No love is greater than that of a father for his sons

[Ignis Umbra]

What do you mean by "substantivized"? I think you misunderstand me, because I wasn't saying anything about substantives.

though I disagree that amor couldn't have been left implied with nullus.

That statement implies that I said amor could be removed without any ambiguity, therefore yielding Nullus maior quam ..., but in fact I was referring to the ablative amore.

What I'm saying is that patris erga filium eo nullus amor maior, as you suggested, doesn't work. (Or at least I think that's what you suggested. How else am I to interpret "I really meant that you could have used a demonstrative pronoun eo instead of amore".)

You interpreted correctly. My only question now is why that doesn't work exactly...

 

[Imber Ranae]

That statement implies that I said amor could be removed without any ambiguity, therefore yielding Nullus maior quam ..., but in fact I was referring to the ablative amore.

I was disagreeing with LCF's statement, which I thought you agreed with: "nullus maior est is not the same as nullus amor major est. When nullus does not refer to a person, it is customary to specify a noun. If anything is to be left out, it should rather be the ablative amore rather than amor." On the contrary, amore can't be left out, though amor probably could be.

You interpreted correctly. My only question now is why that doesn't work exactly...

I'm not at all sure how to satisfactorily answer a question of this kind, to be honest. Latin just doesn't use the equivalent of "that of". It either repeats the noun or leaves it implied where possible.


ETA: In case you don't want to take my word for it, see here under NOTE 1 for corroboration.

 

[Pacifica]

Both translations proposed thus far are right, but here's a third, which is both rather literal and avoids repetition, and is also idiomatic I think:

Nullus amor maior est quam patris erga filios: no love is greater than that of a father for (his) sons.

 

[Matthaeus]

Yeah but LCF rendered it so Ciceronianically almost... yours is good too PP!

 

[Christian Alexander]

One should also remember, that its not just rendering a Latin phrase for idiom and exactness.... It is a rendering for something personal and something hundreds of people are going to see, read, and ask about -- it needs to have that sort of flow, or natural rhythm which makes people inclined to certain quotes or sayings, how it sounds when spoken aloud. Though that might have to rest in the opinion of the person utilizing the quote, I suppose. I'm not saying I have the answer, just a thought..
I like all 3 of the variants so far, overall. Pacis Puella's definitely has a straightforwardness to it that I like, and I dig the rhythm it has

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Yes, and Pacis' verſion reads very eaſily.

 

[Pacifica]

Yeah but LCF rendered it so Ciceronianically almost... yours is good too PP!

I like LCF's too, providing you change filium to filios - and suum to suos if you keep it but I like it without.

 

[Matthaeus]

I agree.

 

[aidencian]

Hello. Would it be acceptable if I modified the phrase slightly?

Nullus amor maior quam quo pater filios amat - No love is greater than that by which a father loves his sons.

Hi, and sorry to bother you again, i was looking for your advice on the following............my son finally got a teacher at his school that spoke Latin and showed him both options given on here. His teacher advised that your version was most suitable for what i was looking for but he did say he would have changed one thing which was to add the word est in between maior quam. Do you have any view on this?

 

[Ignis Umbra]

Yes, I do. Est can either be included or omitted; its presence or absence doesn't affect the translation.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

amet

 

[Pacifica]

No, amat. No reason for the subjunctive here, it's just a general fact. I have a personal preference for your and my versions with patris erga filios, though. But I suppose it's just personal, the quo one is right too, just a little less straigtforwardly said.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

It matters little if it is a general fact or not. This is a relative clause, it requires a subjunctive mood.

 

[Pacifica]

Not all relative clauses take the subjunctive. Only if they express purpose, characteristic, after unus/solus/nullus est qui... are part of a hypothetical/unreal statement or depend on indirect speech

 

[Deleted member 13757]

Not all relative clauses take the subjunctive. Only if they express purpose, characteristic, are part of a hypothetical/unreal statement or depend on indirect speech.

 

[Pacifica]

I don't especially see a charcteristic here, "of the kind to...".

 

[Deleted member 13757]

nullus maior meo patre, qui me amat....
// my father is great, he loves me.

nullus major (eo) patre qui amet
// there is no one greater than a father who loves.

 

[Ignis Umbra]

But here's the thing: I didn't use the nominative form, but rather the ablative.

Nullus amor maior quam quo pater filios amat - No love is greater than that by which a father love his sons. This is stating a fact, describing how the love is used.

 

[Christian Alexander]

I think I kinda see how LCF is seeing it, like:

There's no kind of love greater than a father's for his son. / There's no type of love greater.. etc

But I guess the interpretation/usage of that relative could change it..

 

[Pacifica]

It would rather be something like "No love is greater than the one which is of such a kind that a father would love his sons with it".

I'd use the indicative. The subjunctive is weird there.