Using Foreign Words in English

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
I have a question on proper form. When using a word from an inflected language while writing in English, is it proper to leave the word in its nominative case, or to place it in the declension proper to its role in the English sentence? This one always causes me to hesitate for a few seconds when writing.

(I have seen it done both ways)
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Anna, this would certainly be a dumb example, but...

I went to the store with amico meo.

or

I went to the store with amicus meus.

Ruben, that should answer your question as well.
 

Scottish Lass

Puritan Board Doctor
I vote for declension, having seen the examples. I translated both versions in my head, but the declension seems to make more sense to my untrained ear.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Perhaps a more fitting example:

...which impacts only the modus subsistendi, and not the essentia.

Or

...which impacts only the modum subsistendi, and not the essentiam.
 

py3ak

They're stalling and plotting against me
Staff member
This is H.W. Fowler's advice.

In Latin words and phrases, other cases should always be changed to the nominative, whatever the government in the English sentence, unless the Latin word that accounted for the case is included in the quotation.
From The King's English
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Who would dare to deliberately transgress Fowler? But I have observed a different practice. "Jus divinum" is a good example: "there is a jus divinum of church government;" "church government is jure divino." Perhaps Fowler's examples are awkward for other reasons, e.g., ellipsis, gerund, etc.
 

py3ak

They're stalling and plotting against me
Staff member
I have not been able to track down any authorities other than Fowler who address the matter, so I asked on A Way With Words to get a contemporary opinion. Skimming Browne, however, it seems that his usage is in line with what Mr. Winzer says, and with the linguistic authority of Sir Thomas I would think Fowler could be defied.

Another argument may be the blending of languages by those who are so immersed as to be almost unaware of the difference - people living along the Mexico-US border are one case in point. In Tex-Mex the words are frequently jumbled up, but when a Spanish word is used it is declined as it would be had the whole sentence been uttered in normal Mexican Spanish.
 

py3ak

They're stalling and plotting against me
Staff member
To add to the authorities whose usage is not in accordance with Fowler's dictum, I think the section "The unwillingness of our chief adversaries, that the Scriptures should be divulted in the mother tongue, &c." in The Translator to the Reader from the AV has an instance to the contrary in the reference to Tertullian.

Also Dryden in Of Dramatic Poesy and C.S. Lewis in The Weight of Glory (to give the practice of some of our most eminent critics from quite different times) will use inflected forms without always including the governing word.

It seems to be an instance where the rule contradicts the practise, as when Dryden laid down that sentences should not be ended with prepositions.
 

au5t1n

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I guess I'm just a purist. I also refuse to call these "forums" rather than "fora." It's just stubbornness.
 

py3ak

They're stalling and plotting against me
Staff member
And here is the answer from the Way With Words forum.

In specialized writing and speaking, such as academic treatments, where the audience is expected to know English and the source, there is a large likelihood of preserving the source language inflection, especially nominative plural, posessives, and gender markers.
For words and phrases in common use, the vast majority of words come in as nominative singular. Some preserve their source language nominative plural, but the majority take regular English plural and posessive forms. Phrases, especially fixed phrases, tend to preserve their inflection in the source language.
 

catechumen

Puritan Board Freshman
Anna, this would certainly be a dumb example, but...

I went to the store with amico meo.

or

I went to the store with amicus meus.
I would think that in the example above the ablative would be fine, but without the redundant 'with' beforehand. Surely the ablative on its own gives the same idea. I know Paul just gave it as an 'off the cuff' example, but my vague impression is that when Latin tags preserve a particular case ending, they tend to perform the same function in the English sentence as is indicated by their inflection.

Just an offhand thought which I am sure can be proved wrong! However, it does help to make sense of Matthew's example of 'iure divino
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top