# Latin phrase . . . I think **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 7, 2000, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418 "2000-09-07T21:36:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2000, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/1 "2000-09-07T21:36:36Z")
A friend of mine posed the following Latin phrase to me: “TUAS RES TIBI AGITO FEMINA” Nearest I could figure out, this either has to do with orgasm or not. Anyone got a better clue than I do? It’s been a while since I studied Latin. ---
**Author:** ![Cogitoergosum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Cogitoergosum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cogitoergosum)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2000, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/2 "2000-09-07T22:39:53Z")
I guess it is roughly “I excite your things of the feminine nature for you.” The Femina is giving me the trouble though, because it could also mean, “I, the female, excite your things for you.” It is either in the ablative or nominative, and there is no way to tell because of the lack of both long marks and context. However, the latter translation is more probable. ---
**Author:** ![Solkee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@Solkee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Solkee)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2000, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/3 "2000-09-07T22:48:36Z")
Agito can also be an archaic imperative (‘Age’ being a more classical form). If this is the case, the phrase means “Do your own things for yourself, woman”! [agito=do; tuas res=your (own) things (plural accusative); tibi=for yourself(singular dative); femina=woman (singular vocative] But “I excite your things for you, woman” is also possible. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/4 "2000-09-08T00:45:37Z")
Amazing. With a language that vague, it’s a wonder Rome ever amounted to anything. That phrase is either someone talking dirty to a woman, a woman talking dirty to someone, or someone telling a woman to get herself off. No wonder the Romans were so sexually permissive: They lacked the language to tell the various acts apart! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/5 "2000-09-08T02:17:19Z")
I am quite sure the Romans could communicate quite well. The problem is not their language but our ignorance of it. ---
**Author:** ![Montfort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Montfort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Montfort)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/6 "2000-09-08T03:03:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > **Amazing. With a language that vague, it’s a wonder Rome ever amounted to anything.** Virtually all languages are context-sensitive. In other words, you have to pay attention to the context to understand the meaning of a sentence. Surely, this Latin example makes sense within the context it was originally stated in. Since we don’t know the context, it’s open to many different interpretations. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/7 "2000-09-08T04:04:06Z")
Context-sensitive may be, but we can differentiate among the various statements quite well. For example: “Do your own things for yourself, woman!” “I excite your things for you, woman” and “I, the female, excite your things for you” are all distinct phrases in English. They do not seem to be in Latin. Hence my joke. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/8 "2000-09-08T04:19:11Z")
> [@](#): > > _Ceterum censeo antea coito clitorem sacrissimae Majestatis stimulandum esse._ > (“As for the rest, I think that her most holy Majesty’s clitoris must be stimulated before sex.”) > –Advice Maria Theresa got from her personal physician. I wish I could remember where I first read this. It’s a takeoff of Cato’s famous _Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse_ (“As for the rest, I think that Carthage must be destroyed.”) BTW, I would have guessed the accusative of “clitoris” would be “clitoridem.” What do I know? As for the OP, my best guess would be that it could mean “I am handling your affairs for you, woman.” But **Solkee** could very well be right. It depends on whether the verb is an imperative form of _agere_ or an indicative form of of _agitare_. **iampunha** , can you give us any context to put it in? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/9 "2000-09-08T04:22:31Z")
They are distinct phrases in Latin, provided that you know what dialect and age you’re talking about. Note that as Solkee mentioned, the one meaning for “agito” is rather archaic (OK, more archaic than the rest of Latin ;)). Of course, there are cases of genuine ambiguity in both Latin and English. One of my favorite Latin ones is a response given by the Oracle: A prince asks what will happen if he goes to war, and the reply is something that can mean either “You will go, you will return, you will not die”, or “You will go, you will not return, you will die”. Anyone remember the original Latin for that? ---
