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

Honconus

Member

Since motus is now singular, that should be singular too.

That's not the best word order in the context. It puts too much emphasis on errare, as if errare were being contrasted with something else previously mentioned. What's being contrasted here, though, is the sententia intellectualis vs. the sentiment, and even more the intellectualis part, I would say, so I'd use the order intellectualis vero sententia...

That should be ad aliquid.

And this should be in the accusative, as still depending on the previous ad.
Thanks so much, Pacifica! They have been corrected.
 

Honconus

Member

Aug 21, 2020

“Every nation that has ended in tyranny has come to that end by way of good order. It certainly does not follow from this that peoples should scorn public peace, but neither should they be satisfied with that and nothing more. A nation that asks nothing of government but the maintenance of order is already a slave in the depths of its heart; it is a slave of its well-being, ready for the man who will put it in chains.”
From Alexis de Tocqueville

My translation:
Bonum per ordinem omnes populi sub tyrannidem evadunt. Illud autem unde non sequitur ut vel cives pacem publicam contemnant, vel ea satiati nihil aliud optandum habeant. Qui nihil administrationis aliud quam ordinem conservandum petit, iam populus animo in servitute est; salututis verum servus, facile subiungitur sub hominem eum alligantem.

I was wondering whether there are other Latin expression for “nothing more than” besides “nihil aliud quam”...:oops:o_O
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Every nation that has ended in tyranny has come to that end by way of good order.
Bonum per ordinem omnes populi sub tyrannidem evadunt.
That's grammatically correct. However, I don't think it conveys all the meaning and nuance of the original accurately. "All nations end up under tyranny by means of good order" is a little different from "Every nation that has ended in tyranny has come to that end by way of good order", isn't it?

Perhaps you could say something like this:

Omnis populus qui in tyrannidem evasit eo per bonum ordinem devenit.

I'm a little unsure of the idiomaticity of bonum ordinem, though...
It certainly does not follow from this
Illud autem unde non sequitur
You got confused between inde (from there) and unde (from where).

It would be good to translate "certainly" with certe.
that peoples should scorn public peace, but neither should they be satisfied with that and nothing more.
ut vel cives pacem publicam contemnant, vel ea satiati nihil aliud optandum habeant.
The "should"s here require a translation like oporteat/oportet.

I would also keep a bit closer to the original structure:

Illud certe inde non sequitur ut cives pacem publicam contemnere oporteat, nec tamen oportet ea satiatos nihil aliud optandum habere.

Or, for that last part, you could also say nec tamen oportet ea sola contentos esse.
A nation that asks nothing of government but the maintenance of order is already a slave in the depths of its heart
Qui nihil administrationis aliud quam ordinem conservandum petit, iam populus animo in servitute est
The "of" in "to ask something of someone" doesn't translate to a genitive, but to a(b) + ablative.

The gerundive construction after petere seems unusual (perhaps downright wrong). An ut clause would be more normal.

I don't think administratio is usually used by metonymy to represent the people who govern.

I also don't think your word order and overall wording are the best. I would suggest something like this:

Qui populus nihil aliud a rectoribus petit quam ut ordo conservetur, is iam animo servus est.
it is a slave of its well-being, ready for the man who will put it in chains.
salututis verum servus, facile subiungitur sub hominem eum alligantem.
Salututis isn't a word; it should be salutis (typo?).

Your use of verum doesn't make much sense and the wording of facile subiungitur sub hominem eum alligantem is strange.

Hmmm... Perhaps:

servus, inquam, salutis, et praesto est illi qui eum vinculis adstringet.
I was wondering whether there are other Latin expression for “nothing more than” besides “nihil aliud quam”...
Depending on context, nihil nisi or some wording with solus may work.
 

Honconus

Member

That's grammatically correct. However, I don't think it conveys all the meaning and nuance of the original accurately. "All nations end up under tyranny by means of good order" is a little different from "Every nation that has ended in tyranny has come to that end by way of good order", isn't it?

