Do We Ever Really Care Who Lived In Our...
Home & Garden1 min ago
Latin conversion
11 Answers
Can anybody please change this phrase into latin?
'The soul would have no rainbow if the eyes had no tears.'
I have tried to google it but all the different pages come up with different translations. Im hoping somebody can actually speak latin.
Thanks in advance! x
'The soul would have no rainbow if the eyes had no tears.'
I have tried to google it but all the different pages come up with different translations. Im hoping somebody can actually speak latin.
Thanks in advance! x
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by whiplash666. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sine lacrimis, arcum pluvium anima non habet.
That is a posible translation. It literally, word by word, means: Without tears, the bow rainy the soul does not have.
It might sound like nonsense, but you have to remember that Latin word order and grammar are not the same as English. As tears appear only in the eyes, there is no real need to use any part of the word oculus.
CAUTION
My advice to you - based on past experience of questions involving Latin on AnswerBank - is to check with an 'expert' whatever answer(s) you get here...including mine!
For example, if your local secondary school has a Classics Department or even just a solitary Latin teacher, try to get a response from him/her. An alternative is to approach a local Catholic priest.
As you have already discovered, online translation sites' answers need to be treated with even more care than answers here. They are generally much too vague or even ridiculous, unless you are quite knowledgeable about the language in any case.
Consult an expert, as suggested, if the answer really matters to you
That is a posible translation. It literally, word by word, means: Without tears, the bow rainy the soul does not have.
It might sound like nonsense, but you have to remember that Latin word order and grammar are not the same as English. As tears appear only in the eyes, there is no real need to use any part of the word oculus.
CAUTION
My advice to you - based on past experience of questions involving Latin on AnswerBank - is to check with an 'expert' whatever answer(s) you get here...including mine!
For example, if your local secondary school has a Classics Department or even just a solitary Latin teacher, try to get a response from him/her. An alternative is to approach a local Catholic priest.
As you have already discovered, online translation sites' answers need to be treated with even more care than answers here. They are generally much too vague or even ridiculous, unless you are quite knowledgeable about the language in any case.
Consult an expert, as suggested, if the answer really matters to you
Playing about with this a bit, how about:
'Sine lacrimis caret iris animae' ?
I'm trying to catch the poetic nature of this. That version ignores the 'would' , preferring the simple present, and 'the eyes' and uses the poetic 'iris' for rainbow.(Iris was the goddess of the rainbow). Poetic language aims to give the idea, briefly and prettily, without undue literalism
It 'translates' in word order as "Without tears is lacking the rainbow of the soul".But Latin doesn't work like that: we stick the verb wherever it reads and sounds best.To a Roman it reads as" Without tears the soul has not its rainbow" The form of the nouns tell us what is doing what to what and how! One puzzle was 'careo, carere:to lack, to be wanting' because a Latinist's first thought would be that careo must govern an object 'I lack something' but Lewis and Short's dictionary cites good Latin writers using at as I've done. If you must have 'of eyes' then use the singular 'of the eye': 'Sine lacrimis oculi...' since the genitive plural is ugly, long and unpoetic.
'Sine lacrimis caret iris animae' ?
I'm trying to catch the poetic nature of this. That version ignores the 'would' , preferring the simple present, and 'the eyes' and uses the poetic 'iris' for rainbow.(Iris was the goddess of the rainbow). Poetic language aims to give the idea, briefly and prettily, without undue literalism
It 'translates' in word order as "Without tears is lacking the rainbow of the soul".But Latin doesn't work like that: we stick the verb wherever it reads and sounds best.To a Roman it reads as" Without tears the soul has not its rainbow" The form of the nouns tell us what is doing what to what and how! One puzzle was 'careo, carere:to lack, to be wanting' because a Latinist's first thought would be that careo must govern an object 'I lack something' but Lewis and Short's dictionary cites good Latin writers using at as I've done. If you must have 'of eyes' then use the singular 'of the eye': 'Sine lacrimis oculi...' since the genitive plural is ugly, long and unpoetic.
hmmm... my Latinising days are long past, but I'm not sure it's right to omit the eyes in translation. It's a matter of poetic balance here, at least in the English: eyes without tears = soul without rainbow. Without a copy of Kennedy's Eating Primer at hand, I'm not going to attempt an actual translation, though - sorry.
Ah! I wondered whether you had a tattoo in mind, which is why I used the words..."if the answer really matters to you" earlier. I can think of few things that "matter" more than marking one's body indelibly with something which may well turn out to be, in reality, rather a grotesque grammatical error!
Stick with English...if you must have a tattoo.
Stick with English...if you must have a tattoo.
J, I haven't 'got it in for' Fred, you know! My point really is this...assuming you were keen to have this motto/slogan tattooed upon your person, would you now confidently go to a tattooist and have his version done?
I know English law - and I also know Fred is a lawyer - uses many Latin phrases, but I myself would not assume members of his profession are infallible translators of that language in other fields.
But what the hey! Cheers
I know English law - and I also know Fred is a lawyer - uses many Latin phrases, but I myself would not assume members of his profession are infallible translators of that language in other fields.
But what the hey! Cheers
QM, I'm shocked! Why, I passed Latin A level only 41 years ago ! I do have a Lewis and Short (the OED of Latin) and do try to keep up, though. (LOL) Point taken, of course.
More seriously, intending counsel of my generation were expected to have some Latin. Not just counsel in some places:Cambridge and Oxford still required everyone to have passed a Latin exam,. whatever they intended to read there, up until the 1960s.There was one old judge in Cambridge who took delight in getting counsel into legal arguments conducted in Latin, if he could.The first exam we had was in Roman Law, anyway, for which some Latin was helpful!
.Unfortunately, in practice, we had to 'unlearn' our classical Latin pronunciation because generations of English clerks had anglicised theirs.Few regular expressions were as we read them. Plainly, 'sub judice' was not 'soub yew-dikay' but 'sub jew-dissay' but there were plenty of other examples. (By the way an old guide at St Paul's reputedly pronounced 'circumspice', 'look around you', on Wren's monument, as 'Sir, come, spy , see!' which did sound right, if wrong, as it self- translated)
More seriously, intending counsel of my generation were expected to have some Latin. Not just counsel in some places:Cambridge and Oxford still required everyone to have passed a Latin exam,. whatever they intended to read there, up until the 1960s.There was one old judge in Cambridge who took delight in getting counsel into legal arguments conducted in Latin, if he could.The first exam we had was in Roman Law, anyway, for which some Latin was helpful!
.Unfortunately, in practice, we had to 'unlearn' our classical Latin pronunciation because generations of English clerks had anglicised theirs.Few regular expressions were as we read them. Plainly, 'sub judice' was not 'soub yew-dikay' but 'sub jew-dissay' but there were plenty of other examples. (By the way an old guide at St Paul's reputedly pronounced 'circumspice', 'look around you', on Wren's monument, as 'Sir, come, spy , see!' which did sound right, if wrong, as it self- translated)
A mere 41 years, Fred? "Get some in!" as we old soldiers used to say. I can claim 52 years since obtaining an equivalent qualification. All I now have immediate access to is the Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary, but quite an effective little thing it is.
Re speaking the language, it has, of course, been said that the correct way to pronounce it is however one's own Classics master pronounced it! Thus we have one person confidently intoning: "Waney, weedy, weechy" and another: "Veiny, veedy, veeky" and so forth.
Re speaking the language, it has, of course, been said that the correct way to pronounce it is however one's own Classics master pronounced it! Thus we have one person confidently intoning: "Waney, weedy, weechy" and another: "Veiny, veedy, veeky" and so forth.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Body & Soul10 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank11 mins ago