**Author:** ![DRY](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@DRY](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DRY)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/10 "2000-09-08T07:07:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chronos \* > \*\*One of my favorite Latin ones is a response given by the Oracle: A prince asks what will happen if he goes to war, and the reply is something that can mean either “You will go, you will return, you will not die”, or “You will go, you will not return, you will die”. > > Anyone remember the original Latin for that? \*\* As I recall, there were several “ambiguous” prophecies given by the Oracle. (The Oracle was infamous for such things.) I believe it was the Croesus, ruler of Lydia (who made famous the phrase “rich as Croesus”) who asked the Oracle what would happen if he went to war with Persia. He was told that he would destroy a great empire. It turned out to be his own. Then there’s the prophecy quoted in Shakespeare (King Henry VI, Part II, Act 1, Scene IV). This might be what Chronos is thinking of: ‘Aio te, AEacida, Romanos vincere posse.’ Which translates roughly to “I say to you, [Aeacida?] that you the Romans can conquer.” The Romans defeated the subject of the prophecy. ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/11 "2000-09-08T13:31:06Z")
**DRY** writes: > [@](#): > > “I say to you, [Aeacida?] that you the Romans can conquer.” The original was said (in Greek, of course) to Pyrrhus, king of Epirus in the early 3[sup]rd[/sup] century BCE. Pyrrhus was a descendant of Æacus (while his troops were watching, at least); in Latin, _Æacides_. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/12 "2000-09-08T14:38:28Z")
I made some inquiries and unsurprisingly, I cannot find anything in the literature that would shed some light on the meaning and context of that quote. **Solkee** wrote: [quote] Agito can also be an archaic imperative (‘Age’ being a more classical form). If this is the case, the phrase means “Do your own things for yourself, woman”!\*\* It is an archaic imperative of ago, this is true. However, Solkee did not mention that it is an archaic _future_ imperative. I can’t find anything to make me believe that it would be used as a command in the way Solkee suggested when a present imperative would have been more appropriate. Anyone have more thoughts? MR ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/13 "2000-09-08T19:24:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\* > It is an archaic imperative of ago, this is true. However, Solkee did not mention that it is an archaic _future_ imperative. I can’t find anything to make me believe that it would be used as a command in the way Solkee suggested when a present imperative would have been more appropriate. > > Anyone have more thoughts? > > MR \*\* In four years of formal study of Latin I never encountered the future imperative before this. But I found [this site](http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~struck/classes/latin309/syntax/imperative.html#third) that gives a good rundown of the form. It is also called the third-person imperative or the second imperative. It is used when > [@](#): > > [ol][li]The command is meant to be fulfilled sometime in the future.[/li][li]The command serves as a law, general rule, recipe, maxim, etc.[/li][/ol] If the verb _agito_ is in the future imperative, it would probably fall under category #2, a general rule. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/14 "2000-09-08T19:41:53Z")
Well, I _have_ Gildersleeve & Lodge, so I will certainly take their word for it. I just can’t find it in the literature. Such phrases are extremely common in Plautus, esp. the _Truculentus_ and the _Menaechmi_. Gnomic uses of the future imperative always seemed to me as being more abstract, like sic esto (so be it). Well, I suppose I am willing to believe it here, but its usage seems a bit stretched. Were your years of formal Latin in high school, college, or elsewhere? It definitely makes a difference. MR ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/15 "2000-09-08T20:12:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bibliophage \* > **iampunha** , can you give us any context to put it in? \*\* No suck luck, biblio. A friend of mine posed that phrase to me. She got it from another’s away message on AIM. I’ll forward the thread URL to her and she can chime in (by registering first) if she wishes. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/16 "2000-09-08T20:30:32Z")
> [@](#): > > No suck luck Well? I’ll roll the dice…🙂 Luck be a lady tonight. MR ---
**Author:** ![Solkee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/97f17d/32.png) [@Solkee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Solkee)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/17 "2000-09-08T23:24:02Z")
I was told the imperative ending with -to is in fact a future imperative, but that it was frequently used as a regular imperative, sometimes to give the order some archaïc feeling. ---
**Author:** ![DRY](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a87d85/32.png) [@DRY](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DRY)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2000, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latin-phrase-i-think/32418/18 "2000-09-09T06:33:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Akatsukami \* > \*\ ***DRY** writes: > > > [@](#): > > > > “I say to you, [Aeacida?] that you the Romans can conquer.” > > The original was said (in Greek, of course) to Pyrrhus, king of Epirus in the early 3[sup]rd[/sup] century BCE. Pyrrhus was a descendant of Æacus (while his troops were watching, at least); in Latin, _Æacides_. \*\* Ah, thank you, Akatsukami! I once read who the phrase was said to, but it’s been years and I forgot. I also did not have my Shakespearean sourcebook (which is I believe where I heard it) handy. (I did know it meant “descendant of” but couldn’t figure out “descendant of who”.) Gracias!