Making a strong machine vs. making a machine strong











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












Consider the two English expressions:




  1. He made a strong machine. (He built a machine, and the machine is a strong one.)

  2. He made the machine strong. (There was a pre-existing machine but it was not strong enough, so he improved it.)


How should I express the second kind of thing in Latin when I want to avoid interpretations of the first kind?
My intuition is to go with facere for both, with a slightly different word order:




  1. Machinam fortem fecit.

  2. Machinam fecit fortem.


However, as the word order is quite free in Latin, the distinction is not clear enough.
I would probably interpret the Latin phrases 1 and 2 both to mean the same as the English phrase 1.



It is quite possible that the best choice of words depends on context, but I am looking for an overall strategy for expressing the second English phrase.
Perhaps there is a verb for turning something into something, which could be used with adjectives and does not have the connotation of producing a new item?










share|improve this question


























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite












    Consider the two English expressions:




    1. He made a strong machine. (He built a machine, and the machine is a strong one.)

    2. He made the machine strong. (There was a pre-existing machine but it was not strong enough, so he improved it.)


    How should I express the second kind of thing in Latin when I want to avoid interpretations of the first kind?
    My intuition is to go with facere for both, with a slightly different word order:




    1. Machinam fortem fecit.

    2. Machinam fecit fortem.


    However, as the word order is quite free in Latin, the distinction is not clear enough.
    I would probably interpret the Latin phrases 1 and 2 both to mean the same as the English phrase 1.



    It is quite possible that the best choice of words depends on context, but I am looking for an overall strategy for expressing the second English phrase.
    Perhaps there is a verb for turning something into something, which could be used with adjectives and does not have the connotation of producing a new item?










    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite











      Consider the two English expressions:




      1. He made a strong machine. (He built a machine, and the machine is a strong one.)

      2. He made the machine strong. (There was a pre-existing machine but it was not strong enough, so he improved it.)


      How should I express the second kind of thing in Latin when I want to avoid interpretations of the first kind?
      My intuition is to go with facere for both, with a slightly different word order:




      1. Machinam fortem fecit.

      2. Machinam fecit fortem.


      However, as the word order is quite free in Latin, the distinction is not clear enough.
      I would probably interpret the Latin phrases 1 and 2 both to mean the same as the English phrase 1.



      It is quite possible that the best choice of words depends on context, but I am looking for an overall strategy for expressing the second English phrase.
      Perhaps there is a verb for turning something into something, which could be used with adjectives and does not have the connotation of producing a new item?










      share|improve this question













      Consider the two English expressions:




      1. He made a strong machine. (He built a machine, and the machine is a strong one.)

      2. He made the machine strong. (There was a pre-existing machine but it was not strong enough, so he improved it.)


      How should I express the second kind of thing in Latin when I want to avoid interpretations of the first kind?
      My intuition is to go with facere for both, with a slightly different word order:




      1. Machinam fortem fecit.

      2. Machinam fecit fortem.


      However, as the word order is quite free in Latin, the distinction is not clear enough.
      I would probably interpret the Latin phrases 1 and 2 both to mean the same as the English phrase 1.



      It is quite possible that the best choice of words depends on context, but I am looking for an overall strategy for expressing the second English phrase.
      Perhaps there is a verb for turning something into something, which could be used with adjectives and does not have the connotation of producing a new item?







      syntax word-choice






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 2 days ago









      Joonas Ilmavirta

      44.5k1056257




      44.5k1056257






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          You could say Machinam firmavit. Here is the corresponding L&S page.



          Another option would be Machinam fortificavit. Literally, the verb means fortem fecit, "fortified", though L&S point out fortĭfĭco is postclassical. They give Caelius Aurelianus as a reference, who lived in the fifth century AD.



          It seems there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was "to make something get a certain quality". Other examples are:





          • gravo, as, avi, atum, āre (to make heavy, or to make painful)


          • stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre (to make stable)


          • aequo, as, avi, atum, āre ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in pugnam aequare)


          A general strategy, though often but not always within Ecclesiastical and Medieval Latin, and not necessarily leading to actual words, is to compound the adjective and facio, giving birth to words such as fortifico, vilifico, nullifico, mortifico - the pattern is pretty clear, and still used in Italian to make new verbs, such as vanificare.






          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks! These are indeed good words for many contexts (+1), but I don't think they make a good general strategy. Deriving new verbs from can get cumbersome. What would you do with hermeticus and vilis instead of fortis, for example? (It's well possible that there simply is no general strategy, of course.)
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago










          • @Joonas: With viliis I would say contemno, abicio or deprimo are good options. I think a general strategy is unlikely, especially if one wants to stick with classical or postclassical terms. Medieval Latin may have been better at that, e.g. advilire was used by Dante, and from that came the Italian avvilire.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago












          • @Joonas: Let me know if my edit is at least mildly satisfying.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago










          • It is indeed satisfying. I agree that in many cases the specific verbs are best, but the -ificare derivative looks like a good general strategy that can be used with just about any adjective. Such derivations are not exactly good classical style, but sometimes one has to let go of that in order to communicate modern things clearly.
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago






          • 1




            Yes, I guess it can be inevitable. Glad I could help!
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "644"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7578%2fmaking-a-strong-machine-vs-making-a-machine-strong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          6
          down vote













          You could say Machinam firmavit. Here is the corresponding L&S page.



