Translation - Svedski-Latinski - Du har alltid en speciell plats i mitt hjärta,...

Hi Alex,
"quod in temporibus futuris accisurum esse"?

I don't know why you used ACI after a verb "interest"? Shouldn't be here an objective clause with conjunctive?

and is "mea" needed in this case?
id mea non interest --> non interest (no matter)

Hi dear Aneta,

1) According to my memory and to my notes, interest and refert take the genitive of the interested person (or the accusative if it's a neuter pronoun or mea/tua/nostra/vestra if it's a personal pronoun), and the interesting thing can be expressed either by an infinitive clause or by ut/ne + conjunctive. Am I wrong?

2) You're right, the source text does not make explicit who doesn't matter (but it's quite obviously the speaker). I didn't know if in Latin we could simply say "non interest" without explaining who doesn't matter, so I preferred to express it.
But now I know

Hm. I'm still not sure about the infinitive here dear.

Of course we can use "interest" without the person speaking.
Look at the sentences below, please.

"Non interest, utrum ad dexteram vadas an ad sinistram"

"Non ergo interest qua via eas"


This is why my proposition is:

quod in temporibus futuris accidat non interest.

or

non interest quod in temporibus futuris accidat.

My Latin book gives these examples, all by Cicero:

"Mea interest hoc omnes scire."
"Multum interest rei familiaris tuae te quam primum venire."
"Non nostra magis quam vestra refert vos non rebellare."
"Omnium interest recte facere."
"Nostra interest te esse Romae."

Yes, but all the clauses are final clauses... (and answer a question: for what?) meanwhile yours should be objective clause (the answer is: "what?).

But I can be wrong.
Let's ask Efylove for her opinion.

Efee could you?

CC: Efylove

Hi, dear friends!

With "what/quod" we can't use an infinitive clause, because our "what/quod" introduces a relative (or interrogative?)clause; so we should put a conjunctive, not an infinite.
I wonder if that "what" really is a relative pronoun... why not an interrogative one? So we could have an indirect interrogative clause (as in Aneta's examples with "utrum" or "qua via".
So I suggest:
"quid [interrogative pronoun] in temporibus futuris accidat non interest".

Thank you, dear.
Yes I agree that interrogative pronoun "quid" fits even better than relative "quod" here.

What do you think, Alex?

I agree.
Thank you both for your help, Aneta and Serena.

Finally you convinced me!