Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2
In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special refere...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Shalev, Donna [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erschienen: |
De Gruyter Mouton ; 2013 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
14 |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Journal of Latin linguistics - Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013, 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:12 ; year:2013 ; number:1 ; day:06 ; month:08 ; pages:123-136 ; extent:14 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1515/joll-2013-0007 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ247116785 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ247116785 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220820030400.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220814s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||und c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1515/joll-2013-0007 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a artikel_Grundlieferung.pp |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ247116785 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Shalev, Donna |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 |
| 264 | 1 | |b De Gruyter Mouton |c 2013 | |
| 300 | |a 14 | ||
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. | ||
| 533 | |f Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Plato Gorgias | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ficino | |
| 650 | 4 | |a variatio | |
| 650 | 4 | |a dialogue technique | |
| 650 | 4 | |a translation technique | |
| 650 | 4 | |a humanist translations | |
| 650 | 4 | |a response formulae | |
| 650 | 4 | |a prorsus | |
| 650 | 4 | |a πάνυ γε | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of Latin linguistics |d Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013 |g 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 |w (DE-627)NLEJ248236199 |w (DE-600)2741980-0 |x 2194-8747 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:12 |g year:2013 |g number:1 |g day:06 |g month:08 |g pages:123-136 |g extent:14 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007 |z Deutschlandweit zugänglich |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-DGR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 12 |j 2013 |e 1 |b 06 |c 08 |h 123-136 |g 14 | ||
| author_variant |
d s ds |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:21948747:2013----::rruaaepneomlifcnsaipao |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2013 |
| publishDate |
2013 |
| allfields |
10.1515/joll-2013-0007 doi artikel_Grundlieferung.pp (DE-627)NLEJ247116785 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Shalev, Donna verfasserin aut Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 De Gruyter Mouton 2013 14 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Plato Gorgias Ficino variatio dialogue technique translation technique humanist translations response formulae prorsus πάνυ γε Enthalten in Journal of Latin linguistics Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 (DE-627)NLEJ248236199 (DE-600)2741980-0 2194-8747 nnns volume:12 year:2013 number:1 day:06 month:08 pages:123-136 extent:14 https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 12 2013 1 06 08 123-136 14 |
| spelling |
10.1515/joll-2013-0007 doi artikel_Grundlieferung.pp (DE-627)NLEJ247116785 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Shalev, Donna verfasserin aut Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 De Gruyter Mouton 2013 14 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Plato Gorgias Ficino variatio dialogue technique translation technique humanist translations response formulae prorsus πάνυ γε Enthalten in Journal of Latin linguistics Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 (DE-627)NLEJ248236199 (DE-600)2741980-0 2194-8747 nnns volume:12 year:2013 number:1 day:06 month:08 pages:123-136 extent:14 https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 12 2013 1 06 08 123-136 14 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1515/joll-2013-0007 doi artikel_Grundlieferung.pp (DE-627)NLEJ247116785 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Shalev, Donna verfasserin aut Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 De Gruyter Mouton 2013 14 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Plato Gorgias Ficino variatio dialogue technique translation technique humanist translations response formulae prorsus πάνυ γε Enthalten in Journal of Latin linguistics Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 (DE-627)NLEJ248236199 (DE-600)2741980-0 2194-8747 nnns volume:12 year:2013 number:1 day:06 month:08 pages:123-136 extent:14 https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 12 2013 1 06 08 123-136 14 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1515/joll-2013-0007 doi artikel_Grundlieferung.pp (DE-627)NLEJ247116785 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Shalev, Donna verfasserin aut Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 De Gruyter Mouton 2013 14 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Plato Gorgias Ficino variatio dialogue technique translation technique humanist translations response formulae prorsus πάνυ γε Enthalten in Journal of Latin linguistics Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 (DE-627)NLEJ248236199 (DE-600)2741980-0 2194-8747 nnns volume:12 year:2013 number:1 day:06 month:08 pages:123-136 extent:14 https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 12 2013 1 06 08 123-136 14 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1515/joll-2013-0007 doi artikel_Grundlieferung.pp (DE-627)NLEJ247116785 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Shalev, Donna verfasserin aut Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 De Gruyter Mouton 2013 14 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften Plato Gorgias Ficino variatio dialogue technique translation technique humanist translations response formulae prorsus πάνυ γε Enthalten in Journal of Latin linguistics Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 (DE-627)NLEJ248236199 (DE-600)2741980-0 2194-8747 nnns volume:12 year:2013 number:1 day:06 month:08 pages:123-136 extent:14 https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007 Deutschlandweit zugänglich GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 12 2013 1 06 08 123-136 14 |
| source |
Enthalten in Journal of Latin linguistics 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 volume:12 year:2013 number:1 day:06 month:08 pages:123-136 extent:14 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Journal of Latin linguistics 12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136 volume:12 year:2013 number:1 day:06 month:08 pages:123-136 extent:14 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Plato Gorgias Ficino variatio dialogue technique translation technique humanist translations response formulae prorsus πάνυ γε |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Journal of Latin linguistics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Shalev, Donna @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2013-08-06T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ248236199 |
| id |
