"Protect me from what I want"
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
- Location: Sweden
"Protect me from what I want"
I feel like I should know the translation of this sentence, but I'm not sure. Which of these is it? (Ignore my possible word order errors and vocabulary.)
Protege me a quo volo.
Protege me a quo velim.
I'm not sure about what mood to use...
Protege me a quo volo.
Protege me a quo velim.
I'm not sure about what mood to use...
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
Although in English we often leave out the antecedent of a relative clause, it is necessary in Latin. In English, the word "what" never has an antecedent (except in some obscure dialects, e.g. "I ain't gonna git yoo that thar present what yoo axed fer"), so you must be particularly careful to supply it when translating. Therefore, you must translate this as though it were "protect me from that which I want". Unless you mean to refer to a single specific thing which you want, I would go with the subjunctive of general characteristic.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Romford
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm
qui quae quod is the relative pronoun you can't get a 'relative adjective' and quis quis quid is the interrogative pronoun. qui quae quod is the interrogative adjective, where I think the confusion may lie.
Is it the same in swedish do you guys use det som (that which) and you often omit som. If so then latin is the other way round. It omits 'that', but never 'which'.
Pro! And your phrase bears so much truth you have no idea. Sometimes indeed people want something to such a crazy extent that they can not control themselves and need protection. Thankfully this is not a case of mine, but could be if I were retarded.
Is it the same in swedish do you guys use det som (that which) and you often omit som. If so then latin is the other way round. It omits 'that', but never 'which'.
Pro! And your phrase bears so much truth you have no idea. Sometimes indeed people want something to such a crazy extent that they can not control themselves and need protection. Thankfully this is not a case of mine, but could be if I were retarded.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Romford
Yeah you're right. Quod is used for both the relative pronoun and adjective (which does exist, even though it might be called something else in your grammar). With interrogative and indefinite pronoun/adjectives it is the quid which is the pronoun and the quod which is the adjective.
Damn, that always confused me.
Damn, that always confused me.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm
If we might avoid the grammatical poffywoffle used by insecure english guys who can not pronounce latin with anything but a pass the broccoli timothy accent, ab eo quid velim just doesn't sound latin. Verbrauchen Sie die Sprachgefuhl! I hope this noun is feminine otherwise I will be embarrassing myself. See the german teacher never writes the bloody gender because my A Level class don't know what gender or case or anything is. So I have to sit there and guess. Or go to the toilet to escape the hell, crusty predictably yellow T-Ped walls I would rather lick than go to german. Sorry I am rambling.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 603
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Cambridge
If this be a general statement, it is surely a simplification of the truth: it is common idiom in Latin to omit the antecedent: quod constituerat fecit, quos conuocauerant adhorati sunt, qui uult esse grauis multa legere debet and the well-known bis dat qui cito dat are all correctly said to be wanting their antecedent but are all correct Latin. The general rule is that it is fine to omit the antecedent if they agree in case. In verse the rule can be extended and a quick look at Lucretius, say, brings up a number of examples of an antecedent in a different case being omitted.Although in English we often leave out the antecedent of a relative clause, it is necessary in Latin.
Since we are in the sober world of prose, however, it is indeed right for the antecedent here to be expressed.
Everyone seems perfectly happy with protege, but literally 'veiling one' from something does not strike me as the most natural expression, and I only know of one example wherein it takes ab. retineo or prohibeo perhaps express the notion of holding one back from their desires (and thus protecting them) more fittingly. After all, it is not as though 'quod uelim' can attack the subject of its own accord, but rather it can only have destructive force if the agent actually is an agent. Restraint, then, is called for.
~D
p.s. as in Greek, attraction of the relative is occasionally possible (e.g. Livy's Thebae quoque ipsae, quod Boeotiae caput est), and verse would occasionally allow of retine me a quo uolo/uelim.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2563
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 9:42 am
- Location: Frankfurt, Germany
- Contact: