Latin motto clinic

[Aeridani]

"Forever A Revolution"

"In Perpetuum Res Novae"
or
"In Aeternum Res Novae"

I think "In Perpetuum Res Novae" means "Forever, ongoing, perpetually a Revolution, while "In Aeternum Res Novae" means more like "Forever, everlasting, eternally a Revolution. Whichever sounds better, but they both mean forever.

Sorry this is a bit late, but thank you

[Urumgard]

I've got a new one for you peeps. Here it is:

"By the Grace of God, for Emperor and Fatherland!"

[Leepaidamba]

I've got a new one for you peeps. Here it is:

"By the Grace of God, for Emperor and Fatherland!"

"Dei Gratia, Imperatori (et Patriae/Patriaeque)!"

[Urumgard]

I've got a new one for you peeps. Here it is:

"By the Grace of God, for Emperor and Fatherland!"

"Dei Gratia, Imperatori (et Patriae/Patriaeque)!"

Many thanks. Which of the two words do I use?

[Leepaidamba]

"Dei Gratia, Imperatori (et Patriae/Patriaeque)!"

Many thanks. Which of the two words do I use?

You can use both. They mean the exact same. One of the cool features of Latin: if you forget to say "and" you can just add it after the word.

[Astrolinium]

If I wanted to say, for example, "The Right to Love the Man", would that want an infinitive or a future passive participle (and would that be dative or genitive)?

[Lemony Lemmings]

Tastes like chicken.

Stupid slogans sound better in Greek.

[Naivetry]

If I wanted to say, for example, "The Right to Love the Man", would that want an infinitive or a future passive participle (and would that be dative or genitive)?

You'd want the gerund/gerundive (~future passive participle according to Wheelock's, but not some other grammar books) in the genitive. Gerundive is better for style, here.

ius viri amandi

---

Tastes like chicken.

Latin doesn't have an intransitive version of 'to taste', so I'm just using the noun for 'flavor' or 'taste'. Literally, "A taste similar to chicken."

Sapor similis pullo

Stupid slogans sound better in Greek.

Do not! ...oh, translation. There's probably a better way to do this, but I don't have my conversational Latin books with me here in Greece. *coughs* Literally, "Foolish words seem better in Greek."

Verba stulta meliora videntur Graece.

[Astrolinium]

If I wanted to say, for example, "The Right to Love the Man", would that want an infinitive or a future passive participle (and would that be dative or genitive)?

You'd want the gerund/gerundive (~future passive participle according to Wheelock's, but not some other grammar books) in the genitive. Gerundive is better for style, here.

ius viri amandi

Multas gratias tibi!

[Naivetry]

You'd want the gerund/gerundive (~future passive participle according to Wheelock's, but not some other grammar books) in the genitive. Gerundive is better for style, here.

ius viri amandi

Multas gratias tibi!

Libenter!

[Aurensia]

"That no Man Rules Another"

Please and thanks?

Here was my (and by my I mean Google Translate's) attempt:

“Quod homo regnat Alia”

[Astrolinium]

"That no Man Rules Another"

This is not, as far as I am aware, a grammatically correct English sentence.
Could you provide some context?

[Aurensia]

"That no Man Rules Another"

This is not, as far as I am aware, a grammatically correct English sentence.
Could you provide some context?

It's intentionally not correct in English. The first part would be "We do (this) so" that no man rules another.

[Astrolinium]

This is not, as far as I am aware, a grammatically correct English sentence.
Could you provide some context?

It's intentionally not correct in English. The first part would be "We do (this) so" that no man rules another.

Ut nemo alii imperet.

[Aurensia]

It's intentionally not correct in English. The first part would be "We do (this) so" that no man rules another.

Ut nemo alii imperet.

Thanks :-)

[Nchardahrk]

I am a little girl and desire to wear womens panties. Translate that please :-/

[Leepaidamba]

This is not, as far as I am aware, a grammatically correct English sentence.
Could you provide some context?

It's intentionally not correct in English. The first part would be "We do (this) so" that no man rules another.

Let's see:
"(Facimus) Uti Nullus Vir/Homo ((Regnet/Regat) Alium/Imperet Alio)"
The "Facimus" should be left out for your own translation. I can't separate any "so" from a "that" so you'll have to be content with it. The difference between "Vir" and "Homo" is one of manliness and courage, "Vir" being more of a hero than the other. The "Regnet" refers specifically to a reign over a country, while a manager or guide could just as well "Reg[ere]". "Imperet" has a more military feel to it and uses the dative instead of the accusative so don't use it with "Alium".
My best advice is "Uti Homo Nullus Alium Regnet" but see for yourself what best conveys the meaning you want and what sounds best.

It's intentionally not correct in English. The first part would be "We do (this) so" that no man rules another.

Ut nemo alii imperet.

Damn, Astrol ninja'd me. One mistake though: "imperet" goes with a dative so you'll still need to use "alio" instead of "alii". In hindsight I do advise using "nemo" instead of "Nullus Homo".

[Astrolinium]

Damn, Astrol ninja'd me. One mistake though: "imperet" goes with a dative so you'll still need to use "alio" instead of "alii". In hindsight I do advise using "nemo" instead of "Nullus Homo".

I am reasonably certain that alii is the dative of alius.

Lewis and Short agree.

[Leepaidamba]

Damn, Astrol ninja'd me. One mistake though: "imperet" goes with a dative so you'll still need to use "alio" instead of "alii". In hindsight I do advise using "nemo" instead of "Nullus Homo".

I am reasonably certain that alii is the dative of alius.

Lewis and Short agree.

ali.i ADJ 1 5 GEN S M POS
ali.i ADJ 1 5 GEN S N POS
ali.i ADJ 1 5 NOM P M POS
ali.i ADJ 1 5 VOC P M POS
alius, alia, aliud ADJ [XXXAQ]
other, another; different, changed; [alii...alii => some...others]; (A+G);

That there disagrees with you.

ali.o ADJ 1 5 DAT S M POS
ali.o ADJ 1 5 ABL S M POS
ali.o ADJ 1 5 ABL S N POS
alius, alia, aliud ADJ [XXXAQ]
other, another; different, changed; [alii...alii => some...others]; (A+G);

That there agrees with me.

But then I look in my paper dictionary and I find:

.., dat. alii

and I just give more credence to that so I'll have to end my disagreement.

[Naivetry]

*snip*

I recognize a parsing program! Careful with those; they vary enormously in quality.

Alius is one of nine common Latin words (UNUS NAUTA, anyone?) which have a genitive singular ending in -ius and a dative singular ending in a long i. So 'alii' would be the right choice with impero, there.

The only thing I'm wondering is whether it might be better to use a present subjunctive, since the omitted "we do this" part would be in primary sequence.

So you'd have "Ut nemo alii imperat".

EDIT: As pointed out below, it's already in the present subjunctive - silly me.

[Astrolinium]

The only thing I'm wondering is whether it might be better to use a present subjunctive, since the omitted "we do this" part would be in primary sequence.

So you'd have "Ut nemo alii imperat".

Wait, I thought impero was first conjugation. Wouldn't imperat be indicative, then?

[Joshuahood]

The only thing I'm wondering is whether it might be better to use a present subjunctive, since the omitted "we do this" part would be in primary sequence.

So you'd have "Ut nemo alii imperat".

Wait, I thought impero was first conjugation. Wouldn't imperat be indicative, then?

Yes. Impero, imperare, imperavi, imperatus is first conjugation, so imperet is subjunctive and imperat is indicative. Since this is an Ut Clause of Purpose, the ut should be followed by the subjunctive verb, so imperet.

[Athana]

What would 'Never back down to aggressors' be?

[The Pretend Pub]

It's all too easy to mistake first conjugation verbs whose present stem ends in -er as second or third conjugation imperfect subjunctives when they're present subjunctives, if you forget that they are in fact first conjugation.

[Mercinova]

Si Nihil Celare, Nihil Timere

Tried to go with 'you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide'. Is my (Google) translation right?