Latin Mention Si ego certiorem faciam...

[RobertusSitiens]

Some of you may have seen this. It's easy to find it with a web search. I saw it recently in a documentary about American "black sites". It was shown on a cute patch with an empty field. The full wording is:

Si ego certiorem faciam, mihi tu delendus eris

It's easy to see that they are going for "If I tell you, I'll hafta kill you".

But I guess as an exercise I wanted to share this, and see if my criticisms are the same as those of you whose Latin knowledge is way beyond mind. I think it should be:

Si te certiorem faciam, mihi delendus sis.

And my criticisms line up like this:
"te" missing in the protasis is a significant problem. It doesn't actually say that "you" are the one being informed.
The presence of "ego" and "tu" are a distraction, and could actually confuse the emphasis. As in, "If I inform you (but maybe it'll be different if someone else does)"
"faciam" by itself is ambiguous between future indicative and present subjunctive, but the presence of "eris" pulls it back to future indicative. Since this is a condition of general circumstance, I think this really should be subjunctive, thus "sis" instead of "eris".

What do others think? Am I right? Could it be corrected in a better way?

 

[Pacifica]

Hello,

You are right for te which should be there.
You are right that ego and tu should be left out.

But I do think the future is better than the subjunctive. Maybe I'd just use the future perfect in the first part.

Si te certiorem fecero, mihi delendus eris.

 

[RobertusSitiens]

Interesting. I see your point. I guess that makes it more concrete and a bit more forceful, even?

Going in the complete opposite direction in terms of indicative/subjunctive, I had also thought that the sentiment might work better in contrary to fact:
Si te certiorem facerem, mihi delendus esses. Which seems to me would switch the translation to something like ¨If I told you, I´d hafta kill you¨, which is probably how I´ve actually heard the phrase most often.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, that would work as well. There would just be a slight difference in meaning, like as if there were practically no chance for it to happen (less than in the future version).

 

[Aurifex]

I had also thought that the sentiment might work better in contrary to fact:
Si te certiorem facerem, mihi delendus esses.

Yes, that would work as well.

I'm not sure it would work too successfully, frankly. Imperfect subjunctive in both protasis and apodosis, as here, would give the meaning: "If I were (now) informing you, you would be having to be destroyed by me." Is this what is really wanted?

 

[RobertusSitiens]

I was under the impression in this sort of use, especially since it is subjunctive, that ¨present¨ isn´t just at this moment, but the general conditions that are currently in play, in the same way that Curro isn´t only used to mean ¨I am running¨, but also ¨I run¨(at this time in my life in general).

 

[Aurifex]

Since si te certiorem facerem is an unreal condition in the present, what would you suggest in place of "If I were informing you"?
"You would be having to be destroyed by me" or "you would have to be destroyed (i.e. now) by me" are equally acceptable translations of mihi delendus esses.
"If I told you, I'd hafta kill you" clearly refers to the future, though, so I'm not sure why you think imperfect subjunctive in both clauses or either clause would be appropriate.

 

[RobertusSitiens]

Well, I´m talking about translating a common American colloquial expression, and trying to get the spirit of it in to a proper Latin idiom.

So suppose I took the spirit of the expression and put it in to a more Latin-like subjunctive word choice:

If I were to tell you, I would need to kill you.

This is English subjunctive, and carries the same intended meaning as the standard colloquial. After all, when someone says this, they aren´t actually offering a choice of death. They are expressing a reason for not being able to tell you, thus it a ¨contrary to fact¨ intention.

 

[Matthaeus]

Another possibility
Tibi si dicerem, te occidere deberem

 

[Pacifica]

Actually I think Aurifex is right when he says the subjunctive imperfect doesn't work and that I was wrong saying it would.

Si tibi dixero, te occidere debebo.

 

[Matthaeus]

yes, I guess indicative works better here with Fut II + Fut I

 

[RobertusSitiens]

Thanks, everyone

Oh, and I do think the dicere/debere verb choice flows more nicely. Too bad that whoever came up that phrase didn´t come here first.

So to make sure that I understand why the subjunctive is a poorer choice, is that because there is no real concept of ¨contrary to fact¨ for future, perhaps because of the uncertain nature of the future?

 

[Matthaeus]

Exactly.

 

[Imber Ranae]

"If I told you, I'd have to kill" is surely best rendered with the present subjunctive: unlikely or hypothetical future events are exactly what the future-less-vivid construction is designed to express.

I still like certiorem facere in this context, though I can see how some might consider it too wordy for what's meant to be motto based on colloquial language.

 

[Matthaeus]

so pres. subj. in both protasis and apodosis?

 

[RobertusSitiens]

LOL

Si te certiorem faciam, mihi delendus sis

is what I said in my original post!

 

[Aurifex]

LOL

Si te certiorem faciam, mihi delendus sis

is what I said in my original post!

Unfortunately, though, you were translating "If I tell you, I'll hafta kill you", which is future vivid, not future ideal.
Then later on you proceeded to translate "If I told you, I´d hafta kill you", which is future ideal, as si te certiorem facerem, mihi delendus esses, which is present unreal.

 

[RobertusSitiens]

Well not exactly. What I was doing was trying to correct "Si ego certiorem faciam, mihi tu delendus eris" to fit the colloquial expression. I translated the bad latin as attempting to say "If I tell you, I'll hafta kill you" because they used eris. but that wasn't really quite on with the intent, which is more like "If I told you, I'd hafta kill you".

What I definitely didn't do is lock on to the "future less vivid" pattern, which I really should have done, digging through Wheelock. I was just thinking of subjunctive in terms of general circumstances rather than definite events, which is not really the best way of thinking about it in a condition. I guess I was thinking of the subjunctive more along the lines of a cum clause.

And then I got distracted by the concept of "contrary to fact", and didn't make the connection that when you push "contrary to fact" in to the future, the closet cousin is "future less vivid".

I don't claim that my first proposal was right because I knew what I was talking about, but I do find it highly amusing

 

[Imber Ranae]

Yes, your original proposal for revision made it grammatically correct. One could still niggle over the diction, of course.