Perhaps you could say something like this:

Omnis populus qui in tyrannidem evasit eo per bonum ordinem devenit.

I'm a little unsure of the idiomaticity of bonum ordinem, though...

You got confused between inde (from there) and unde (from where).

It would be good to translate "certainly" with certe.


The "should"s here require a translation like oporteat/oportet.

I would also keep a bit closer to the original structure:

Illud certe inde non sequitur ut cives pacem publicam contemnere oporteat, nec tamen oportet ea satiatos nihil aliud optandum habere.

Or, for that last part, you could also say nec tamen oportet ea sola contentos esse.

The "of" in "to ask something of someone" doesn't translate to a genitive, but to a(b) + ablative.

The gerundive construction after petere seems unusual (perhaps downright wrong). An ut clause would be more normal.

I don't think administratio is usually used by metonymy to represent the people who govern.

I also don't think your word order and overall wording are the best. I would suggest something like this:

Qui populus nihil aliud a rectoribus petit quam ut ordo conservetur, is iam animo servus est.

Salututis
isn't a word; it should be salutis (typo?).

Your use of verum doesn't make much sense and the wording of facile subiungitur sub hominem eum alligantem is strange.

Hmmm... Perhaps:

servus, inquam, salutis, et praesto est illi qui eum vinculis adstringet.

Depending on context, nihil nisi or some wording with solus may work.
Thanks very much, Pacifica! I will update my post with your translation.

the wording of facile subiungitur sub hominem eum alligantem is strange.
Yes, I felt it very strange after posting my translation...
Depending on context, nihil nisi or some wording with solus may work.
Thanks! I was thinking about it because in this passage Tocqueville uses a lot of “nothing...”
 

Honconus

Member

Aug 21, 2020

“Every nation that has ended in tyranny has come to that end by way of good order. It certainly does not follow from this that peoples should scorn public peace, but neither should they be satisfied with that and nothing more. A nation that asks nothing of government but the maintenance of order is already a slave in the depths of its heart; it is a slave of its well-being, ready for the man who will put it in chains.”
From Alexis de Tocqueville

My translation:
Bonum per ordinem omnes populi sub tyrannidem evadunt. Illud autem unde non sequitur ut vel cives pacem publicam contemnant, vel ea satiati nihil aliud optandum habeant. Qui nihil administrationis aliud quam ordinem conservandum petit, iam populus animo in servitute est; salututis verum servus, facile subiungitur sub hominem eum alligantem.

I was wondering whether there are other Latin expression for “nothing more than” besides “nihil aliud quam”...:oops:o_O
Pacifica’s Translation:

Omnis populus qui in tyrannidem evasit eo per bonum ordinem devenit. Illud certe inde non sequitur ut cives pacem publicam contemnere oporteat, nec tamen oportet ea satiatos nihil aliud optandum habere. Qui populus a rectoribus nihil aliud petit quam ut ordo conservetur, is iam animo servus est. Servus, inquam, salutis, et praesto est illi qui eum vinculis adstringet.

Pacificae gratias!
 

Honconus

Member

But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.
— John Locke

My translation:
Quid tamen accidit cum homo amimum curare neglegit? Quid accidit, inquam, cum neglegit curare vel sanitatem vel possesionem, utrae res propinquiores et necessariores magistratus gubernationi sunt quam altera? Magistratusne expressa lege jubet ne hoc homo vel pauper vel aeger fiat? Jubetur legibus, ut maxime potest, nec sanitas nec bona civium noceatur aliorum ab fraude et vi. Leges non custodiunt eos ab negligentia vel agricultura mala ipius possessoris. Nemo vi fieri potest dives vel sanus, utrum vult an non. Numquam. Deus Ipse non contra eorum voluntatem salvat homines.

