Help with translation in latin

[Swth\r]

How can I say in Latin:

"Spearfishing is exactly what my life concerns to."

or also:

"Spearfishing activity is the best thing I have ever tried in my life."

???

Thanks!

[adrianus]

Propono ità: "Maximus vitae meae usus fuit/est piscari hastâ"
vel
"Maximus usus quem usquam habuerim est piscari hastâ"

[Swth\r]

Hmmm... You replied very fast!

I would like something more "underwater". "Pescor hasta" = "I fish using a spear". This could be from a coast, or from a boat... Something more "submarinum" perhaps...???

Thanks a lot!

[adrianus]

Adde "sub aquâ" vel "subaquaneus -a -um" adjectivum. Est etiam "piscatus hastâ subaquaneus", ut "abeo piscatum hastâ subaquaneum" pro "I go underwater spearfishing"

[Swth\r]

Adde "sub aquâ" vel "subaquaneus -a -um" adjectivum

"Hasta piscari sub aqua est maximus usus quem usquam habuerim" ??

Why "habuerim", and not "habui". Isn't it a (simple) relative clause?

[adrianus]

Secundùm Allen & Greenough (§485b) "After a primary tense the Perfect Subjunctive is regularly used to denote any past action [in a dependent clause in a complex sentence]." Meâ sententiâ, "that I ever had" dependens clausula est et praesens tempus (cum "est") principale tempus est, et sententia intricata non simplex est. Fortassè erro.

Anglicè quidem naturaliter dico et "It is the best experience I ever had" et "It is the best experience that I would ever have had"

Exempli gratiâ (inter alia in A&G) "rogo quid feceris" ("I ask what you did") "non dubito quin omnes tui scripserint" ("I do not doubt that all your friends have written")

[adrianus]

If I said/si dicam "Spearfishing is the best experience that I ever had, that I had three times in Italy",
I would add/addam "quem in Italiâ ter habui".
Maybe my thinking is muddled. But the comma says it all in the sentence, I think. You couldn't place it (the comma) after the word "experience".
Fortassè perplexo modo cogito. Sed credo commam suprâ in sententiâ omne dicere. Post "experience" verbum eam non ponas..

[Swth\r]

I am not so good in english as in Greek (thats the reason for capital G)

I thought that subjunctive occurs only in specific clauses (final, consequential, temporal, indirect questions, etc.) and of course in "oratio obliqua". I know that relative clauses may have subjunctive in direct discourse only if they imply some short of circumstantial meaning (goal/object, condition, consequence, concession, etc.)...
exampli gratia:

Legatum mittam, qui victoriam nuntiet (= ut is... "in order him to announce victory").

Am I wrong? I just cannot comprehend the reason for subjunctive in our sentence You say that here the content of the clause is somehow "subjective", eh? ("=That I ever had, in my opinion")

[adrianus]

Salve Swth\r

If we said "quem habui", I'm sure no one would much object. We'd all understand. But I'm going to argue with you to explore the point, and to help clear up whatever misunderstandings I may have. I'll ignore any argument that "should have/would have" may also be used in English as not directly relevant.

Si "quem habui" dicamus, nemo callidè recuset. Omnes intellegant. Sed tecum disputarus sum, ut quaestionem exploram et sinistra rei interpretationes quas habeam corrigantur. Quod anglicè "should have/would have" pertinere potest, illud argumentum neglegam, ut non directè aptum.

I thought that subjunctive occurs only in specific clauses (final, consequential, temporal, indirect questions, etc.) and of course in "oratio obliqua". I know that relative clauses may have subjunctive in direct discourse only if they imply some short of circumstantial meaning (goal/object, condition, consequence, concession, etc.)...
exampli gratia:

Legatum mittam, qui victoriam nuntiet (= ut is... "in order him to announce victory").

Am I wrong?

I definitely don't think you are wrong in saying that. The question is whether the sentence we're talking about comes under any of the headings you give above, including "etc."

Sic dicendo te errare non credo, certé. Res videt an quâcumque in categoriâ quas suprâ citas sententia in dubium inveniatur? nec parùm in illâ "et caetera'.

I'll continue soon.
Modo ampliùs addam.

[adrianus]

You say that here the content of the clause is somehow "subjective", eh?

Well, exactly what I said, Swith\r, is that, because I believed "that I ever saw" was not an independent clause but a dependent clause, it should therefore by a subjunctive, because A&G say that's a case for a subjunctive.

Maybe that's wrong, and it's an independent clause. In English, for me the clause is "greatest that I ever saw" as a substantive, with "that I ever saw" as a dependent part, because were it independent in English you could write "greatest, that I ever saw" with a comma! Maybe that's not the way to look at it in Latin, and I'm being misled by the possible use of "should have/would have" here in English.

