NationStates

Astrolinium wrote:

Themiclesia wrote:
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.

Themiclesia wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
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 wrote:

Themiclesia wrote:
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 wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
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 wrote:

Themiclesia wrote:
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 wrote:

Astrolinium wrote:
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 wrote:

West Infinity wrote:Now this one's just me being cheeky:

Ubi nemo prior iit ir[proterve]e!

Ad audacter eundum quo nemo prius ivit.

Evolu Tanis wrote: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 wrote: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."

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

Ainin wrote:Militias fortia, prōsunt!
(Brave militias, advance!)

Is this right?

Themiclesia wrote:

Ainin wrote: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

United Marxist Nations wrote:Could one of you translate "I'm in your base, killing your dudes"?

Astrolinium wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Could one of you translate "I'm in your base, killing your dudes"?

In castris sum, socios occidens.

New Vudnia wrote: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 wrote:

New Vudnia wrote: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".

Astrolinium wrote:

New Vudnia wrote: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".

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

New Vudnia wrote:scientia vincere tenebras

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