NLEJ247116785 |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ247116785</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220820030400.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220814s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1515/joll-2013-0007</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">artikel_Grundlieferung.pp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ247116785</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shalev, Donna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">De Gruyter Mouton</subfield><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">14</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Plato Gorgias</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ficino</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">variatio</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">dialogue technique</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">translation technique</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">humanist translations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">response formulae</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prorsus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">πάνυ γε</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Latin linguistics</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ248236199</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2741980-0</subfield><subfield code="x">2194-8747</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2013</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:123-136</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:14</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DGR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2013</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield><subfield code="h">123-136</subfield><subfield code="g">14</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften |
| author |
Shalev, Donna |
| spellingShingle |
Shalev, Donna misc Plato Gorgias misc Ficino misc variatio misc dialogue technique misc translation technique misc humanist translations misc response formulae misc prorsus misc πάνυ γε Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 |
| authorStr |
Shalev, Donna |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ248236199 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
NL |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2194-8747 |
| topic_title |
Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 Plato Gorgias Ficino variatio dialogue technique translation technique humanist translations response formulae prorsus πάνυ γε |
| publisher |
De Gruyter Mouton |
| publisherStr |
De Gruyter Mouton |
| topic |
misc Plato Gorgias misc Ficino misc variatio misc dialogue technique misc translation technique misc humanist translations misc response formulae misc prorsus misc πάνυ γε |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Plato Gorgias misc Ficino misc variatio misc dialogue technique misc translation technique misc humanist translations misc response formulae misc prorsus misc πάνυ γε |
| topic_browse |
misc Plato Gorgias misc Ficino misc variatio misc dialogue technique misc translation technique misc humanist translations misc response formulae misc prorsus misc πάνυ γε |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of Latin linguistics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ248236199 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of Latin linguistics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ248236199 (DE-600)2741980-0 |
| title |
Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ247116785 |
| title_full |
Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 |
| author_sort |
Shalev, Donna |
| journal |
Journal of Latin linguistics |
| journalStr |
Journal of Latin linguistics |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2013 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
123 |
| author_browse |
Shalev, Donna |
| container_volume |
12 |
| physical |
14 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Shalev, Donna |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1515/joll-2013-0007 |
| title_sort |
prorsus as a response formula in ficino's latin: plato, gorgias 513d6–514d2 |
| title_auth |
Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 |
| abstract |
In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. |
| abstractGer |
In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DGR GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2 |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ248236199 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1515/joll-2013-0007 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T09:59:14.211Z |
| _version_ |
1803823301746753536 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ247116785</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20220820030400.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220814s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1515/joll-2013-0007</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">artikel_Grundlieferung.pp</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ247116785</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shalev, Donna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Prorsus as a response formula in Ficino's Latin: Plato, Gorgias 513d6–514d2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="b">De Gruyter Mouton</subfield><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">14</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In Plato's Gorgias, in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio. The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio, and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus, which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="f">Walter de Gruyter Online Zeitschriften</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Plato Gorgias</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ficino</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">variatio</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">dialogue technique</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">translation technique</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">humanist translations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">response formulae</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prorsus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">πάνυ γε</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Latin linguistics</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : de Gruyter Mouton, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2013), 1 vom: 06. Aug., Seite 123-136</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ248236199</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2741980-0</subfield><subfield code="x">2194-8747</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2013</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:123-136</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:14</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/joll-2013-0007</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DGR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2013</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield><subfield code="h">123-136</subfield><subfield code="g">14</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399802 |