII: Fortuna non omnibus aeque
IIII: Fate is not the same for all.

VI: Dit.sco m.o.
VI: Ditesco mori
VI: I am enriched by death.

VIIII: N.nc sc.o ten.br. lux
VIIII: Nuco scio tenebris lux
VIIII: Now I know that from darkness comes light.

Several aren't quite right.
One problem with Claus. pat.t would be that it's ambiguous. Could mean closed things are open, closed things will be open, a closed thing will be open, closed [gates] are open, let closed things be open, etc. The translation is also wrong. Pateo is intransitive, meaning "to be open" (compare "to gape" in English). If I say X patet that means "X is open." To say "Y opens X" requires an entirely different verb, usually aperio. "They open that which is closed" would be clausas aperiunt (or literally aperiunt quae clausae [sunt]) , assuming the "thats" are gates (portae). A more subtle aspect is that pateo is stative so it can only indicate that the closed things are open a particular time. It can't indicate that anything is in the process of opening, for which you need its inceptive cousin patesco or a passive of aperio.

clausae patesсunt - closed things are opening
clausae patent - closed things are open
clausas aperiunt - they are opening or they open closed things

Also, the conventional way to abbreviate it would be more like clausae pate~ or possibly something like clau~ pat~ if it were a well known formula. Something like Jas Smith f Joh ob aet XIX an rip wouldn't be unusual on a tombstone. However, when writing out the terms of your pact with Satan with regard to the exact number of virgins involved, you probably are better off not sparing the ink... or blood anyway.

 

[tarchon]

I did like the movie quite a bit. I didn't go look for the book, partly because I don't read fiction much, but also I had a feeling that the ambiguities between the gnostic and orthodox Weltanschauungen that were in the movie wouldn't be so ambiguous in the book, and that was a big part of its charm. Lot of good discussions on it on IMDB, though many people can't really get beyond seeing it in terms of the Omen.

 

[nikolai]

Thanks. The translations given are those made by one character in the novel. So there is wriggle room for an imperfect translation. I'm glad the latin is valid, even if it's a little ambiguous (which, in context, may be a plus rather than a minus).

I don't want to say too much now, before the discussion on the 15th. But I liked the film, if only for the noirish Polanski feel. It does go downhill though, particularly at the end. It's nice to have a film about the devil that isn't all gregorian chants and horror cliches. I think, if anything, the book's more ambiguous than the film.

Again, thanks for all your help.

 

[tarchon]

I wouldn't say it was all valid - ditesco mori definitely doesn't mean "I am enriched by death" and I can't really think of any way to make sense of it. In a poetic sense, it's possible you could read it is "I am becoming rich in mulberries."

 

[tarchon]

I read it on the plane - the translation in Chapter IX "You will accept..." (p. 246 in my ed.) is what the Latin paragraph "Nos p.tens L.f.r, juv.te Stn. Blz.b, Lvtn, Elm, atq Ast.rot..." is replying to. Much of the content is parallel, "I ask for X,Y,Z...", "We will provide X,Y,Z..." It's enough to make reasonable guesses about most of the ambiguous parts.
I thought the movie was better though.