Magis accuratiùs, dixi me credisse "that I ever saw" clausulam non independentem sed dependentem esse, ergo ad subjunctivum aptam, quià sic dicere A&G.

Forsitan errò et independens clausula est, quià perperàm rationes moresque loquendi ex anglicâ ad latinam linguam apto.

[ingrid70]

According to this website, an simple sentence is an independent clause, and every relative clause is a dependent one. So having a dependent clause is not necessarily a reason to use the subjunctive.
I think you should read Allen & Greenough's Sequence of Tenses paragraphs as: when there is reason to use the subjunctive in a dependent sentence, then the rules for the sequence of tenses are...; not as: all dependent sentences are in the subjunctive and follow these rules.

But apart from that, my grammars give another construction for clauses that describe the best, biggest etc, in the chapter about the ablativus comparationis. Examples from my grammar (using the indicativus):
Admiramur Phidiae simulacea, quibus nihil in illo genere perfectuis est (We admire the sculptures of Phidias, the most perfect in their kind).
Punicum bellum, quo nullum maius Romani gesserunt (the Punic War, the biggest the Romans ever fought).

So in this case, you would get something like:
quo maius usus numquam habui.

Just my two eurocents
Ingrid

[adrianus]

As you describe it, that is indeed the problem I have with my reading of the A&G grammar. Maybe too 'close' a reading has tied me in a knot, but your suggestion is therapeutic! Thanks, ingrid70.
Sicut describis quidem est difficultas mea, qui fortè cum naso in grammaticâ A&G legebam et videre quod in oculis erat non poteram. Eâ causâ, sine dubitò, me nodavi. Sanum autem est quod suades. Gratias, ingrid70.

[Swth\r]

Secundùm Allen & Greenough (§485b) "After a primary tense the Perfect Subjunctive is regularly used to denote any past action [in a dependent clause in a complex sentence]." Meâ sententiâ, "that I ever had" dependens clausula est et praesens tempus (cum "est") principale tempus est, et sententia intricata non simplex est. Fortassè erro.

Anglicè quidem naturaliter dico et "It is the best experience I ever had" et "It is the best experience that I would ever have had"

Exempli gratiâ (inter alia in A&G) "rogo quid feceris" ("I ask what you did") "non dubito quin omnes tui scripserint" ("I do not doubt that all your friends have written")

Salve mi Adriane!
You are much more knowledgeable in Latin than me. But what I know is that in the above clauses subjunctive is always found, as a rule, always, because of the "subjective" force of their content (indirect question, "quin-clause").

I think you should read Allen & Greenough's Sequence of Tenses paragraphs as: when there is reason to use the subjunctive in a dependent sentence, then the rules for the sequence of tenses are...; not as: all dependent sentences are in the subjunctive and follow these rules.

This is also what I considered correct... So, I understand the use of perfect subjunctive due to "sequentia temporum", but I could not do so with the use of the subjunctive itself...

Est etiam "piscatus hastâ subaquaneus", ut "abeo piscatum hastâ subaquaneum" pro "I go underwater spearfishing"

Is "piscatum" a supine? How do you use "subacuaneum" in the phrase? Isn't it an adjective? I would like to know that!

Gratiam tibi dico, mi Adriane! Respondendo me felicem fecisti. Sed, si iterum mihi respondebis, beatissimus futurus sum. Estne "piscatum" supinum? Quo modo "subacuaneum" adjectivo usus es? Mea interest multum id discere.

Mihi nomen "Σωτὴρ" Graece est (= Swth\r, and not "Swith\r" ). Latine tamen "Salvator" malo salutari.

Vale!

(Correct any mistake in Latin please...)

[adrianus]

Salve Salvator/Σωτὴρ

But what I know is that in the above clauses subjunctive is always found, as a rule, always, because of the "subjective" force of their content (indirect question, "quin-clause").

Generally, yes. The trouble is that what is subjective in Latin need not always be translated by the subjunctive. And what seems objective in English may not necessarily be objective when language nuance comes in, as with "that I ever had" and "that I should/would ever have had". And frequently the subjunctive is omitted in English when it might properly be used. Here is a seemingly objective, proper sentence in English that requires a subjunctive in Latin, due to the presence of a relative clause of characteristic, "O guileless man, who hides nothing from us!"

Generaliter, itá. Negoti est quòd latinè subjectivum est subjunctivo modo verti non semper requirit. Et quod anglicè objectivum videtur, id subtiliter mutari possit cum locutio aptatur, proinde "that I ever had" et "that I would ever have had". Frequenter anglicè subjectivum omittitur cum propriè dicitur. Ecce dictum latinè, objectivum externâ facie anglicè, quod subjunctivum modum addicitur, ratione clausulae relativae ad rerum descriptionem pertinentis, "Virum simplicem qui nos nihil celet" (A&G,§534e)

Yes, "piscatum" is a supine (with verb of motion "abeo"). I'm uncertain whether a supine can take an adjective "subaquaneus", but why not! It's a noun, after all. But I've never seen it, though. Maybe "sub aquâ" is safer.

