Very short translation

[TheProphet]

Hi guys,

My knowledge of latin is very basic and i am after a very short translation if possible please for my new tattoo.

The phrase i wasnt translating is "Mw own worst enemy", someone has suggested to me that "Ego Inimicus Pessimus Mihi" maybe correct.

Could someone please confirm this for me or suggest an alternative, it would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

TheProphet

[ptolemyauletes]

Another suggestion.
mihi sum ipse inimicissimus
I neither condone nor condemn the use of this on a permanent tattoo.

[TheProphet]

Hi,
Thank you very much for your reply, could you please explain to me how it differs from the suggestion in my original post?

Regards

[vastor]

I would probably go with something that's not likely to be mistranslated. That is, something simpler.
mei hostes pessimi sum.

Or perhaps something less literal:
omnium virorum hostes pessimi mei sum.
Of all men, I am the worst enemy of myself.

I don't think it's necessary to include an intensive pronoun, as meus -a -um can be translated as my own.

I would also note that I would translate "Ego Inimicus Pessimus Mihi" literally as:
I am the worst, hostile/unsuitable to/for me/myself.
Or something along those lines assuming you translate with a verb which isn't present in that fragment.

[TheProphet]

Thank you for your reply.

I think this is where i get a little confused as so far i have had suggested...

Ego Inimicus Pessimus Mihi
Mihimet ipse sum inimicissimus
Mihi sum ipse inimicissimus
Mei hostes pessimi sum
Omnium virorum hostes pessimi mei sum

Could someone please give me each of the translations for the above so i can work out which would be the most appropraite?

Regards

[TheProphet]

Thank you for your reply.

I think this is where i get a little confused as so far i have had suggested...

Ego Inimicus Pessimus Mihi
Mihimet ipse sum inimicissimus
Mihi sum ipse inimicissimus
Mei hostes pessimi sum
Omnium virorum hostes pessimi mei sum

Could someone please give me each of the translations for the above so i can work out which would be the most appropraite?

Regards

[ptolemyauletes]

Vastor,
Not sure why you use hostes pessimi. These are plurals.
TheProphet,
I think 'inimicus' is the best adjective to use. A hostis is more of an enemy of the state, whereas an inimicus is a personal enemy. This seems more appropriate here. Also, by using the superlative inimicissimus one is able to shorten the phrase to something more succinct, leaving out the superfluous pessimus.
I also think that an intensive pronoun is useful, since that's what Latin would use. Latin frequently uses such words where English feels it unnecessary.

mihimet is nice, and I would in fact leave out the ipse if you used mihimet.

mihimet sum inimicissimus.
Mihi sum ipse inimicissimus.

I will shortly consult the ultimate Latin brain and provide a 'definitive' answer later.

[adrianus]

"Nimiùm meae propriae personae [sum] infensus."
[Literally in English // sensu proprio anglicè] "Excessively to my own person dangerous " or "To my own person too great an enemy ".

[vastor]

Salve ptolemyauletes,

Vastor,
Not sure why you use hostes pessimi. These are plurals.

In my dictionary it states that the plural of hostis means the enemy, and the singular means enemy of the state. This is why I used the plural.

I think 'inimicus' is the best adjective to use. A hostis is more of an enemy of the state, whereas an inimicus is a personal enemy.

The problem I have with inimicus is that it represents feeling of unfriendlyness/hostility/harmfulness directed at a given object, which in your example is mihi, or myself translating as a reflexive pronoun. While it is grammatically correct, I feel that it almost directs hatred towards oneself (self-loathing). But that's just my opinion. And hostis only means enemy of the state when used in the singular, and as you can see I specifically used the plural which changes the meaning to The Enemy. However, I would appreciate further discussion as I use the plural of hostis quite often to mean The Enemy. Thanks.

Also, by using the superlative inimicissimus one is able to shorten the phrase to something more succinct, leaving out the superfluous pessimus.

I don't believe brevity in latin equates to conciseness when the semantics are deficient. Saying that, I don't see how my translation is any more verbose than yours. But I would be happy for you to explain further, because I'm just a beginner in latin myself.

I also think that an intensive pronoun is useful, since that's what Latin would use. Latin frequently uses such words where English feels it unnecessary.

To me I felt that ipse was superfluous, because mihi is usually reflexive and therefore already expresses the idea of myself emphatically; this in addition to you putting it first in the sentence.

mihimet is nice, and I would in fact leave out the ipse if you used mihimet.

Agreed, that looks like a better choice instead of mihi + ipse.

[vastor]

Thank you for your reply.

Salve TheProphet,
You're welcome.

Could someone please give me each of the translations for the above so i can work out which would be the most appropraite?

I can try, although you have to bear in mind that each person can translate things slightly differently. These are my literal translations, not vernacular/idiomatic english translations. Although I do place the verb first for uniformity.

