Tattoo Think for yourself. Question everything.
- Thread starter MaiKro
- Start date
tu per te putes. exigas omnia.
= You think on your own. Test everything.
= You think on your own. Test everything.
Indeed, it doesn't make any sense.
That is more grammatically correct, but the word choice and construction isn't ideal. Puto more usually means "think (that such and such is the case)" rather than just "reflect". The latter would be more commonly expressed with cogito. It might also be more straightforward to use simply ipse for "for yourself". So for the first part I would suggest ipse cogita. You can add per te (ipse per te cogita) but it may not be necessary.
Exige omnia (let's use the imperative in both parts) perhaps can work as it can mean "inquire into everything". Another translation that we came up with before for this phrase is omnia in dubium voca (literally "call everything into question/doubt").
Yes cogitare is not at all a bad choice. I decided on putare esp in light of its meaning as "to reckon." It is a general word for thinking, and that seems to fit. It is a short, common, often-used word.
"Question everything" could include doubt, but it need not. So the idea of "examine" or "test" seems good to me.
I tend to like the subjunctive for a softer imperative. "You should (be doing this)." But the regular imperative mood is fine, maybe even better in such a statement as this.
"Question everything" could include doubt, but it need not. So the idea of "examine" or "test" seems good to me.
I tend to like the subjunctive for a softer imperative. "You should (be doing this)." But the regular imperative mood is fine, maybe even better in such a statement as this.
It is an often used word, but not often used in the intransitive sense of "to think", "to reflect". Puto usually means "to think" as in "to think that such and such is the case, to hold such and such opinion".
You have something there, insofar as cogito implies the activity of a reflective ordering. But I think there may be a more ruminative and judgmental aspect to puto that is not foreign to the original idea. "Think for yourself!" may imply "Order your thinking according to your own lights." Or it may mean something closer to "Come to your own conclusions!"
Looking over L&S's entry I see
b. To reckon, value, estimate, esteem a thing as any thing (= aestimare): aliquid denariis quadringentis, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 7, § 13: magni putare honores, id. Planc. 4, 11: cum unum te pluris quam omnes illos putem, id. Att. 12, 21, 5: parvi, Cat. 23, 25: tantique putat conubia nostra, Ov. M. 10, 618.—
c. To reckon, deem, hold, consider, count, esteem, etc.: aliquem nihilo, Cic. Div. in Caecil. 7, 24: aliquid pro certo, Matius et Trebat. ap. Cic. Att. 9, 15, A fin. : pro nihilo, Cic. Mil. 24, 64: imperatorem aliquo in numero putare, id. Imp. Pomp. 13, 37.—With two acc. : turpem putat lituram, Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 167: id nil puto, Ter. Heaut. 5, 1, 27; id. Ad. 1, 2, 19; 5, 4, 4; Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 84; 2, 2, 54; id. C. 4, 11, 30: hominem prae se neminem, Cic. Rosc. Am. 46, 135.—
d. To ponder, consider, reflect upon a thing: dum haec puto, Ter. Eun. 4, 2, 4: in quo primum illud debes putare, Cic. Planc. 4, 10: multa putans, Verg. A. 6, 332: cum aliquo argumentis, to consider or investigate maturely, to argue, Plaut. Am. 2, 1, 45.—
e. Transf. (as the result of consideration), to judge, suppose, account, suspect, believe, think, imagine, etc. (cf.: arbitror, opinor, censeo):
So I still prefer putare. And for tattoos, shorter is better.
What Pacifica means is that puto needs a direct object (or acc + inf, etc.). If you look at your dictionary entry above, you'll see that puto is not used intransitively in any of the examples given. I agree with her that an intransitive use of puto sounds very odd indeed.
I second ipse cogita, exige omnia.
I second ipse cogita, exige omnia.
Puto can also be used absolutely (e.g. hoc bonum est, puto) but that's obviously something else. Puto in those cases is still sort of transitive, it's just that the object is left implied (in the above sentence, for instance, the understood object of puto is hoc bonum esse, but it doesn't get repeated since it's just been stated in direct-speech form).
Point taken...except there is a very common intransitive use so it does not seem that strange. From L&S:
Parenthetically, Cic. Att. 12, 49, 1; Cael. ap. Cic. Fam. 8, 3, 3; Cic. Att. 8, 9, 4; 7, 8, 5; 9, 9, 3; 10, 16, 3: atque intra, puto, septimas Calendas, Mart. 1, 100, 6.—Ironically, Ov. Am. 3, 7, 2: ut puto, deus fio,as I think in my opinion Suet. Vesp. 23 fin. ; Ov. A. A. 1, 370: non, puto, repudiabis, etc., I think, I suppose, Vat. ap. Cic. Fam. 5, 9, 1.
I sensed that was coming. Hence my last post, which I suppose you didn't see before posting yours.
In light of the cogent case made, I suppose I must now incline to
Tibi putandum est.
= "You've got to do your own reckoning."
Cogito seems so much more open-ended to me, but I am not rejecting it.
Tibi putandum est.
= "You've got to do your own reckoning."
Cogito seems so much more open-ended to me, but I am not rejecting it.
Yes, I didn't think of the parenthetical use, but as Pacifica said, in this instance it also has an object; it's just implied by the surrounding context.
If you say Ipse puto or putes, though, there's no implied object (and by the nature of this particular sentence, there can't be, since you're telling the person to "think for themselves" -- if puto had an (implied) object, you would be telling them what to think!) So this can't be the parenthetical use of puto, either.
If you say Ipse puto or putes, though, there's no implied object (and by the nature of this particular sentence, there can't be, since you're telling the person to "think for themselves" -- if puto had an (implied) object, you would be telling them what to think!) So this can't be the parenthetical use of puto, either.
No, no, this would imply that something or other "must be thought" by you -- in other words, you would be telling the person what to think!
I mean, if I saw tibi putandum est, I would instinctively expect an accusative and infinitive (or something equivalent) to follow. If it appeared in isolation like that, I would frankly be bewildered, and would probably scrutinize the preceding and following sentences to see if there was some implied subject in agreement with putandum which I had missed.
Only if I said "Hoc tibi putandum est."
Well put, Callaina.
Indeed, puta occurs in the imperative as an idiom that sort of literally tells people what to think, or imagine: it's used to introduce an example as in legam aliquid, puta carmen = literally "I'll read something, think/imagine a poem", i.e. "I'll read something, say, a poem" or "... for instance, a poem". Literally, that's basically telling your addressee to think, as an example for the time being, that the thing you'll read will be a poem.
Typo puto ---> puta.
I agree.
No, the pronoun may be added for emphasis but isn't requisite.
Think of it this way: suppose I said to you in English, "You need to believe." Wouldn't that sound rather odd? I mean, believe what? If someone said that to you, you would instinctively try to find an object for "believe", and would probably think about what you were just talking about, to see if the other person was referring to, say, the existence of a deity, or the rightness of a political cause, or something. What you wouldn't assume is that the other person just meant "believe" without any object at all, because English doesn't work that way. Puto is rather like that in Latin.
Not sure about the exclusion of an absolute use here. If I say tibi scribendum est, "you've got to write," am I necessarily implying a particular object (hoc / haec), or might I be saying: composition is an act in which you should be engaging (whatever it is you are writing). Parallel: Reckoning is something you have to do, whatever it is you are reckoning.