The core of the song “The Gift of Years” by Eric Bogle, which I’ve translated into Croatian, is probably the line “The country that you died for then, you wouldn’t know it now.”. How would you say that in Latin? I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and, more I think about it, more confused I am. Here are some possibilities that came into my mind:
Terra, pro qua mortuus es tunc, eam non scias nunc.
Terram, pro qua mortuus es tunc, eam non scias nunc.
Terra, cuius gratia mortuus es tunc, eam non scias nunc.
Terram, cuius gratia mortuus es tunc, eam non noscas nunc.
Terra, cuius gratia mortuus es tunc, eam non noscas nunc.
So, which one do you think is the most correct? Or would you suggest something else?
The first problem I have is whether “terra” (I guess that’s a good way to say “country” in Latin) should be in nominative or in accusative. The problem also arises in Croatian. By the basic rules of grammar, it makes way more sense to say “državu”, which is the accusative case. However, that somehow sounds incorrect to my ear, and “država”, which is the nominative case, sounds correct. I don’t know what’s going on here. Is it just that the noun at the beginning of a sentence is way more often in nominative than in the accusative case, because Croatian is an SVO language, so I simply got used to hearing the beginning of a sentence in nominative case? Or is there something deeper than that?
Second, how would you translate this preposition “for” in this context? “for” as in “a letter for somebody” is “ad (quam)”, however, I don’t think that’s what “for” means here. I think the correct translation is “pro qua” or “cuius gratia”, however, I am not sure which one of those.
Third, how would you translate “know” in “you wouldn’t know it now”? Would it be more appropriate to use “scias” or “noscas”? Why? Or would it maybe be more appropriate to use something like “scires” or “nosceres”?
Hi, it may be worth practising some Latin prose composition exercises before attempting this sentence, as it will give you a more structured approach – I don’t think judging it by what sounds correct to your ear is the best place to start, and which may be leading to the confusion you mention.
There are three key elements:
(1) Start from the main clause ‘…you wouldn’t know it now’: can you see what type of construction it is according to Latin syntax? Think ‘you wouldn’t recognise X (if you were alive now, but you are not)’: see e.g. Woodcock’s New Latin Syntax secs 193 and 197 on the verb form to use for the apodosis of a present unreal condition (with an implied protasis ‘if you were alive now, but you are not’).
(2) ‘The country…’ is X, which should take the case appropriate to this construction – I’m not sure terra is the best word here, as something for which people sacrifice themselves.
(3) ‘…that you died for then’ is a clause modifying X.
If you can please propose a v2 draft, giving grammar references for these elements, and ideally also some model examples from golden age Latin, this would be a good platform for engaging further discussion here.
(illam) patriam pro qua tum mortuus es nunc haud agnosceres.
Cf. Horace’s dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Do you know Wilfred Owens’ poem Dulce et Decorum Est? I think you would approve of it.
Hi Michael, all good! Just a quick question: do you prefer nunc haud or iam non? I haven’t looked either up, just would be interested in your take on this. Thanks in advance!
As a side bit of trivia, in a church nearby there’s a 19th century memorial of an explorer, who was killed during an expedition, which has an adaptation of the famous verse from Horace: dulce et decorum est pro scientia mori. Someone has put an image of it online:
Hi Chad, given the then/now opposition I prefer nunc. You don’t?
pro scientia certainly makes the sentiment less repugnant. And it neatly converts the meter to an iambic senarius. I presume this was deliberate, but how to know?
PS Again I apologize for jumping in like that. I’d made my oblique response in my head earlier and thoughtlessly posted it before seeing yours. You can still dissect the sentence and guide the OP through the process.
Hi Michael, no need to apologise at all! Your reply was the most helpful and I’m sure the OP will learn from it. As we’ve talked about together on e.g. iambic tri on this forum in the past, we probably have different approaches to composition (because you are a real classicist and I’m not! I still have never had a class in classics in my life…) and I hope it’s helpful for the OP to see different approaches, neither of which is just going by ear.
On your query re nunc, I agree with you: I was wondering more about its combination with haud, but I confess I was going by ear here, contrary to all my advice above. I know that haud was used by Cicero differently at different points in his career, e.g. the following from von Albrecht in Cicero’s style: A synopsis:
“…haud appears in the orations almost exclusively in the Fifties. In the rhetorical and philosophical writings, it comes into fashion about the same time and even enjoys a certain popularity. Given the sporadic presence of haud at the beginning of Cicero’s career, its relative frequency in the orations of the fifties may partly be an echo of Cicero’s contemporaneous poetic attempts and of his stylistic ambitions in the De Re Publica and the De Legibus. Moreover, Cicero may have preferred haud in some philosophical discussions because it sounds more emphatic and ironical than non. In fact, haud is absent from the later orations, whereas in his later philosophical writings Cicero maintains the style created for this genre.” (2003, 31–2)
It was just a passing query: thanks very much for your take on this, which I appreciate.
Well I’m more of a sixties guy than a fifties one myself. To be honest I didn’t think about it at all. It’s a very simple sentence, and it just came out that way. If you prefer non to haud, be my guest; I can’t think Cicero would object to either one. But I’m glad you agree about nunc rather than iam.
I don’t know that our approaches are really all that different. I just cut corners, and don’t consciously go through the various analytical and compositional steps that are no doubt involved.
I didn’t know it was originally by Horace. In Croatia, we have a pro-war song called “U boj, u boj!” (Into the battle, into the battle!), and it ends with “Za domovinu mrijeti kolika slast, prot dušmaninu, mora, on mora past’.” (It’s sweet to die for the homeland, against the enemy, he has to fall.). I don’t like songs with such a message. War is obviously horrific short-term, and long-term consequences are hard to predict (How do you know what would have happened if Japanese has won the war against China? Maybe the Chinese Civil War wouldn’t have happened. Maybe the Chinese Great Famine wouldn’t have happened…).