I think my translation here is really bad since I nearly translated it verbatim, especially Locke’s old fasioned English is not quite easy to understand. o_O o_O
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Honconus, I must say that the assistance you require is turning into an amount of work for which I would usually charge a fee. If you think you might be able to afford it, you may contact me by private message so that we can discuss it. If not and you wish to keep getting free help from this forum, I suggest that you pick shorter quotes from now on (like one sentence or two short ones each, at most).
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
But what if he neglect the care of his soul?
Quid tamen accidit cum homo amimum curare neglegit?
That is grammatically correct.

However, I might suggest a rewording: sed quid si animi curam negleget?

The addition of homo is unnecessary unless you want to turn the passage into a more self-contained one (since I assume the "he" of the English refers to a man previously mentioned in the original work). In that case I guess you would also do away with the "but", though, which also refers to something that came before.
I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate,
Quid accidit, inquam, cum neglegit curare vel sanitatem vel possesionem
That is grammatically correct too, but again could be rephrased a little more simply as Quid, inquam, si sanitatis possessionumve* curam negleget?

*Better in the plural.
which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other?
utrae res propinquiores et necessariores magistratus gubernationi sunt quam altera?
This doesn't work.

The "which" you need here is the relative qui, quae, quod. You can say either quae res or just quae in the neuter plural.

Necessariores doesn't fit the meaning. Propinquiores alone makes sense, though the more usual comparative form of propinquus is propior. Instead, you might also say magis pertinent ad.

"The other" is the previously mentioned soul, I believe, so it should be masculine to agree with animus. Perhaps also ille would be better quam alter.
Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick?
Magistratusne expressa lege jubet ne hoc homo vel pauper vel aeger fiat?
I think it would be good to keep the future tense here (hence I also used the future tense in the si clauses above).

Hoc (neuter) doesn't agree with homo (masculine).
Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others
Jubetur legibus, ut maxime potest, nec sanitas nec bona civium noceatur aliorum ab fraude et vi.
A better verb to use here in the beginning would be providetur or cavetur.

I think I would put legibus first in the sentence because it seems an appropriate emphasis.

A more idiomatic translation for "as much as possible" would be quantum fieri potest.

Your double nec doesn't really work because you need a ne to introduce the indirect prohibition. Ne... nec... wouldn't sound very good here, though, so I would choose ne... -que.

Noceatur
doesn't agree in number with its intended subject. However, noceo is usually intransitive, taking the dative rather than a direct object, so the more correct construction here would actually be with noceatur in the third person singular impersonal passive and sanitas and bona in the dative: ne bonis sanitatique civium noceatur.

"By" translates to ab only before an animate agent. Fraud and violence are not animate and are truly closer to instruments than to agents, so ab should not be used here.
they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves.
Leges non custodiunt eos ab negligentia vel agricultura mala ipius possessoris.
The most serious problems here are 1) that eos is in the wrong gender: "them" refers to bona and sanitas, which, being two names of things of different grammatical genders, will be jointly represented by neuter pronouns by default; 2) the "husbandry" mentioned here doesn't have to do with farming, but rather with estate management. I don't know any exact word for this in Latin, but you could say something like mala rei familiaris cura.

Now, to come to more subtle matters of sentence structure, I think you do need something to connect this sentence to what precedes, for instance: verum leges non custodiunt... or nec tamen leges custodiunt...

Detail: you could keep the plural of "possessors".
No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no.
Nemo vi fieri potest dives vel sanus, utrum vult an non.
The original isn't so much about specifically becoming rich or healthful. It's about being rich or healthful. Being can include remaining as well as becoming. So I would translate "to be" literally, to comprise the same range of possible meanings as the original.

A good translation for "be forced" is cogi.

Utrum... an...
is used in questions. It's a different kind of "whether... or..." that we've got here. Not a question. This sort of "whether... or..." usually translates as sive... sive... or seu... seu... However, in this particular case, there's a different idiomatic phrase for "whether he will or no": velit nolit.
Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.
Numquam. Deus Ipse non contra eorum voluntatem salvat homines.
That's grammatically correct. However the word choice isn't the best. I would suggest immo nec Deus ipse homines salvat invitos.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Regarding the "soul" mentioned in the beginning: I don't know the context of what precedes this passage, but note that if we're in a Christian framework of not endangering one's soul with sin or things like that, anima might be a better word than animus.
 