Etiam, "piscatum" supinum est (cum "abeo" verbo motûs). Incertus sum utrum supinum adjectivum accipere potest, sed cur non! Nomen est, nonné. Id nunquàm autem vidi. Fortè "sub aquâ" tutius sit.

[Swth\r]

Thanks a lot!

So, what would you say about the following sentence?

Quotiescumque pescatum hasta sub acua eo, felicissimus ex mari domum revertor et animus meus valde quiescit.

[adrianus]

Salve Salvator
I think it's excellent. ("aqua" autem per "q" non "c")
Ut opinor, sententia tua perbona est.

[Swth\r]

Salve Salvator
I think it's excellent. ("aqua" autem per "q" non "c")
Ut opinor, sententia tua perbona est.

Stulticulus fui

[Swth\r]

New one:

Free-diving is not only the most extreme but also the most exciting underwater activity someone could ever have in sea.

Urinatio sine spiratione instrumentis quaesitis non solum extrema verum etiam maxime excitans actionum subaquaenarum omnium est, quas aliquis in mari fungi possit.

Obviously "urinatio" means itself in latin free-diving, or snorkeling, but I felt like having to distinguish it from "scuba-diving" (S.C.U.B.A.=Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus)
So I translated "free-diving" as "urinatio sine spiratione instrumentis quaesitis" (="diving without breathing using special apparatus/equipment"). Is it too much? And, the most improstant, is it correct in latin?

[adrianus]

Id amo!!!! ("fungi" non "fungari" pone, nisi fallor)

"sine spiratione instrumentis quaesitis" amo. Fortè, "sine apparatu" (anglicè "without trappings" pro "free-") etiam generaliter dicatur. Vide hunc situm: http://facweb.furman.edu/~dmorgan/lexicon/silva.htm

I think you forgot the "sed" in your sentence
Credo te "sed" conjunctionem è sententiâ suprá oblitus esse

[Swth\r]

Of course "fungi"! You are right! A silly mistake of mine... The verb belongs to 3rd conjunction. I will correct the phrase in my post.
For "non solum...verum etiam" see below from L&S dictionary.

Equidem "fungi" malo. "Fungari" infinitivus certissime in lingua latina non est. In conjugationem enim tertiam hoc verbum declinatur. Corrigar hoc in priore loco.
De "non solum...verum etiam" sermone vide, quaeso, in dictionario "LEWIS&SHORT", nomen "verus". Verum ( ) fragmentum relativum tibi egomet pono...

Transf.
In gen., as a strongly corroborative adversative particle, but in truth, but not with standing, but yet; and after negative clauses, but even, but: merito maledicas mihi, si id ita factum est: Verum haud mentior, resque uti facta, dico, Plaut. Am. 2, 1, 23; 1, 2, 22; Ter. And. prol. 4; id. Eun. 1, 2, 103; id. Heaut. 3, 3, 37: in optimorum consiliis posita est civitatium salus: praesertim cum, etc.... Verum hunc optimum statum pravis hominum opinionibus eversum esse dicunt, Cic. Rep. 1, 34, 51: quod ejus (Hermagorae) peccatum reprehendendum videtur, verum brevi, id. Inv. 1, 9, 12: quae non dicunt, verum intellegi volunt, Quint. 8, 5, 12: sed nos non, quid nobis utile, verum quid oratori necessarium sit, quaerimus, Cic. de Or. 1, 60, 254: ea sunt omnia non a naturā, verum a magistro, id. Mur. 29, 61; Verg. E. 3, 35.—

In the construction non modo (solum, tantum) ... verum etiam (quoque), not only ... but also: non modo agendo, verum etiam cogitando, Cic. Cael. 19, 45; id. Verr. 2, 2, 66, § 161: non solum naturā et moribus, verum etiam studio et doctrinā, id. Lael. 2, 6: non ingrato tantum, verum etiam invido et crudeli animo, Just. 21, 6, 7: servavit ab omni Non solum facto, verum opprobrio quoque turpi, Hor. S. 1, 6, 84: non modo ... verum ne ... quidem, not only not ... but not even, Cic. Rep. 3, 30, 42.—

Thanks for help! Cheers!
Salve, mi amice Adriane. Gratias tibi.

[adrianus]

non modo (solum, tantum) ... verum etiam (quoque),

Oh, I see. Sorry. I thought "verum" attached to "extrema" to convey "most extreme", i.e, "truly extreme"
Nunc video. Me paenitet. Credi "verum" ad "extrema" adici, ut significatio anglicè "most extreme" communicetur.