Tafsiri - Kiingereza-Kilatini - Fear not for the future , weep not for the past

Hi Alex! Negative imperatives in Latin consit of Noli/nolite + infinitive.

Hi Aneta!

I think that here the one which is negated is not the verb, but the noun. If it was the verb, the sentence would have been Don't fear for the future, don't weep for the past in my opinion. But I'm not sure. Should we ask it to Lilian or Lein?

This is a famous quote by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
I think it means the same as "Do not fear...do not weep..."

Laura?

CC: kafetzou

So, if "fear" was a noun here, you shouldn't translate it by a verb "time", Alex, but maybe by "timor", metus... Anyway I don't think that "weep" can be considered as it was a noun. It is always a verb. Isn't it?

Oh I see. You think that "the future" and "the past" are negated! Hm, probably it is a kind of syntax where we emphasize the nouns {objects), but there are still verbs negated. Nouns never can be negated in my opinion.

So to emphasize nouns, you could translate it as follows:
"Futura noli timere, praeterita noli deflere"

So, whatever meaning has the source text, in Latin you cannot negate a noun without negating also the verb?

I meant that we can't negate nouns by placing "non" before them like we do this for verbs. We can negate them with some "adjectives", for example "nulla futura" etc.

Verum dicis! Id non memineram...

As Lilian says, this is a famous quote, from a long time ago, so the grammar is a bit old fashioned. It is in fact the verb that is negated; "Fear not" means "Do not fear"; and "weep not" means "do not weep".

Thanks girls!

Ok, Alex. You can improve your translation now. What have you decided?

I choose your suggestion "Futura noli timere, praeterita noli deflere".

Good. Accepted without rating, since the source text was a bit confusing.