Honconus

Member

But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills.
— John Locke

My translation:
Quid tamen accidit cum homo amimum curare neglegit? Quid accidit, inquam, cum neglegit curare vel sanitatem vel possesionem, utrae res propinquiores et necessariores magistratus gubernationi sunt quam altera? Magistratusne expressa lege jubet ne hoc homo vel pauper vel aeger fiat? Jubetur legibus, ut maxime potest, nec sanitas nec bona civium noceatur aliorum ab fraude et vi. Leges non custodiunt eos ab negligentia vel agricultura mala ipius possessoris. Nemo vi fieri potest dives vel sanus, utrum vult an non. Numquam. Deus Ipse non contra eorum voluntatem salvat homines.

I think my translation here is really bad since I nearly translated it verbatim, especially Locke’s old fasioned English is not quite easy to understand. o_O o_O
Corrected Translation based on Pacifica’s comments:

Sed quid si animi curam negleget? Quid, inquam, si sanitatis possessionumve curam negleget? Quae res propinquiores (propiores) magistratus gubernationi sunt (or: magis pertinent ad gub. mag.) quam altera? Magistratusne expressa lege jubet si hic homo vel pauper vel aeger erit? Legibus providetur/cavetur, quamtum fieri postest, ne bonis sanitatique civium noceatur aliorum fraude et vi. Leges non ea custodiunt ab negligentia vel mala rei familiaris cura ipius possessoris. Nemo potest dives vel sanus cogi, velit nolit. Immo nec Deus ipse homines salvat invitos.

Thanks so much, Pacifica!

My apologies for not having it updated yesterday because I am currently busy in my job.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Looks like you missed this part of my post:
"The other" is the previously mentioned soul, I believe, so it should be masculine to agree with animus. Perhaps also ille would be better quam alter.
And this part as well, where I said jubet would be better in the future tense:
I think it would be good to keep the future tense here (hence I also used the future tense in the si clauses above).
si hic homo vel pauper vel aeger erit?
I don't understand why you changed your original ne clause, which was correct, into a si one, which is wrong. Or perhaps, when I referred to the si clauses earlier in the passage (si... negleget) you misunderstood me to mean that the ne clause should be turned into a si one? I didn't mean that.
Mind the spelling: quantum.
Leges non ea custodiunt ab negligentia vel mala rei familiaris cura ipius possessoris.
I still think you need some connective word in the beginning of this sentence, like what I suggested here:
Now, to come to more subtle matters of sentence structure, I think you do need something to connect this sentence to what precedes, for instance: verum leges non custodiunt... or nec tamen leges custodiunt...
Nemo potest dives vel sanus cogi
You're missing the verb esse.
Thanks so much, Pacifica!

My apologies for not having it updated yesterday because I am currently busy in my job.
No need to apologize.
 

Honconus

Member

Looks like you missed this part of my post:


And this part as well, where I said jubet would be better in the future tense:

I don't understand why you changed your original ne clause, which was correct, into a si one, which is wrong. Or perhaps, when I referred to the si clauses earlier in the passage (si... negleget) you misunderstood me to mean that the ne clause should be turned into a si one? I didn't mean that.
Mind the spelling: quantum.
I still think you need some connective word in the beginning of this sentence, like what I suggested here:

You're missing the verb esse.
No need to apologize.
I am sorry for rushing to corrrect my translation and ignoring and misunderstanding some of your comments.

You're missing the verb esse.
I was also hesitating whether I should esse while correcting it...

