Tattoo Save me and I will save you

[harriet]

SERVA ME SERVABOTE

Hi, I am writing as I hope to get the above tattooed. Could someone please kindly help and confirm that the above says, "Save me and I will save you"

Many thanks in advance.
H

 

[Nikolaos]

Re: SERVA ME SERVABOTE

Close, but the conjunction "and" is missing, and "te" should be separated from "servabo".

SERVA ME ET TE SERVABO

There are other choices for "and", but "et" is a kind of catch-all that works in any situation.

 

[Decimvs]

Re: SERVA ME SERVABOTE

servabo & te are separate words.

As it is, it would just say: Save me I shall save you.

If you could get more specific about what you wish to convey, it will help.

Is this a conditional?: If you save me, then I shall save you.

Do you mean: Save me so that I can save you.

I am not trying to be overly picky, I just want to make sure the translation is as correct as possible for you.

 

[Nikolaos]

Re: SERVA ME SERVABOTE

Yes, just so long as there is some sort of conjunction - without one, the meaning is ambiguous, and it may actually mean "save yourself, I'll save myself."

 

[Bitmap]

there appears to be the rare possibility to join a future expression (the imperative) with a future II without conjunction:

serva me, te servaro


modelled after
Cic. Tusc. I. 30: tolle hanc opinionem, luctum sustuleris
Ov. fast. I. 17: da mihi te placidum, dederis in carmina vires

 

[harriet]

thank you for everyones help, in response to Decimvs i want it to mean, if someone saves me, i will save them, so yes, i suppose it is a conditional? I would like it as simple as possible as i intend to have it tattooed on my foot.. and they're only a size 4!

 

[Imber Ranae]

I'm not sure that the future perfect would convey what the OP intends. I do think something like serva me; te servaris "save me and you'll have saved yourself" would make an interesting sentiment, but the OP seems to be suggesting she means something more along the lines of "save me first, then I'll save you". Serva me; te servaro would mean something more like "Save me, and in doing so you'll be saved by me". She'll have to further clarify on what precisely she means, though.

I still think just serva me; te servabo would work. There are two examples from Plautus' Rudens which, though of an altogether different character than this request, nevertheless validate the construction:

Verbum etiam adde unum; iam in cerebro colaphos abstrudam tuo.

"I dare you; utter but a single word more and I'll bash your brains in straightaway."

Tange; adfligam ad terram te itidem ut piscem soleo polypum.

"Come on, touch me; I'll slam you on the ground like I do the cuttle-fish."

Thus I disagree with Nikolaos that et is required, or that me and te could be confused in serva me te servabo: it would be unnatural to interpret the two separate clauses as mixed. However, to draw a more explicit conditional connection between them you might add a word like tum or ita to the apodosis: serva me; [tum/ita] te servabo. I don't think it's strictly necessary, though.

 

[Nikolaos]

Now that I look back at this, I realize that I shouldn't have assumed that a conjunction was necessary when both verbs were finite.

 

[harriet]

Hi ya, I like "serva me; te servabo" it seems short and sweet... apologies that I'm finding it hard to explain in what context I would like it, basically I want it to mean if you take a chance on me, I will on you too... that if they save me from me, I will save them from whatever they wish to be saved from.

I think with all these suggestions I'm very grateful but very stuck!!