Hurrah! I've found the sabre, or its
doppelganger!
If the sabres are identical-looking copies
(they are probably two different specimens, as one of them possibly has <in
tuo signo> for <in hoc signo>, then the inscription should read,
approximately:
in hoc (~ tuo) signo vinces : deus
exercituum pellitor (~ pellator) fortissime esto mecum.
Dr Gyula Kedves (see the link) thinks
<pellitor> is a corruption of <bellator> 'warrior', which of course
it might be (especially if spelt <pellator>). I still suspect that
<pellator>/<pellitor> may be an ungrammatical agent noun derived
from <pello>, or a hybrid between <bellator> and <pello> --
impossible in Classical Latin, but perhaps possible in the school Latin of some
Hungarians in the early 18th century. The Hungarian nobility (like their
brethren in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) were generally fluent in Latin
and used it proudly as their second spoken language, which doesn't mean that it
was always _good_ Latin.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: sword
>"exerci turim pellator"
I agree that exercituum
would be a good reading from exerciturim, because
"u" could so easily have
been read as "ri". I'm less happy with "pellator".
This would be an -a-
stem formation from a 3rd conjugation verb. Are there
any
examples at all of -ator nouns from 3rd conjugation verbs?
My suggestion
of exercitus impellator has "s" read as "r" - which is no
means
impossible! I've been trying to find evidence for "impellator"
=
"imperator" (which I suggested from memory) - but alas no firm hits as
yet!
Peter
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.