| | |
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 07:52 |
| XiniHozzászólások száma: 1655 | 1) Why all caps, Porfy?
2) Can you explain för evigt -> coniungit? |
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 08:25 |
| | "För evigt" means forever... |
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 09:20 |
| | 1) I recently read an interesting essay according to the proper writing of Latin.
2)
coniung.it V 3 1 PRES ACTIVE IND 3 S
conjungo, conjungere, conjunxi, conjunctus V (3rd) TRANS [XXXAO]
connect, join/yoke together; marry; connect/compound (words) (w/conjunctions);
unite (sexually); place/bring side-by-side; juxtapose; share; add; associate;
Marriage is meant to last eternally. What would you have suggested instead?
Do you have any complaints? |
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 09:25 |
| | Tassen:
Do you say that you would have preferred another translation. Why not do it yourself?
"Æternam" is often wrongly used, if you are not intending to become a dried flower. CC: tassen Francky5591 |
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 16:58 |
| XiniHozzászólások száma: 1655 | "in aeternum" is more literal.
By the way, why use 3rd person?
1) That implies the existence of a third subject.
2) That implies an action which is not intended in the original.
3) The action implies that they've been "united" in a certain moment in time, while "in aeternum" can mean that they've been always united, poetically even before they were born.
4) By the way, marriage is not mentioned here.
That's why I think it's wrong.
By the way, when I translate into Italian or Latin, since there are other experts, I rarely evaluate my own translation (i do it just if they're literal and very simple) or at least I ask for a poll before accepting, so if someone has something to say he can say it before it is accepted.
About allcaps, I would not use them since, in my humble opinion, it's not proper now and here. They're too "connotated" now, since we use allcaps to shout, to say "warning" etc... I think the best is, if you want, to put the allcaps version in notes, saying that "This was the proper Latin writing since they didn't use smallcaps". I think that now, writing in allcaps, you slightly change the perception of the message.
What do you think? |
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 12:38 |
| | I have´nt said anything about anything! I just wanted help with translating... and one of you wanted to know what "för evigt" ment... so I explained that... I can translate it to english, but I want to know it in latin and italian! |
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 13:50 |
| XiniHozzászólások száma: 1655 | Ok tassen, we were talking about how to best translate your request. |
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 15:53 |
| | Xini is right!
In aeternum = för evigt
My suggestion is to keep a litteral translation (for example, Te amo, nos in aeternum) rather than a controversial interpretation. What do you think?
|
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 16:21 |
| | Sorry... missunderstanding... thought you talked to me when you started the sentence with Tassen. Thank you for helping me!!!
|
| | 19 Szeptember 2007 18:29 |
| XiniHozzászólások száma: 1655 | Yes Tassen:
Porfyhr was talking to you, but I was talking to Porfyhr. |
| | 20 Szeptember 2007 08:03 |
| XiniHozzászólások száma: 1655 | Porfyhr, you wrote:
I would have preferred conuingit, but æternum and perpetuum seem to be the two Latin "pop"words. I do hope the vocabulary was more extended at the old days.
3rd person is natural if I talk about a he and she. Like a coin and a bill. Is that strange.
I still wish to know Xini. Is my first translation wrong?
Well, I really don't understand of what "he" or "she" would you have talked about. No 3rd person is mentioned in the original text, only the 1st singular and plural. And yes, I still think your first translation was wrong, sorry to say this to a collegue like you but that's my opinion. |