Corrected Translation 2.0:
Sed quid si animi curam negleget? Quid, inquam, si sanitatis possessionumve curam negleget, quae res propinquiores (propiores) magistratus gubernationi sunt (or: magis pertinent ad gub. mag.) quam ille? Magistratusne expressa lege jubebit ne hic homo vel pauper vel aeger fiat? Legibus providetur/cavetur, quantum fieri postest, ne bonis sanitatique civium noceatur aliorum fraude et vi. Verum (or: nec tamen) leges non ea custodiunt ab negligentia vel mala rei familiaris cura ipius possessoris. Nemo cogi potest dives vel sanus esse, velit nolit. Immo nec Deus ipse homines salvat invitos.

Sorry again! Hopefully the translation would be better...
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
It's mostly OK now, but still two details:
Quid, inquam, si sanitatis possessionumve curam negleget? Quae res propinquiores (propiores) magistratus gubernationi sunt (or: magis pertinent ad gub. mag.) quam ille?
Your punctuation makes it sound like two separate questions, while it's only one. I would keep the punctuation of the original:

Quid, inquam, si sanitatis possessionumve curam negleget, quae res propinquiores (propiores) magistratus gubernationi sunt (or: magis pertinent ad gub. mag.) quam ille?
Nemo potest esse dives vel sanus cogi
That word order isn't great. At first it reads as if it were saying "no man can be rich or healthful", and then cogi comes at the end and the reader must readjust their interpretation. I think it makes for bad style. This would be better: nemo cogi potest dives vel sanus esse.
 

Honconus

Member

It's mostly OK now, but still two details:

Your punctuation makes it sound like two separate questions, while it's only one. I would keep the punctuation of the original:

Quid, inquam, si sanitatis possessionumve curam negleget, quae res propinquiores (propiores) magistratus gubernationi sunt (or: magis pertinent ad gub. mag.) quam ille?
That word order isn't great. At first it reads as if it were saying "no man can be rich or healthful", and then cogi comes at the end and the reader must readjust their interpretation. I think it makes for bad style. This would be better: nemo cogi potest dives vel sanus esse.
Thanks so much, Pacifica! It has been corrected. I cannot be more be grateful for your thoroughness!
 

Gregorius Textor

Animal rationale

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
Ohio, U.S.A.
Aug 13, 2020.

“My desire and wish is that the things I start with should be so obvious that you wonder why I spend my time stating them. This is what I aim at because the point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.” Bertrand Russell
I know you're just translating these sententiae and not necessarily endorsing them, but I can't help observing that if that's the point of philosophy, then we are all doomed.

Some days I think it is the point of Sophistry to get us tangled up in knots like that, with those paradoxes, and the point of Philosophy is to untangle them and get us back to sanity. But other days I hope for a little more from Philosophy than that.

Anyway, cheers for your translations! You have chosen many very interesting quotations.
 
Last edited:

Gregorius Textor

Animal rationale

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
Ohio, U.S.A.
"Content" is a little difficult to translate exactly. The closest I can think of off the top of my head would mean "happiness" (beatitudo).
How about apathia? Though that's probably too negative for the English "content", just as beatitudo is too positive. Hard to translate, as you say, Pacifica! But Dr. Johnson does seem to be leaning towards Stoicism.
 

Honconus

Member

I know you're just translating these sententiae and not necessarily endorsing them, but I can't help observing that if that's the point of philosophy, then we are all doomed.

Some days I think it is the point of Sophistry to get us tangled up in knots like that, with those paradoxes, and the point of Philosophy is to untangle them and get us back to sanity. But other days I hope for a little more from Philosophy than that.

Anyway, cheers for your translations! You have chosen many very interesting quotations.
Thanks so much for your insight! We live with dependence on language, therefore whatever we think the trains of thought are bound to be sensitve to the inner nature of language that is used in mind. I translate sententences into Latin in that, as one of my purposes, I want to sense the tension between modern thinking and the ancient language. Your comment is very Wittgensteinian, inspired by which I will possibly translate some quotes of Wittgenstein as to the linguistic property of philosophizing after finishing my current work.;)
 
Top