Another Oration from Ganellus - not sure about grammar

[Rufus Coppertop]

Can anyone help with the section underlined in blue?

I just can't make any sense of it.

It seems to read - non sinas perire inis animarum quam tui generis est....................... may you not permit to perish (non sinas perire) inis (you undertake) animarum (of the souls) quam (which) tui generis est (is of your kind)

Again - where is the accusative for non sinas perire? is it quam? and if it is, shouldn't it be quas? but if it is, what is est doing there? est as in tui generis est?

Any help or advice will be gratefully received and acknowledged when I finish the transcription and post on FB Western Medieval Magic .

 

[Pacifica]

Non sinas perire (meam/mihi/mis?) animam quae tui generis est.

Not sure about the fourth word. Meam might have been more expected but I'm not sure the second letter can be read as an e. Mihi would make sense too. But the last letter looks like an s. Mis is an archaic genitive of ego; thus mis animam could mean "the soul of me". It would be an extremely unusual wording but who knows.

 

[Pacifica]

Not sure about animam either. If it's animarum, the previous word should be the accusative of something, but what?

 

[cinefactus]

unas? although the penultimate letter looks like an i.

 

[Pacifica]

Plus unus isn't a word you normally find in the plural (except when applied to plurale tantum nouns). Also, the antecedent of quae ... est must be singular anyway.

 

[Pacifica]

Unam might make sense... but I'm not sure the word as it stands could be it. Now, there's always the possibility of a scribal mistake...

 

[cinefactus]

Unam might make sense... but I'm not sure the word as it stands could be it. Now, there's always the possibility of a scribal mistake...

Yes, the number is a problem...

 

[cinefactus]

I found a text version here, in Oracio 17.76
There are some examples in Capelli of q̄ being quae.

 

[Pacifica]

The relative definitely is quae; quam wouldn't make sense.

The text in the link has mis for the most doubtful word, but there's no guarantee that it's correct.

 

[Pacifica]

The text in the link has mis for the most doubtful word, but there's no guarantee that it's correct.

It has mis again a little later, where mihi seems needed:

stabili mis hospicium sursum in tuo regno

So mihi is perhaps the best conjecture for this mystery word.

Maybe Rufus could send us a picture of this other line so we can check if the mis/mihi here is indeed the same word as the first.

 

[Pacifica]

Hm, but no, mis appears many, many times throughout the link, actually... often in places where a possessive (meam or meum etc.) is needed, rather than mihi.

Maybe we need pictures of several of those.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

Thanks a ton for your input, both of you. It never occurred to me to check and read through my own copy of Liber Trium Animarum.

Lewis and Short lists mis as an early and uncommon form of genitive reflexive pronoun of ego.

 

[Pacifica]

Mis is an archaic genitive of ego; thus mis animam could mean "the soul of me". It would be an extremely unusual wording but who knows.