Below are the 5 most recent journal entries recorded in w_ockham's LiveJournal:

Saturday, September 6th, 2008
9:16 pm	aliud aliquid illud ipsum quod Yes really - in Albertus' commentary on the Metaphysics, Book IV, tract 2 chapter 4. Ideo significans substantiam rei est non esse aliud aliquid illud ipsum quod est rei diffinitio. What a mouthful.  The good news is that all of Albert's work is now online - some of it digitised, most of it in pdf image format.  Here. (Comment on this)
Saturday, December 15th, 2007
3:08 pm	More Latin seasonal hymns I got round to digitising some of the advent and Christmas hymns from the book I mentioned.  The pages are below.  Most of them are new to Google but you will surely recognise no. 48 on p 64, 'Puer nobis nascitur' unto us a child is born.  I like the last verse - O et A et A et O cum cantibus in choro, cum canticis in organo, benedicamus domino. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 (Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007
7:10 am	Moerbeke's Latin vs Aristotle's Greek Thanks to Poldy for posting the Greek to the text from the Metaphysics (see post below) but I'm still a bit puzzled.  Here's Aristotle's Latin. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἂν ἧττον ἦν ὁ χαλκὸς οὐδὲν τοῦ εἴδους I recognise some words, but where is the negative?  Goodposter-Poldy translates this as 'bronze still would not have belonged to the form'. And here is William's Latin: nichil enim utique minus erat aes speciei This I read as: for none the less the bronze would be [part] of the species.  Thomas' paraphrase is  nihilominus tamen sic esset pars speciei circuli aes which also does not appear to contain the negative.  I used the edition by Vuillemin-Diem.  The sentence  is on line 580 of p. 153.  This does not have a 'not'.  However, the notes to this line below seem to mention the existence of a 'non' after the minus, though I find the code of all such notes confusing.  Presumably this means one manuscript (Fa?) had the non? The 14C manuscript from the Schoenberg collection here (col b, 10th line from bottom) does not contain the non, at any rate.   (Comment on this)
Friday, May 5th, 2006
9:51 am	More old Latin Here's another Latin text (link below). This time I do not have access to a nice cleaned up version. I made a valiant attempt, but any help with this would be appreciated. http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/latin/bonaveternitate.htm (Comment on this)
Saturday, April 29th, 2006
6:03 pm	Old Latin texts There was a post about medieval texts some months ago. For anyone interested, there is a page here http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/latin/bonav2pr.htm on my site that compares text from the 1493 edition of a Latin text, with a more recent edition. It also has links to a good site with more jpg's of the text. (Comment on this)