Learn to appreciate what you have before time makes you appreciate what you had

Bradicus

New Member

It certainly isn't right in English. The question is whether it is in Latin.

For example, "If you will not have done this, I'll kill you", isn't very correct English, yet it's the literal translation for nisi hoc feceris, occidam te, which is the correct Latin for "If you don't do this, I'll kill you".
That a great insight into the use of the future perfect, thanks!
 

AoM

nulli numeri

  • Civis Illustris

- I was thinking of cogat for 'makes'.

- I also was thinking of the perfect for 'you had'. But I can see the attraction as well.
 

The Kenosha Kid

Active Member

Location:
The Zone
The subjunctive ideas you guys are discussing are, in my opinion, not the right angle for this sentence. Not only is the value (i.e. 'that which is appreciable') of 'what you have/had' not in question, but the said value is one imposed by the speaker and so treated as inherent in 'what you have/had'. I think the idea is closer to 'Learn that you have valuable things' than it is to 'Learn what sort of valuable things you have.' That is to say, the person isn't being urged to learn how the things are valuable, but rather to value the things that are.

Disce quod preti habes, ne doceat tempus quod preti habuisti.

Lit. 'Learn that which you have of value, lest time teach you that which you had of value.'

It will of course be necessary to understand pretium not as simple 'monetary value' but 'metaphysical worth'. Also, we understand 'teach' as the causative counterpart to 'learn' (i.e. 'makes (you) learn'), though in English they are from different roots.
 

AoM

nulli numeri

  • Civis Illustris

I had magni facere.

For disce quod preti habes, do you mean "learn that what you have is of value"?
 

Ethan9482

New Member

Thanks to all for taking part in this, wasn't meaning to spark debate!

In terms of the time of the English phrase, the meaning I am taking from it is appreciating what's in front of you rather now than only beginning to appreciate it when its lost / too late.

Hopefully that helps?

Thanks again!
 

The Kenosha Kid

Active Member

Location:
The Zone
wasn't meaning to spark debate!
Impossible not to. Every Latinist worth his salt has quite the... ego (hehe).

At any rate, mine seems to fit your elaboration just fine, and it's much lovelier to read to bote.

For disce quod preti habes, do you mean "learn that what you have is of value"?
Yeah, more or less.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
I have to disagree. Disce quod preti habes, ne doceat tempus quod preti habuisti seems rather awkward (verging on downright incorrect) to me.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Hi,

Maybe:

Disce videre quanta sint quae habes antequam tempus efficiat ut videas quanta fuerint quae habueris.
However, I have a question for Pacifica. Why is "habes" in the indicative, but "habueris" in the subjunctive? The uses seem like they should be parallel grammatically.
In fact I was thinking for habueris to be future perfect.
Why future perfect, though? Perfect feels more natural to me.
Dunno, it seemed logical because it refers to the future (it isn't about things which you now had and no longer have, but about things which at some point in the future you will have had and no longer have).
I interpreted it as things you have now and no longer have — i.e. you should learn to appreciate the things that you have now, before you lose them and you appreciate those same things, except you no longer have them. Maybe the future perfect would still be the right tense to convey that, though.
That's the same interpretation as mine.
Oh. To me the future perfect (habueris) made it feel like "quae habueris" are things that you don't have in the present, but will both acquire and lose in the future. Maybe "quae habueris" can refer to things that you have in the present but lose in the future, I'm not sure.
So based on Dantius:
"learn to see how great those things which you have are, before time brings it about that you see how great those things were which you will have had".
Doesn't seem right.
It certainly isn't right in English. The question is whether it is in Latin.

For example, "If you will not have done this, I'll kill you", isn't very correct English, yet it's the literal translation for nisi hoc feceris, occidam te, which is the correct Latin for "If you don't do this, I'll kill you".
The question is whether Latin in this case remains precise with the tenses as it often does and refers to the future "having had" with the future perfect, or if it behaves here more like English and uses a past tense even if it isn't really past yet.
Or, third option, if the "having had" would be attracted into the subjunctive as being part of the "potentiality" of the ut clause.
Does Aurifex have an idea concerning this matter of tense/mood—habueris (whether future perfect or perfect subjunctive) vs. habuisti? Habuisti somehow doesn't sound right to me at first, but I suppose I could be wrong since, unfortunately, I can't remember reading any sentence with quite the same pattern as this one.
 

