Welcome for commenting on my english-latin translation (updated everyday)

[Honconus]

I will post here my daily practice of English-Latin translation and welcome for comments on my syntax, word choice, grammar and any other aspects.

Aug 10, 2020

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe-the starry heavens above me, and the moral law within me." Immanuel Kant

My translation: Quae apud admirationem formidinemque semper novam et augentem feruntur, duo quidem res aninum opplent: primum super me caelum stellatum, alterumque in me leges morales.

Revised according to Pacifica’s comments: Duae res animum admiratione et reverentia perpetuo/semper nova et crescente implent: caelum super me stellatum, deinde leges in me morales. (Or: caelum stellatum quod super me est, deinde leges morales quae in me sunt.)

 

[Pacifica]

Quae apud admirationem formidinemque semper novam et augentem feruntur

This doesn't make much sense, and in any case doesn't correspond in meaning to any part of the original.

Also note that augeo is usually transitive, i.e. it takes an object; it means "to increase (something else)". Cresco is a possible translation for the intransitive "increase".

duo quidem res aninum opplent

Barring the typo in aninum for animum and the fact that it's missing the "with ever-new etc." part, this almost works, but you should say either duo (neuter plural) alone, or duae res, but not duo res, which doesn't agree.

primum super me caelum stellatum, alterumque in me leges morales.

This pretty much works as well but, compared to English, Latin isn't as fond of prepositional phrases directly modifying nouns as in "the sky above me" or "the law in me". Often, Latin would add a relative clause (as in literally "the sky that is above me"). There are exceptions, though, and one of them is that, when you've got a noun and an adjective, it's often acceptable to sandwich a prepositional phrase between the two. You could do this here (e.g. leges in me morales).

Also, it would be better without the -que.

 

[Honconus]

This doesn't make much sense, and in any case doesn't correspond in meaning to any part of the original.

Also note that augeo is usually transitive, i.e. it takes an object; it means "to increase (something else)". Cresco is a possible translation for the intransitive "increase".
Barring the typo in aninum for animum and the fact that it's missing the "with ever-new etc." part, this almost works, but you should say either duo (neuter plural) alone, or duae res, but not duo res, which doesn't agree.
This pretty much works as well but, compared to English, Latin isn't as fond of prepositional phrases directly modifying nouns as in "the sky above me" or "the law in me". Often, Latin would add a relative clause (as in literally "the sky that is above me"). There are exceptions, though, and one of them is that, when you've got a noun and an adjective, it's often acceptable to sandwich a prepositional phrase between the two. You could do this here (e.g. leges in me morales).

Also, it would be better without the -que.

Thanks so much! I revised my translation as follows according to your suggestion:

Duae res animum admiratione et reverentia aliquando (or “perpetuo”) nova et crescente implent: primum caelum super me stellatum, deinde leges in me morales. (Or: primum caelum quod stellatum [or “stellatum quod”] super me est, deinde leges quae morales [or “morales quae”] in me sunt.)

I am wondering whether it would be better now....

 

[Pacifica]

It is much better.

If you choose to use relative clauses, the versions currently in brackets are the better ones.

 

[Pacifica]

primum... deinde

I wonder if adjectives wouldn't be better than adverbs.

You could also go without either, though, like in the original.

 

[Pacifica]

I forgot to mention this:

aliquando (or “perpetuo”)

Aliquando doesn't work. It can translate to "ever" but in the sense of "at some/any point", not "always". Perpetuo works, as does semper.

 

[Honconus]

I wonder if adjectives wouldn't be better than adverbs.

You could also go without either, though, like in the original.

Gratias! I cannot be more grateful for your help!!

 

[Honconus]

I forgot to mention this:Aliquando doesn't work. It can translate to "ever" but in the sense of "at some/any point", not "always". Perpetuo works, as does semper.

Thanks so much!!!

 

[Honconus]

Aug 11, 2020

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Friedrich W. Nietzsche

My translation:
Cavendum illud, ne tu ipse belua fias beluas pugnans, cum enim profundum diu tueris, idem te tuetur.

Welcome for comments on grammar, syntax, and word choice!

 

[Honconus]

I am also wondering which is the better translation for “gaze at”, conspicio or tueor...

Can it be a feasible translation with a relative clause for “when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you”: profundum enim, quod diu tueris, te tuetur?

 

[Pacifica]

Cavendum illud

Good.

ne tu ipse belua fias beluas pugnans

Pugno is intransitive. You need cum beluis instead of beluas.

Also, this isn't such a serious issue but I would have put the fighting part before tu ipse belua fias.

I am also wondering which is the better translation for “gaze at”, conspicio or tueor...

It depends, but for "gaze into" I would have said intueor or inspicio.

Can it be a feasible translation with a relative clause for “when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you”: profundum enim, quod diu tueris, te tuetur?

I guess that's acceptable, though it wouldn't have been my choice.

Note that, if the "you" in the sentence is (as I think it is) general rather than a specific person, it would usually take subjunctive verbs in classical Latin.

 

[Honconus]

Good.

Pugno is intransitive. You need cum beluis instead of beluas.

Also, this isn't such a serious issue but I would have put the fighting part before tu ipse belua fias.

It depends, but for "gaze into" I would have said intueor or inspicio.

I guess that's acceptable, though it wouldn't have been my choice.

Note that, if the "you" in the sentence is (as I think it is) general rather than a specific person, it would usually take subjunctive verbs in classical Latin.

I cannot be more grateful for your most professional comments!!!

I revised it according to your suggestion:

Cavendum illud, ne cum beluis (or “in/adversum beluas”) pugnans tu ipse belua fias, cum enim profundum diu inspicias/intuearis, idem te inspiciat/intueatur.

Would it be better now?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes. However, only the second-person verbs should be in the subjunctive.

 

[Honconus]

Yes. However, only the second-person verbs should be in the subjunctive.

Yes! Gratias! I will correct it.

 

[Honconus]

Aug 11, 2020

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Friedrich W. Nietzsche

My translation:
Cavendum illud, ne tu ipse belua fias beluas pugnans, cum enim profundum diu tueris, idem te tuetur.

Welcome for comments on grammar, syntax, and word choice!

Revised according to Pacifica’s comments: Cavendum illud, ne cum beluis (or “in/adversum beluas”) pugnans tu ipse belua fias, cum enim profundum diu inspicias/intuearis, idem te inspicit/intuetur.

Many thanks to Pacifica!

 

[cinefactus]

Why not cave/vide ne?
maybe ne dum belus pugnas

perhaps invicem te respectat

 

[Pacifica]

Why not cave/vide ne?

I thought cavendum illud, though less literal, worked well enough, so I said nothing, but your suggestions would be fine, of course.

maybe ne dum belus pugnas

A dum clause occurred to me too but, again, I thought the present participle worked as well.

If a dum clause is used, what I said about cum beluis instead of beluas still applies.

If you replace cavendum illud with cave/vide, it feels like a more direct command to a specific person (even if that person is just anyone who happens to read you), so I'd probably keep pugnas in the indicative. If cavendum illud is retained, on the other hand, it could very well be a general statement like the second part, in which case the subjunctive pugnes would be more likely.

 

[cinefactus]

I was trying to come up with a ablative absolute, but I am struggling to think of anything I can use in the present

cave ne beluis pugnatis tute ipse belua fias

 

[Pacifica]

That doesn't work, since pugnare is intransitive. You can't pugnare beluam, therefore a belua can't be pugnata.

I can't see why you'd want an ablative absolute here.

 

[cinefactus]

nomine tuo viso, Honcone, in mentem venit te fortasse Portu Aromatico habitare.