| | |
| | 2010年 सेप्टेम्बर 5日 22:09 |
| | |
| | 2010年 सेप्टेम्बर 5日 22:43 |
| | Hello dear. Word by word it's: "To live without risks, you live nothing" but I'd say:
"Living without risks you don't live". |
| | 2010年 सेप्टेम्बर 5日 22:48 |
| | Thank you, dear!
----
Alex, I think you didn't understand the source text precisely. Could you correct your translation, please? |
| | 2010年 सेप्टेम्बर 5日 22:59 |
| | I translated into Latin thinking
"If you live without risks, you don't live really".
French text doesn't show any 2nd singular person.
It shows only a general subject "on", which finds its equivalent in the 3rd singular person passive ending "-tur".
Maybe instead of "si vivitur" I could have written "vivendo".
Is "vere" totally wrong in this context? |
| | 2010年 सेप्टेम्बर 5日 23:24 |
| | I see. So, you can leave this passive impersonal form I guess.
But "Vivendo" is typical "Italian solution"
In Latin it should be "vivens" (participium praesentis activi).
You added "vere" (truly) to the text, because you interpreted it in this just way. I don't think it is very bad. I'd say this is rather a matter of your "licentia poetica" (even if it is not a poem at all). And becuase this is a request "meaning only" you can let yourself use the "licence"
|
| | 2010年 सेप्टेम्बर 5日 23:27 |
| | But using "vivens" in the first clause, you have to use 2nd person in the second one... |
| | 2010年 सेप्टेम्बर 5日 23:40 |
| | Then is this OK?
"Sine periculis vivens, vere non vivis." |
| | 2010年 सेप्टेम्बर 5日 23:46 |
| | Exactly! |