posted
Esse flamma, non [moth] would be my best guess. But esse is probably the infinitive, not the imperative.
I would read existo as "I exist". I don't know if I would be right.
Hey, I found a pretty decent grammar site by searching for "Latin Conjugations". It says "es" is the singular present of "to be" and Este is the plural.
[This message has been edited by pooka (edited June 19, 2006).]
posted
Hmm... I ran both of those phrases through the translator to see what the difference is between them. Interesting. Although I have to say that "Exist as the flame, not the moth" may be closer to the nuance I need.
Retranslated: Exist as the flame, not the moth Futurus ut flamma , non matris
Act as the flame, not the moth Factum ut flamma , non matris
Anyone able to tell me if there is a nuance that makes the phrase "Exsisto flamma, non matris" flat-out wrong?
The character is making a statement of "being." He's tired of bending toward the will of others, and is saying this from a decision to step into his own personal power. Hope the circumstance helps identify the nuance I should use.
posted
I don't know why the translator gave you participles- it probably couldn't tell you wanted an imperative. That is why computers will probably never replace human translators. An imperative is a command that implies second person. When you say "Eat my cookies!" it means [you must] eat my cookies.
In Latin, an imperative generally ends with -e. These forms that end in -us are participles. Something ending in -o is a first person active verb. Of course, you could just pull a J.K. Rowling and do what sounds interesting without regard for sound grammar.
posted
Does it really have two Ss? I really prefere Es or Este, though if you go with Este, your nouns have to be plural.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should say that due to the tradition of liberally translating Latin, there are about a thousand different ways to say "Be"
Posts: 370 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid I can't help with the Latin part, but I find it interesting that as of 24 hours ago I can't recall ever hearing that particular phrase (though it's possible I have and don't remember) and I just heard it twice; once on this thread and once in the movie "Casanova" which my husband finally talked me into watching with him. Interesting coincidence.
Posts: 818 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
the English came out as: "To emerge Flame, not mother." From what I can tell, the word for "moth" is the same as the word for "mother." Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Now I can see WHY I never wanted to take Latin... too confusing!
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited June 19, 2006).]
posted
I don't agree that there are many ways to translate "to be". Verbs of being are curious things. They don't even have them in some languages. P.S. I wasn't sure about your word for moth, which is why I didn't actually include it in my initial attempt.
[This message has been edited by pooka (edited June 19, 2006).]
posted
The phrase "be the flame" will use the infinitive form of the verb 'to be'. In such a case, this is not a command, necessitating the imparative form, but rather a statement that in latin-based languages (Italian, Spanish, Portugese, French, Romanian) requires the infintive. This will translate "be a/the flame" or "being a/the flame" Additionally, there are two different verbs that can mean 'to be'. I don't have my Latin Dictionary handy but this is going to be the same verb that conjugates 'ergo, esi, ese...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
