sapientiam amIcArum tuArum, O fIlia mea, semper laudat

[Stav S]

This is in capvt III of Wheelock's Latin, I tried translating it then checked the Internet for the translation and it came up with different results:
My translation: Oh daughter of mine, he/she/it always praises your friends' wisdom.
(http://www.flashcardmachine.com/print/?topic_id=1563291)'s translation: The wisdom of your friends is always praised, my daughter.
Which is generally the same, but the site's translation does not include the performer of the praising in the sentence. Who is right?
Thanks

 

[Pacifica]

You are right.

 

[Stav S]

You are right.

Another sentence:
agricola fIliAbus pecUniam dat
Is the translation 'A/The farmer gives money to his daughters' or 'A/The farmer gives money to daughters'?
Your help is much appreciated

 

[Pacifica]

Literally, it's the latter, as there is no "his" literally in the Latin, but Latin sometimes omits possessives where English would automatically use them, so "The farmer gives money to his daughters" is the natural English translation.

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

In theory, there's no way of telling. In practice, it has to mean A, because B is as close to a sentence that nobody would ever say as you can get.

 

[Pacifica]

In theory, it could also be "The farmer gives money to the daughters" — the daughters of some other specific person mentioned in a story, if there were a context; but without any context the default interpretation is that they're his daughters.

 

[Stav S]

In theory, there's no way of telling. In practice, it has to mean A, because B is as close to a sentence that nobody would ever say as you can get.

In theory, it could also be "The farmer gives money to the daughters" — the daughters of some other specific person mentioned in a story, if there were a context; but without any context the default interpretation is that they're his daughters.

So how can you clarify that they are random daughters and not the farmer's?
Just asking out of curiosity, that is a very strange sentence.

 

[Pacifica]

The most likely interpretation is that they are the farmer's daughters. They could be someone else's daughters if the context told you otherwise — say, if the story went "There's a baker who lives with his three daughters. This baker is friends with a farmer. The farmer gives money to the daughters": here you could tell from the context they were the baker's daughters, since daughters of the baker had been mentioned and not of the farmer. But without any such context, it's naturally interpreted as "The farmer gives money to his daughters". There's nothing strange with the sentence. Latin sometimes does without possessives where English would use them; and this happens particularly often with body parts and family members.

 

[Stav S]

The most likely interpretation is that they are the farmer's daughters. They could be someone else's daughters if the context told you otherwise — say, if the story went "There's a baker who lives with his three daughters. This baker is friends with a farmer. The farmer gives money to the daughters": here you could tell from the context they were the baker's daughters, since daughters of the baker had been mentioned and not of the farmer. But without any such context, it's naturally interpreted as "The farmer gives money to his daughters". There's nothing strange with the sentence. Latin sometimes does without possessives where English would use them; and this happens particularly often with body parts and family members.

Yes I understand, but what if one wants to clarify that the daughters are not the farmer's, without clarifying whose daughters they are?

 

[Pacifica]

Either the context, if there were one, would be sufficient to clarify things, or you would need to add some word.

 

[Stav S]

Either the context, if there were one, would be sufficient to clarify things, or you would need to add some word.

Alright thanks.
Is the following image a good translation to the sentence "We see great fortune in your daughters' lives, my friend"?
I know it's Eng. to Lat. but I figured it would be dumb to open so many threads.

 

[Pacifica]

Filiae tuae = your daughter's, not your daughters'.

 

[Stav S]

Filiae tuae = your daughter's, not your daughters'.

Right, the sentence was still logical though haha.
Is this correct?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes. Vita could be left in the singular, though, even if you say "lives" in English.

 

[Stav S]

Yes. Vita could be left in the singular, though, even if you say "lives" in English.

Why so?

 

[Pacifica]

When several "owners" possess each one same thing (like here, each possesses one life), that thing is sometimes kept in the singular in Latin. But I'm not saying the plural is wrong, either.

 

[Stav S]

When several "owners" possess each one same thing (like here, each possesses one life), that thing is sometimes kept in the singular in Latin. But I'm not saying the plural is wrong, either.

Good to know, thank you for your help

 

[Pacifica]

No problem.