Ego Inimicus Pessimus Mihi [sum].
the worst, most hostile to myself.
Mihimet ipse[intensive pronoun is modifer of implied subject?] sum inimicissimus.
I am myself most hostile/harmful to my own [self].
Mihi sum ipse[intensive pronoun is modifer of implied subject?] inimicissimus.
I am myself most hostile/harmful to me/myself.
Mei hostes pessimi sum
I am my own worst enemy.
Omnium virorum hostes pessimi mei[reflexive] sum.
Of all men, I am the worst enemy of myself.

[adrianus]

Certainly "hostis" should be singular for "an enemy". See L&S and OLD.
Secundum L&S et OLD dictionaria, certè "hostis" singulariter inimicus significat vel denotat.

[TheProphet]

Thank you guys, your help so far has been brilliant and i feel alot closer to finding the appropriate translation for my tattoo.

Having read everything in the thread so far i think my best options are looking like...

mihimet sum inimicissimus
Mihi sum ipse inimicissimus
Ego Inimicus Pessimus Mihi

[vastor]

Certainly "hostis" should be singular for "an enemy". See L&S and OLD.
Secundum L&S et OLD dictionaria, certè "hostis" singulariter inimicus significat vel denotat.

Salve adrianum,

L&S notes no difference between the singular and plural as far as I can see. But most other dictionaries carefully note the difference in meaning. That is the singular means foreigner, stranger, enemy of the state. I specially recall reading the phrase brutus hostis, which means that brutus was an enemy of the state (as we know). The plural is in fact often used to mean the singular. So for these reasons I uphold my decision to choose the plural.

[adrianus]

But most other dictionaries carefully note the difference in meaning.

Well, L&S and OLD and Cassell's are the best. Can you say which dictionaries in particular, vastor?
Age, optima sunt OLD et illa de L&S et Cassell. Tuâ veniâ, vastor, quae dictionaria propria?

[cb]

hi vastor, it would help if you could give a classical e.g. of HOSTES (plural) used with a singular verb (in your sentence, SVM) to refer to a single person.

as a side-point, there are in fact some classical self-enmity refs., e.g.:

- ovid tristia 2.82 "VIX TVNC IPSE MIHI NON INIMICVS ERAM"
- cicero de finibus 5.10.28 "SI QVIS SIBI IPSI INIMICVS EST"
- ad herennium 4.14 "VT IPSE SIBI REPERIRETVR INIMICVS"

copying the above e.g.s, you could construct a similar phrase:
(a) reflexive idea: all above e.g.s use a form of IPSE and the reflexive, so copy, i.e. IPSE MIHI. as between IPSE agreeing with the subject (as in the 1st and 3rd e.g.s above) and IPSI agreeing with the reflexive (as in the 2nd e.g. above), the former is more common: see woodcock’s syntax pg 25, section 37(i):
http://books.google.fr/books?id=WmT6mS5 ... q=&f=false

(b) worst enemy idea: all above e.g.s use INIMICVS, however this is not "worst" enemy. there are some classical e.g.s of ACERRIMVS used with ADVERSARIVS or INIMICVS in this sense:
- cicero pro quinctio 37.4 "QVIS HVIC REI TESTIS EST? IDEM QVI ACERRIMVS ADVERSARIVS"
- cicero ad atticum 10.8.8.3 "QVI QVIDEM SIBI EST ADVERSARIVS VNVS ACERRIMVS"
- ad herennium 2.28 "INIMICVM ENIM ACERRIMVM DE MEDIO TOLLERE VOLEBAT",

(c) verb: copying the initial e.g.s above, use either SVM or the passive of REPERIO. if the latter, following cicero, use a personal construction: see woodcock’s syntax pg 22, end of section 33:
http://books.google.fr/books?id=WmT6mS5 ... q=&f=false

therefore something like this would follow the classical e.g.s above:
IPSE MIHI ACERRIMVS [ADVERSARIVS/INIMICVS] [SVM/REPERIOR]

cheers, chad

[Imber Ranae]

hi vastor, it would help if you could give a classical e.g. of HOSTES (plural) used with a singular verb (in your sentence, SVM) to refer to a single person.

I second this request for a citation. The assertion appears dubious to me.

as a side-point, there are in fact some classical self-enmity refs., e.g.:

- ovid tristia 2.82 "VIX TVNC IPSE MIHI NON INIMICVS ERAM"
- cicero de finibus 5.10.28 "SI QVIS SIBI IPSI INIMICVS EST"
- ad herennium 4.14 "VT IPSE SIBI REPERIRETVR INIMICVS"

copying the above e.g.s, you could construct a similar phrase:
(a) reflexive idea: all above e.g.s use a form of IPSE and the reflexive, so copy, i.e. IPSE MIHI. as between IPSE agreeing with the subject (as in the 1st and 3rd e.g.s above) and IPSI agreeing with the reflexive (as in the 2nd e.g. above), the former is more common: see woodcock’s syntax pg 25, section 37(i):
http://books.google.fr/books?id=WmT6mS5 ... q=&f=false

Yes, though there appears to be a slight difference in sense if we use the superlative.

mihi sum ipse inimicissimus "I myself am the most hostile (of all people) towards myself."
mihi ipsi sum inimicissimus "I am the most hostile towards myself alone (less so towards others)."