          Another option would be Machinam fortificavit. Literally, the verb means fortem fecit, "fortified", though L&S point out fortĭfĭco is postclassical. They give Caelius Aurelianus as a reference, who lived in the fifth century AD.



          It seems there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was "to make something get a certain quality". Other examples are:





          • gravo, as, avi, atum, āre (to make heavy, or to make painful)


          • stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre (to make stable)


          • aequo, as, avi, atum, āre ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in pugnam aequare)


          A general strategy, though often but not always within Ecclesiastical and Medieval Latin, and not necessarily leading to actual words, is to compound the adjective and facio, giving birth to words such as fortifico, vilifico, nullifico, mortifico - the pattern is pretty clear, and still used in Italian to make new verbs, such as vanificare.






          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks! These are indeed good words for many contexts (+1), but I don't think they make a good general strategy. Deriving new verbs from can get cumbersome. What would you do with hermeticus and vilis instead of fortis, for example? (It's well possible that there simply is no general strategy, of course.)
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago










          • @Joonas: With viliis I would say contemno, abicio or deprimo are good options. I think a general strategy is unlikely, especially if one wants to stick with classical or postclassical terms. Medieval Latin may have been better at that, e.g. advilire was used by Dante, and from that came the Italian avvilire.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago












          • @Joonas: Let me know if my edit is at least mildly satisfying.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago










          • It is indeed satisfying. I agree that in many cases the specific verbs are best, but the -ificare derivative looks like a good general strategy that can be used with just about any adjective. Such derivations are not exactly good classical style, but sometimes one has to let go of that in order to communicate modern things clearly.
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago






          • 1




            Yes, I guess it can be inevitable. Glad I could help!
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago















          up vote
          6
          down vote













          You could say Machinam firmavit. Here is the corresponding L&S page.



          Another option would be Machinam fortificavit. Literally, the verb means fortem fecit, "fortified", though L&S point out fortĭfĭco is postclassical. They give Caelius Aurelianus as a reference, who lived in the fifth century AD.



          It seems there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was "to make something get a certain quality". Other examples are:





          • gravo, as, avi, atum, āre (to make heavy, or to make painful)


          • stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre (to make stable)


          • aequo, as, avi, atum, āre ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in pugnam aequare)


          A general strategy, though often but not always within Ecclesiastical and Medieval Latin, and not necessarily leading to actual words, is to compound the adjective and facio, giving birth to words such as fortifico, vilifico, nullifico, mortifico - the pattern is pretty clear, and still used in Italian to make new verbs, such as vanificare.






          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks! These are indeed good words for many contexts (+1), but I don't think they make a good general strategy. Deriving new verbs from can get cumbersome. What would you do with hermeticus and vilis instead of fortis, for example? (It's well possible that there simply is no general strategy, of course.)
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago










          • @Joonas: With viliis I would say contemno, abicio or deprimo are good options. I think a general strategy is unlikely, especially if one wants to stick with classical or postclassical terms. Medieval Latin may have been better at that, e.g. advilire was used by Dante, and from that came the Italian avvilire.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago












          • @Joonas: Let me know if my edit is at least mildly satisfying.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago










          • It is indeed satisfying. I agree that in many cases the specific verbs are best, but the -ificare derivative looks like a good general strategy that can be used with just about any adjective. Such derivations are not exactly good classical style, but sometimes one has to let go of that in order to communicate modern things clearly.
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago






          • 1




            Yes, I guess it can be inevitable. Glad I could help!
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago













          up vote
          6
          down vote










          up vote
          6
          down vote









          You could say Machinam firmavit. Here is the corresponding L&S page.



          Another option would be Machinam fortificavit. Literally, the verb means fortem fecit, "fortified", though L&S point out fortĭfĭco is postclassical. They give Caelius Aurelianus as a reference, who lived in the fifth century AD.



          It seems there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was "to make something get a certain quality". Other examples are:





          • gravo, as, avi, atum, āre (to make heavy, or to make painful)


          • stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre (to make stable)


          • aequo, as, avi, atum, āre ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in pugnam aequare)


          A general strategy, though often but not always within Ecclesiastical and Medieval Latin, and not necessarily leading to actual words, is to compound the adjective and facio, giving birth to words such as fortifico, vilifico, nullifico, mortifico - the pattern is pretty clear, and still used in Italian to make new verbs, such as vanificare.






          share|improve this answer














          You could say Machinam firmavit. Here is the corresponding L&S page.



          Another option would be Machinam fortificavit. Literally, the verb means fortem fecit, "fortified", though L&S point out fortĭfĭco is postclassical. They give Caelius Aurelianus as a reference, who lived in the fifth century AD.



