Latin motto clinic

[Themiclesia]

Admittedly I am better at Greek than Latin

But the incident?

The incident?

The great noodle incident of 2767 auc?

Doesn't ring any bells?

Oh, you sweet summer child.

No, I'm kidding, but seriously, I've never even seen a third person imperative in the wild.

You know, because the phrase that Giga wanted translated is from a motto of the Adeptus Astartes from WH40K, and it resembles what I'd call a "general maxim". Besides, the English construction "let X something" translates the Greek third person imperative.

Something like μηδεῖς ζήτω

[Astrolinium]

The incident?

The great noodle incident of 2767 auc?

Doesn't ring any bells?

Oh, you sweet summer child.

No, I'm kidding, but seriously, I've never even seen a third person imperative in the wild.

You know, because the phrase that Giga wanted translated is from a motto of the Adeptus Astartes from WH40K, and it resembles what I'd call a "general maxim". Besides, the English construction "let X something" translates the Greek third person imperative.

Something like μηδεῖς ζήτω

Latin does tend to prefer the jussive subjunctive for the English "let X something" constructive, to the point that the jussive subjunctive is generally the only way taught to students if one wants to translate such a phrase.

The imperative in any form other than second person is incredibly rare in Latin -- as said, I've never seen it in the wild and when you suggested it I had to look it up to make sure there actually was such a thing.

[Themiclesia]

You know, because the phrase that Giga wanted translated is from a motto of the Adeptus Astartes from WH40K, and it resembles what I'd call a "general maxim". Besides, the English construction "let X something" translates the Greek third person imperative.

Something like μηδεῖς ζήτω

Latin does tend to prefer the jussive subjunctive for the English "let X something" constructive, to the point that the jussive subjunctive is generally the only way taught to students if one wants to translate such a phrase.

The imperative in any form other than second person is incredibly rare in Latin -- as said, I've never seen it in the wild and when you suggested it I had to look it up to make sure there actually was such a thing.

The jussive is, of course, impeccably used in terms of grammar, but is also morphologically identical to the optative use of the Latin subjunctive. It may easily be mistaken for "would that none survive" etc., which doesn't quite convey the force of the original statement; the tone of the original is my principal concern, but you're evidently the more experienced translator, so I'll defer to you on this issue.

My Latin professor concurs with you on that the third person imperative is quite rare, and she probably would never have taught it had I failed to ask about it during class. But, as an Indo-European language, I'd expect that Latin has a functional third person imperative, as there is in Greek and Sanskrit.

[Astrolinium]

Latin does tend to prefer the jussive subjunctive for the English "let X something" constructive, to the point that the jussive subjunctive is generally the only way taught to students if one wants to translate such a phrase.

The imperative in any form other than second person is incredibly rare in Latin -- as said, I've never seen it in the wild and when you suggested it I had to look it up to make sure there actually was such a thing.

The jussive is, of course, impeccably used in terms of grammar, but is also morphologically identical to the optative use of the Latin subjunctive. It may easily be mistaken for "would that none survive" etc., which doesn't quite convey the force of the original statement; the tone of the original is my principal concern, but you're evidently the more experienced translator, so I'll defer to you on this issue.

My Latin professor concurs with you on that the third person imperative is quite rare, and she probably would never have taught it had I failed to ask about it during class. But, as an Indo-European language, I'd expect that Latin has a functional third person imperative, as there is in Greek and Sanskrit.

Well, you don't usually see optative usage without utinam anyway.

Further research suggests that the third person imperative in Latin only exists in the future tense and is by and large considered archaic by the Classical period, which is the style we by and large try to emulate.

[Themiclesia]

The jussive is, of course, impeccably used in terms of grammar, but is also morphologically identical to the optative use of the Latin subjunctive. It may easily be mistaken for "would that none survive" etc., which doesn't quite convey the force of the original statement; the tone of the original is my principal concern, but you're evidently the more experienced translator, so I'll defer to you on this issue.