The first definitely aligns better with the intent of the original English. Good citations, anyway.

(b) worst enemy idea: all above e.g.s use INIMICVS, however this is not "worst" enemy. there are some classical e.g.s of ACERRIMVS used with ADVERSARIVS or INIMICVS in this sense:
- cicero pro quinctio 37.4 "QVIS HVIC REI TESTIS EST? IDEM QVI ACERRIMVS ADVERSARIVS"
- cicero ad atticum 10.8.8.3 "QVI QVIDEM SIBI EST ADVERSARIVS VNVS ACERRIMVS"
- ad herennium 2.28 "INIMICVM ENIM ACERRIMVM DE MEDIO TOLLERE VOLEBAT",

But in contemporary English "best friend" and "worst enemy" are neutral terms in regard to the concept of goodness or badness/wickedness as a quality. All they suggest is a friend or enemy who is considered the greatest or most prominent among all the others. This is why the superlative form seemed to me the best way to translate the concept while still maintaining the neutral tone. Acerrimus inimicus/adversarius "bitterest foe", on the other hand, is a good deal more vivid and emotionally-charged description. As a genuine, legitimate Roman expression which is nearly equivalent to the OP's request, however, I would recommend it regardless.

(c) verb: copying the initial e.g.s above, use either SVM or the passive of REPERIO. if the latter, following cicero, use a personal construction: see woodcock’s syntax pg 22, end of section 33:
http://books.google.fr/books?id=WmT6mS5 ... q=&f=false

therefore something like this would follow the classical e.g.s above:
IPSE MIHI ACERRIMVS [ADVERSARIVS/INIMICVS] [SVM/REPERIOR]

cheers, chad

With reperior the phrase would suggest that there was a revelation of some kind, viz. that something happened to make him realize he was his own worst enemy: "I am found/discover myself to be my own worst enemy."

[cb]

hi, yes i agree with all the points in your post, cheers, chad

[ptolemyauletes]

Hi Everyone,
Vastor, you are generally correct in your idea of hostis apearing in the singular and plural. However, there really is no difference in meaning, a least not as you are suggesting. Hostis as a singular may refer to one specific person or to a whole army. As a plural it seems more likely to refer to the whole army. Latin will use the two interchangeably, as in fact will English. In any case, it certainly doesn't make sense to use it in apposition with a singular noun or pronoun, such as ego, or the verb sum.
In addition, hostis is really referring to a political or battlefield enemy. Catiline is referred to as a hostis, as are the Gauls or Hannibal etc. A hostis is an enemy of Rome. An inimicus (not friend: in-amicus) is an adjective, yes, but it is used as a substantive to refer to a personal enemy. Caesar regarded Cato as an inimicus, but he would never have called him a hostis, at least not until civil war had broken out. Likewise, Cicero might have called Clodius an inimicus, but he reserved hostis for Catiline, someone who threatened the state itself.
Lastly, I suggested ipse simply because it is a Latin mode of speaking. Whether or not we might say I myself am my own worst enemy is immaterial. A Roman probably would. Even with the mihi, Latin will often add intensive pronouns.
Good to see so many ideas and suggestions.
I like the acerrimus idea as well.

[adrianus]

Equidem etiam illud animadverto, quod, qui proprio nomine perduellis esset, is hostis vocaretur, lenitate verbi rei tristitiam mitigatam. Hostis enim apud maiores nostros is dicebatur, quem nunc peregrinum dicimus. indicant duodecim tabulae: "aut status dies cum hoste", itemque "adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas". Quid ad hanc mansuetudinem addi potest, eum, quicum bellum geras, tam molli nomine appellare? Quamquam id nomen durius effecit iam vetustas; a peregrino enim recessit et proprie in eo, qui arma contra ferret, remansit.

For my part, also, I notice that very thing, in so far as he who properly would have been "an enemy of the state" was called "a stranger" ["hostis"], the harshness of the thing softened by a mild word. For our elders used to call a "stranger" whom we now call a "foreigner". The Twelve Tables (Documents) declare: "or a day assigned with a stranger", and similarly "rights in perpetuity against a stranger". What could be more clement, to call he with whom you wage war by such a gentle name? Yet now an extended period of time has made the term harsher. It has receded from [the sense of] the foreigner and retained as a specific meaning "someone bearing arms against one".