          It seems there was a specific word for just about every case in which the intended meaning was "to make something get a certain quality". Other examples are:





          • gravo, as, avi, atum, āre (to make heavy, or to make painful)


          • stabilio, is, ivi, itum, īre (to make stable)


          • aequo, as, avi, atum, āre ( to equal, match someone/something, or to make something uncertain as in pugnam aequare)


          A general strategy, though often but not always within Ecclesiastical and Medieval Latin, and not necessarily leading to actual words, is to compound the adjective and facio, giving birth to words such as fortifico, vilifico, nullifico, mortifico - the pattern is pretty clear, and still used in Italian to make new verbs, such as vanificare.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 2 days ago

























          answered 2 days ago









          Vincenzo Oliva

          62211




          62211












          • Thanks! These are indeed good words for many contexts (+1), but I don't think they make a good general strategy. Deriving new verbs from can get cumbersome. What would you do with hermeticus and vilis instead of fortis, for example? (It's well possible that there simply is no general strategy, of course.)
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago










          • @Joonas: With viliis I would say contemno, abicio or deprimo are good options. I think a general strategy is unlikely, especially if one wants to stick with classical or postclassical terms. Medieval Latin may have been better at that, e.g. advilire was used by Dante, and from that came the Italian avvilire.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago












          • @Joonas: Let me know if my edit is at least mildly satisfying.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago










          • It is indeed satisfying. I agree that in many cases the specific verbs are best, but the -ificare derivative looks like a good general strategy that can be used with just about any adjective. Such derivations are not exactly good classical style, but sometimes one has to let go of that in order to communicate modern things clearly.
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago






          • 1




            Yes, I guess it can be inevitable. Glad I could help!
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago


















          • Thanks! These are indeed good words for many contexts (+1), but I don't think they make a good general strategy. Deriving new verbs from can get cumbersome. What would you do with hermeticus and vilis instead of fortis, for example? (It's well possible that there simply is no general strategy, of course.)
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago










          • @Joonas: With viliis I would say contemno, abicio or deprimo are good options. I think a general strategy is unlikely, especially if one wants to stick with classical or postclassical terms. Medieval Latin may have been better at that, e.g. advilire was used by Dante, and from that came the Italian avvilire.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago












          • @Joonas: Let me know if my edit is at least mildly satisfying.
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago










          • It is indeed satisfying. I agree that in many cases the specific verbs are best, but the -ificare derivative looks like a good general strategy that can be used with just about any adjective. Such derivations are not exactly good classical style, but sometimes one has to let go of that in order to communicate modern things clearly.
            – Joonas Ilmavirta
            2 days ago






          • 1




            Yes, I guess it can be inevitable. Glad I could help!
            – Vincenzo Oliva
            2 days ago
















          Thanks! These are indeed good words for many contexts (+1), but I don't think they make a good general strategy. Deriving new verbs from can get cumbersome. What would you do with hermeticus and vilis instead of fortis, for example? (It's well possible that there simply is no general strategy, of course.)
          – Joonas Ilmavirta
          2 days ago




          Thanks! These are indeed good words for many contexts (+1), but I don't think they make a good general strategy. Deriving new verbs from can get cumbersome. What would you do with hermeticus and vilis instead of fortis, for example? (It's well possible that there simply is no general strategy, of course.)
          – Joonas Ilmavirta
          2 days ago












          @Joonas: With viliis I would say contemno, abicio or deprimo are good options. I think a general strategy is unlikely, especially if one wants to stick with classical or postclassical terms. Medieval Latin may have been better at that, e.g. advilire was used by Dante, and from that came the Italian avvilire.
          – Vincenzo Oliva
          2 days ago






          @Joonas: With viliis I would say contemno, abicio or deprimo are good options. I think a general strategy is unlikely, especially if one wants to stick with classical or postclassical terms. Medieval Latin may have been better at that, e.g. advilire was used by Dante, and from that came the Italian avvilire.
          – Vincenzo Oliva
          2 days ago














          @Joonas: Let me know if my edit is at least mildly satisfying.
          – Vincenzo Oliva
          2 days ago




          @Joonas: Let me know if my edit is at least mildly satisfying.
          – Vincenzo Oliva
          2 days ago












          It is indeed satisfying. I agree that in many cases the specific verbs are best, but the -ificare derivative looks like a good general strategy that can be used with just about any adjective. Such derivations are not exactly good classical style, but sometimes one has to let go of that in order to communicate modern things clearly.
          – Joonas Ilmavirta
          2 days ago




          It is indeed satisfying. I agree that in many cases the specific verbs are best, but the -ificare derivative looks like a good general strategy that can be used with just about any adjective. Such derivations are not exactly good classical style, but sometimes one has to let go of that in order to communicate modern things clearly.
          – Joonas Ilmavirta
          2 days ago




          1




          1




          Yes, I guess it can be inevitable. Glad I could help!
          – Vincenzo Oliva
          2 days ago




          Yes, I guess it can be inevitable. Glad I could help!
          – Vincenzo Oliva
          2 days ago


















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7578%2fmaking-a-strong-machine-vs-making-a-machine-strong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

          Alcedinidae

          Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]