What we cannot talk about, we must pass over in silence.

Hemo Rusticus

Lounge Lizard
This is the last proposition in Wittgenstein's Tractatus, and I'm looking for a stylish Latin translation. It's also probably better to keep in mind the original:
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Now, it doesn't have to be exact, but it's gotta have panache, you feel me? and a good helping of flair, but not too much pizzazz & a bit of verve, see?

Here's what I got:
Quod disserere nequimus, tacendum est.

Someone do better! Come, show your mettle, sodales!
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
I don't know about licet here; I don't think it's that we're not allowed to speak about X, but we simply can't.
 

syntaxianus

Civis Illustris
I propose:

De quibus loqui non possumus, nobis tacendum est.

= About what we cannot speak, we have to remain silent.

= What we cannot talk about, we must pass over in silence.

This way, the de quibus can fit both with loqui and with tacendum est.
 

Godmy

A Monkey
Hm, as far as my knowledge goes, the neuter of qui, quae, quod requires "res" (hence feminine) in dative and ablative in most of classical Latin, unless it is absolutely clear you're not meaning people but things from the way the relative clause binds to the main clause. That is, the declension tables I remember from various textbook material had cui rei and qua re for dative and ablative instead of just cui and quo. (in plural here then quibus de rebus)

So, I tend to think it's a mistake to leave it out exactly in this case.
 

syntaxianus

Civis Illustris
Hm, as long as my knowledge goes, the neuter of qui, quae, quod requires "res" (hence feminine) in dative and ablative in most of classical Latin, unless it is absolutely clear you're not meaning people but things from the way the relative clause binds to the main clause. That is, the declension tables I remember form various textbook material had cui rei and qua re for dative and ablative instead of just cui and quo. (in plural then quibus de rebus)

So, I tend to think it's a mistake to leave it out exactly in this case.
Si recte scripsisti, aliquid novi didicero...feliciter.
 

Hemo Rusticus

Lounge Lizard
syntaxianus dixit:
De quibus loqui non possumus, nobis tacendum est.
Hmmm, I do like the two dato-ablatives trying to represent the correlatives of the original.
Godmy dixit:
Quā dē rē loquī nōn licet, conticeāmus eam.
I also like the impersonality of licet to match that of tacendum est. After all, the point of the Tractatus is to put a limit to meaningful speech, and so the semantic field of permission/accessibility is quite apt, I have to say.

Wel done, ye scholeres of ðe Ladyn spreche.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima
Hm, as far as my knowledge goes, the neuter of qui, quae, quod requires "res" (hence feminine) in dative and ablative in most of classical Latin, unless it is absolutely clear you're not meaning people but things from the way the relative clause binds to the main clause. That is, the declension tables I remember from various textbook material had cui rei and qua re for dative and ablative instead of just cui and quo. (in plural then quibus de rebus)

So, I tend to think it's a mistake to leave it out exactly in this case.

Agreed -- otherwise I like the proposed solution.
 

Hemo Rusticus

Lounge Lizard
I didn't realize that 'pass over in silence' itself appears to be a Latinism (praeterire silentio), so I suppose reworking it in any way defeats the purpose of that particular translation.

Quod disserere nequimus, praetereundum est silentio.
 

syntaxianus

Civis Illustris
I am thinking of the meaning of the saying and how that meaning is best rendered in Latin.

"What we are unable to talk about / discuss" seems a bit different from "what we cannot put into words." We cannot put the aroma of coffee into words, but we can talk about it.

omne ineloquibile praetereundum silentio.

quod verbis non exprimere possumus, silentio praetereundum (est nobis).
 

Agrippa

Civis Illustris
How about a iambic senarius à la Publilius Syrus?

De re tacendum est quae verbis dici nequit.
 

Hemo Rusticus

Lounge Lizard
I must tell you folks that praetereundum silentio (credit to @syntaxianus) is probably the coolest Latin I ever expect to see crafted on this forum, in terms of sound, meaning, and even scansion (rings like a classic senarius, as Agrippa said). I might get this in the form of a 'tramp stamp', which is what we disgusting Americans call the sort of tasteless cartouche you see dyed into the small of a biker chick's back.
 

Hemo Rusticus

Lounge Lizard
This is my thread, so I'm free to drag it through the mud:
The Ultimate Tramp Stamp Collection to Consider Before Your Next ...750 × 422
 

Agrippa

Civis Illustris
Ēxpŏsĭ /ōnēm / quaē fŭgĭ / ūnt iām / praētĕrĕ / āmŭs.

I’m afraid there is still a prosodical error in the second foot -ōnēm-: the syllable –ti- of expositionem is short and ruins the dactyl.

You can't solve this problem by reading ēxpŏtjōnēm*, because the syllable –si- would become a long one ("positione longa") so that now the first dactyl is ruined.

My advice: Don’t use expositio any longer.

_____________________________________________________________________________
* Cf. Verg. georg. 1, 482 (beginning of hexameter): flūvjōrūm < flŭvĭōrūm.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Well it is now.
So muta cum liquida does not apply across word-boundaries.
No, it doesn't. But it also had the problem that you cannot fit the word expositio into an hexameter because it has 3 subsequent short syllables.
 
Top