My Latin professor concurs with you on that the third person imperative is quite rare, and she probably would never have taught it had I failed to ask about it during class. But, as an Indo-European language, I'd expect that Latin has a functional third person imperative, as there is in Greek and Sanskrit.

Well, you don't usually see optative usage without utinam anyway.

Further research suggests that the third person imperative in Latin only exists in the future tense and is by and large considered archaic by the Classical period, which is the style we by and large try to emulate.

I'd say that like the subjunctive, all imperatives have some sense of futurity inherent, especially in Latin where there are no perfect imperatives.

(You could argue that in the sentence τῆς γυναικός ἥκει, ὁ ἀνὴρ πεπαυκέτω the action conveyed by the imperative occurred prior)

My primary source of information is here.

[Astrolinium]

Well, you don't usually see optative usage without utinam anyway.

Further research suggests that the third person imperative in Latin only exists in the future tense and is by and large considered archaic by the Classical period, which is the style we by and large try to emulate.

I'd say that like the subjunctive, all imperatives have some sense of futurity inherent, especially in Latin where there are no perfect imperatives.

(You could argue that in the sentence τῆς γυναικός ἥκει, ὁ ἀνὴρ πεπαυκέτω the action conveyed by the imperative occurred prior)

My primary source of information is here.

I'm only on my third week of learning Greek so that example sentence doesn't mean a whole lot to me yet.

However, this fairly well covers my understanding of things:

"This imperative is much less direct than the other, in that the person is not spoken to, but the force of the command is still stronger than the subjunctive. Veniat means "let him come". Venito means "He is going to come (if I have anything to say about it)", or "He shall come!" implying that the speaker's wish is very strong. This is usually restricted to legal contexts, as are the rest of the future imperatives"

In a non-legal context where the English is specifically "Let x", I definitely think the subjunctive is preferable.

Now this one's just me being cheeky:

Ubi nemo prior iit ir[proterve]e!

Ad audacter eundum quo nemo prius ivit.

Further consultation with more experienced Latinists suggests that this might be a slightly better translation:

Ad fortiter eundum quo nemo ante iit.

[Themiclesia]

What was I thinking? Of course it doesn't make sense. Use ἡκούσης in place of ἥκει.

[Gigaverse]

So, another one. I need the proper translation for "Defend them to the last man".

[Evolu Tanis]

I came up with this one a way, way back in the day, can't remember doing it though:

Si attinges, tuum cordem rumpemis et faciem

I think it means If you attack, we will break your heart and your face but I'm no longer remotely sure about things like future tense.

[Astrolinium]

I came up with this one a way, way back in the day, can't remember doing it though:

Si attinges, tuum cordem rumpemis et faciem

I think it means If you attack, we will break your heart and your face but I'm no longer remotely sure about things like future tense.

It's mostly good grammatically speaking, although cor is neuter, but attingo means "touch" or "reach", and it should be rumpemus. The tuum is, strictly speaking, unnecessary -- the Romans often left personal pronouns to be understood. Additionally, the verb you will want, oppugno, is transitive, so needs a direct object.

All said and done I'd personally express the sentiment:

Si nos oppugnaveris, et cor et faciem frangemus.

It's perfectly acceptable to use oppugnabis instead of oppugnaveris (I just like the future perfect), and rumpemus can easily be substituted for frangemus -- I just like the alliteration. Additionally, the first et can be dropped if you'd like.

Literally, it translates out to:

"If you shall have attacked us, we shall break both your heart and your face."

[Evolu Tanis]

It's mostly good grammatically speaking, although cor is neuter, but attingo means "touch" or "reach", and it should be rumpemus. The tuum is, strictly speaking, unnecessary -- the Romans often left personal pronouns to be understood. Additionally, the verb you will want, oppugno, is transitive, so needs a direct object.

All said and done I'd personally express the sentiment:

Si nos oppugnaveris, et cor et faciem frangemus.

