"Protect me from what I want"

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
Dingbats
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Sweden

"Protect me from what I want"

Post by Dingbats » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:27 am

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...
phpbb

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:47 am

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

Dingbats
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Dingbats » Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:58 am

...ok. So should it be Protege me a quo quid velim?
phpbb

User avatar
Mulciber
Textkit Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:38 pm
Location: England

Post by Mulciber » Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:16 pm

Protege me ab eo quod velim.
phpbb

Dingbats
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Dingbats » Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:49 pm

Oh, of course! Thanks.
phpbb

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:15 pm

Protege me ab eo quod velim.
quod is used for relative adjectives, isn't it? I thought quid was the relative pronoun. So ab eo quid velim.

I always remember it thus -

quid rhymes with id/it, which is a pronoun
quod rhymes with odd, which is an adjectives
phpbb

Barrius
Textkit Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: above ground, thank God!

Post by Barrius » Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:21 pm

benissimus wrote:"I ain't gonna git yoo that thar present what yoo axed fer"
I resemble that remark :lol:

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:46 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.
phpbb

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:18 pm

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.
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:39 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.
phpbb

User avatar
whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by whiteoctave » Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:34 pm

Although in English we often leave out the antecedent of a relative clause, it is necessary in Latin.
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.
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.

Dingbats
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Dingbats » Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:11 pm

Thanks for your thoughts about which word to use for protect, and the antecedent stuff. Your spelling of volo confused me though!
phpbb

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:41 am

whiteoctave wrote: qui uult esse grauis multa legere debet

~D

and verse would occasionally allow of retine me a quo uolo/uelim.
Do you mean that he who wants to become heavy i.e. fat must read a lot. For then you can't really exercise can you. :wink:

a quo volo is :oops: I never thought I'd see that...
phpbb

Odysseus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Contact:

Post by Odysseus » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:05 pm

This has got me interested. The quote can be from one thing only, and that's the Placebo song. Is this you translating to, or translating from a latin version they've written? They've done a French once, but I haven't heard of a latin one.

Dingbats
Textkit Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Dingbats » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:25 pm

Lol, yes it's the Placebo song. They haven't written a Latin version as far as I know. :P
phpbb

Post Reply