Aurifex

Aedilis

  • Aedilis

  • Patronus

Location:
England
Does Aurifex have an idea concerning this matter of tense/mood—habueris (whether future perfect or perfect subjunctive) vs. habuisti? Habuisti somehow doesn't sound right to me at first, but I suppose I could be wrong since, unfortunately, I can't remember reading any sentence with quite the same pattern as this one.
I think we can rule out perfect subjunctive.

I'd say neither perfect not future perfect is wrong; they're just asking us to look at things from different perspectives.

Clearly the effect of the expression in English relies on the heavy antithesis between two small words "have" and "had". An alternative way of signalling that antithesis in Latin might be to say:
Disce videre quanta sint quae habes, antequam tempus efficiat ut videas quanta fuerint quae iam non habes.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Somehow I feel like putting the future there too: iam non habebis, for the same reason as I used habueris in my version: because it's supposed to refer to the future and habes looks as if you already now no longer had those things. :confused:
 

Aurifex

Aedilis

  • Aedilis

  • Patronus

Location:
England
Somehow I feel like putting the future there too: iam non habebis, for the same reason as I used habueris in my version: because it's supposed to refer to the future and habes looks as if you already now no longer had those things. :confused:
I think the rest of the sentence effectively rules out the possibility that iam non habes could mean you no longer have the things at the time of speaking, just as in the English there is no realistic chance of interpreting "what you had" as referring to things already only historically had, and not also presently had, or potentially to be had in the future.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
True enough. Yet wouldn't Latin (unlike English) tend to actually express the future here?
 

Aurifex

Aedilis

  • Aedilis

  • Patronus

Location:
England
If we're talking about a particular instance then quae iam non habebis would certainly seem more natural; if it's more a generalisation, I can't help thinking quae iam non habes would be acceptable also. It would be interesting to see some authentic sentences of this kind for comparison.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Canada
Impossible not to. Every Latinist worth his salt has quite the... ego (hehe).
Actually, I find the opposite: that those who are most learned and experienced are also rather humble and fully recognize the intrinsic difficulty of translating certain sentences.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Canada
Somehow I feel like putting the future there too: iam non habebis, for the same reason as I used habueris in my version: because it's supposed to refer to the future and habes looks as if you already now no longer had those things. :confused:
For what it's worth, future perfect makes the most sense to me. Habes feels strange, like (like Pacifica said) you already don't have those things; of course it wouldn't be odd in English, but in Latin I feel like a future is needed there.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
In Aurifex's version of the sentence (which says "which you no longer have"), if the future is to be used, it would be simple future rather than future perfect (the future perfect would be in my version, which says "which you had").
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
But I guess Aurifex is right that the present and perfect (respectively) are acceptable too. Even if it were about a particular instance, they probably wouldn't be impossible, since the present somtimes occurs for the future, but it probably would be less Ciceronian or so.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Canada
In Aurifex's version of the sentence (which says "which you no longer have"), if the future is to be used, it would be simple future rather than future perfect (the future perfect would be in my version, which says "which you had").
True.
 

The Kenosha Kid

Active Member

Location:
The Zone
Chiasmi of this kind, being for the most part 'words to live by', aren't concerned with rigid grammar or exactitude that rules out every other avenue of understanding, and by the addition of unnecessary specifications like quanta sint much of the impact of the original is, in my opinion, lost. Take for example the old saying 'waste not, want not'. More logical than this expression, and really quite what is meant (pseudo-imperative), is 'If you wish not to be in want, then don't be wasteful.' However, if you were to translate 'waste not, want not' into some such Latin as si non uis..., the nature of the original would be utterly lost.

Although I'm sure none of you is unaware of these things, it is altogether too easy to fall into the discussion of such endlessly circular minutia as the aspectual significance of two subjunctive tenses. I just really don't think that's what this person is interested in. He/she wants a translation that mirrors the original, not lays it out in 'plain Latin'.
 
Top