Prevod - Kineski pojednostavljeni-Latinski - 仅仅是一阵风也罢了，却偏偏这么永恒。仅仅是一个梦也罢了，却偏偏这么真实。你低头不语，我百受煎熬。...

Well, we follow the English version, don't we?

For the first two sentences, I think we need real protasis with "si" (pro "ut" and "unreal subjunctive" in a past system (so pluperfect subj.). I understand: if it had been a puff of wind, it wouldn't have been so everlasting [so it hadn't been a puff of wind nor a dream, though I had had the impression it had been so... hum...]. An elegant poetical way to say: looks like a dream, but wasn't.

perennis/realis need to agree with a subject unexpressed that can't be (apparently) other than neuter.

Moreover, "realis" for "real"... What do you think of "uerus" ?

At last, to suffer = to feel the pain --> dolere. Patior = to undergo/ to suffer without idea of pain.

having read myself again, I correct my awful Frenglish:
... an unexpressed subject that apparently can't be but neuter.

Hello again! I missed Cucumis and you so much !!!
Well, I read carefully what you had written about this translation and I don't know whether I've got you right.I agree with you in the most cases, so I did changes in my translation (vide), but what did you mean saying 'I think we need real protasis with "si"'...?

My first impulse was to express it in this way:
"Si id flatus venti fuisset, (id) non tam perenne fuisset" (modus irrealis of course with pluperf act. subj. for the past action, "id" -unexpressed subject)

But then I decided to change the sentence with the aim of not repeating the verb "fuisset". So I wrote:
"Ut flatus venti, non tam perenne fuisset" (As a puff of wind, it wasn't so everlasting). Isn't it correct?

Hello Aneta, glad to read you again!

«"Si id flatus venti fuisset, (id) non tam perenne fuisset" (modus irrealis of course with pluperf act. subj. for the past action, "id" -unexpressed subject) »

My first impulse too!

« "Ut flatus venti, non tam perenne fuisset" (As a puff of wind, it wasn't so everlasting). Isn't it correct? »

It seems correct, but unless I'm totally mistaken, the meaning is the opposite of the first one:

1."Si id flatus venti fuisset, (id) non tam perenne fuisset" = perennius fuit (quam fl. venti)

2.a) "Ut flatus venti, non tam perenne fuisset" (which I'd translate: as a puff of wind, it wouldn't had been so everlasting): fuisset (unreal) implies some protasis i. e. an hypothetical [if-]clause; I don't think "ut" can introduce such clause, unless you mean:[if we consider it to be] as a puff of wind... but it seems oversubtle and twisty.

b) If you mean "As a puff of wind, it wasn't so everlasting" (ut..., non tam perenne fuit), it means the opposite: "non tam perenne fuit" vs "perennius fuit".

Couldn't Latin's "breuitas" bear (for example): Id si flatus venti non tam perenne fuisset ?

Thanks, my dear chronotribe
Id si flatus venti non tam perenne fuisset ?
sounds well, but let me think more about it. Maybe I will make up sth better.

Id flatus venti esse non potuit, non tam perenne fuisset.
What do you think?

Sorry Aneta for my coming back a little late...

I'd try to put together some thoughts about your proposition.

1. I wonder if it isn't a little bit too far removed from the original, though I can't make sure of it, for I don't read Chinese even simplified...

2. I suppose in this case we can't use asyndeton, because there isn't any opposition between each clause; the logical relation between them (which indeed is somewhat comple is effect/consequence-cause (it couldn't have been a puff of wind, for/because [if it were] it wouldn't have been so everlasting), isn't it? Hence we need some syntactical connection (coordination or subordination).

3. Consequently I still believe that the so-called hypothetical system (if-clause) is the most suitable here.

4. However, the best way to translate it properly would certainly be to find in Latin authors (probably in poets) some locus in which similar ideas were expressed in a similar way...

Now, "cogitating" about this text, I really wonder if τρόπος that it shows could have been use in this way by a Latin author...

Ideas that are expressed or suggested here are quite subtle: as far as I can understand it, it means that a gesture (head silently dropping) or a feeling (the suffering that the speaker feels) (probably the first one or both = an atmosphere/circumstance : there is a deliberate vagueness), whereas it could be compared to a puff of wind or a dream (both are vague and immaterial things), is however perceived as something not transient or unreal. This is a essentially poetical way to associate contradictory aspects in the depiction of a state.

The ordinary τρόπος in poetry is, as we know it, comparison (or metaphor):
It was as transient as a puff of wind.
It was like a dream.
It was a puff of wind, a dream...

In this text, there are two evocations of possible comparisons (in conditional clauses), which are in turn denied in one of their main aspect: transience and unreality.

We should try to find some way to produce the same effect in Latin...

I'm afraid that "ego ipse" am turning to be somewhat vague.

I know what you mean, so you aren't vague The only problem is to make theory come alive... Thank you for your smart hints. I realy value them. Well, I won't make up anything else, so I have to make do with your suggestions.