It's perfectly acceptable to use oppugnabis instead of oppugnaveris (I just like the future perfect), and rumpemus can easily be substituted for frangemus -- I just like the alliteration. Additionally, the first et can be dropped if you'd like.

Literally, it translates out to:

"If you shall have attacked us, we shall break both your heart and your face."

Aahhhhhhhh, now I'm remembering - I wanted the sense of "If you lay so much as a finger on us, we'll..." etc. - hence attingere rather than something more forceful.

Thanks!

[Sacrae Portus]

“Quod illustratio sit futurum.”
Is this correct? It's supposed to mean "Enlightenment is the future".

[Astrolinium]

“Quod illustratio sit futurum.”
Is this correct? It's supposed to mean "Enlightenment is the future".

I'd say "Res futura est illustratio".

Literally, "Enlightenment is the future thing/business/matter/fact".

[Ainin]

Militias fortia, prōsunt!
(Brave militias, advance!)

Is this right?

[Themiclesia]

Militias fortia, prōsunt!
(Brave militias, advance!)

Is this right?

I would write O fortes militiai, ite!, but Astrolinium is the expert here.

If you're interested in the Greek version, I'd give ὦ στρατιῶται, προῖτε

[Astrolinium]

Militias fortia, prōsunt!
(Brave militias, advance!)

Is this right?

I would write O fortes militiai, ite!, but Astrolinium is the expert here.

If you're interested in the Greek version, I'd give ὦ στρατιῶται, προῖτε

I'd go with O fortes milites, prodite!

The Latin word militia doesn't signifiy the modern English concept of a "militia" -- it refers to the idea of military service. In fact, to the best of my knowledge -- and I could be wrong, but I don't think I am -- they didn't even have an equivalent concept to the English "militia". So it seems to me that it would be better to simply go with "Mighty soldiers, advance!"

[United Marxist Nations]

Could one of you translate "I'm in your base, killing your dudes"?

[Astrolinium]

Could one of you translate "I'm in your base, killing your dudes"?

In castris sum, socios occidens.

[United Marxist Nations]

Could one of you translate "I'm in your base, killing your dudes"?

In castris sum, socios occidens.

Thank you.

[New Vudnia]

It's not so much that I need a new motto, I just can't remember what my current motto means!

scientia vincere tenebras


What does that mean again?

[Astrolinium]

It's not so much that I need a new motto, I just can't remember what my current motto means!

scientia vincere tenebras


What does that mean again?

Um, well, "Knowledge to conquer the shadows". I'd suggest changing it to scientia tenebras vincit, which would be "knowledge conquers the shadows".

[New Vudnia]

It's not so much that I need a new motto, I just can't remember what my current motto means!

scientia vincere tenebras


What does that mean again?

Um, well, "Knowledge to conquer the shadows". I'd suggest changing it to scientia tenebras vincit, which would be "knowledge conquers the shadows".

Okay, thanks.

[Themiclesia]

It's not so much that I need a new motto, I just can't remember what my current motto means!

scientia vincere tenebras


What does that mean again?

Um, well, "Knowledge to conquer the shadows". I'd suggest changing it to scientia tenebras vincit, which would be "knowledge conquers the shadows".

Couldn't this be alternatively construed as "it is science to conquer shadows"?

[Themiclesia]

So, another one. I need the proper translation for "Defend them to the last man".

tegi(te) eos/eas/ea ulteriori.

[Naivetry]

scientia vincere tenebras

Couldn't this be alternatively construed as "it is science to conquer shadows"?

Not in the modern sense of "science" as a discipline distinct from the humanities or the arts. Scientia in classical Latin is more like... 'know-how'. Also, despite how often forms of sum are omitted, I think Latin would want an est thrown in there if it were trying to define scientia. Latin doesn't normally use the infinitive to express purpose unless it's imitating Greek, but that might still be cause for some ambiguity without an est.