Hi there
I am looking to get a tattoo and want ‘To love and Cherish’. I want to ensure that it is correct both spelling and gramatically, could anybody please help, i would be forever gratefull.
Many thanks
“Amare et fovere” is one option.
hey kasper
what exactly does Amare et fovere translate too? I had been told Ut amen et foveam, could you tell me what this translates too? I really appreciate your help, i have heard of so many people getting a tattoo and ending up with wrong spelling or it being gramatically incorrect.
While I have no doubts about the abilities of Textkittens to eventually produce a good rendition of this, for a tattoo you really should spend the cash and hire a professional. Textkit isn’t a free translation site, but a site for people learning Latin and Greek. You request will be treated as an exercise. 
Kasper’s rendition is with infinitives, “to love and to cherish.” The other one — ut ame**m** I trust — means “in order that I love, etc.”
many thanks, i didnt intend to insult by asking for a translation on here. but i do appreciate your response and will not post on here again!
Post all you want! Just keep in mind what Textkit is and isn’t.
Yes, as Will has said, I am only a self-taught student. Asking a bunch of strangers on the net for the text of your tattoo in a language you don’t understand will always be a very risky business, a fortiori on a forum like this! This is why I qualified my translation as I did. Not that I think my translation is wrong though!
Ut amem et foveam = so that / in order that I may love and cherish.
Latin grammar is more specific than English, and you may want to spend some time thinking about exactly what you want to say.
Perhaps also
amatum fotumque
amatum ac fotum
amatum et fotum
amatum atque fotum
= in order to love and cherish
I think that you should describe more explicitly what your tattoo should mean. For example “to love and to cherish (a chlild)” possibly in Latin requires different verbs than “to love and to cherish (my life)” or than “to love (dogs) and to cherish (the memory of my first one)”.
Hehe! I would like to see you explain the difference between those 4 options Swth\r!
Wouldn’t the supines there only work with verbs of motion? ‘eo amatum fotumque’ I go in order to love and cherish.
Hehe! 
You have to laugh at that! But think about it not in linguistic terms but in terms of a tattoo icon. Shape, form, size may matter!
Yes, in deed!
The same with an infinitive, shouldn’t it be depended on a verb? Or with a final clause; shouldn’t it be depended on an another clause? What conjunctive should we use?
Those are question of linguistic, not of “tattoo-istic” interest.
It really depends if you want a literal translation (preserving the present active infinitive tense and mood) or a more imaginative one (which probably wouldn’t translate well back into english).
For a more literal translation, I would choose:
Amare et Cupere
Meaning to love and covet. Personally, I think the literal versions are more appropriate in this case.
Infinitives are nouns and need not depend on a verb. The infinitive of any verb can, as an indeclinable neuter noun, denote ‘the action of …-ing’.
Supines are a certain sort of frozen noun-form of the verb that can only be used in conjunction with verbs of motion.
That’s why I objected. ‘To love and cherish’ can’t be meant to denote something along the lines of “I got this tattoo in order to love and cherish”, that isn’t feasible. The only possibility is denoting “the action of loving and cherishing”, correctly expressed by the infinitives.
I did not say that the use of the infinitive is a mistake; I just added another option. Infinitives are also noun-forms. The use of them independently (without conjunction to a verb) happens only in certain cases (exclamatory clause, narration in past). Latin dictionaries do not have infinitivesas entries, but the first singular indicative active (exceptions for “deponentia verba”, or defective verbs etc.)
An infinitive by itself may express nothing, in my oppinion, but a shadowy action/situation. Why do you suppose that any infinitive in Latin means “to do something”? Don’t consider it as the English infinitive. A Latin infinitive may also mean “that I do something” . In this case it can not be used as our friend needs to.
My point is that no form by itself in any language can denote an exact meaning, if a context is not present. Am I wrong? However, If your point has only to do with the fact that in our case not a goal should be denoted but just an action, perhaps you are right. But I am so sure if the Latin infinitive have the strength of the ENglish one as in the following sentence: To love and cherish is wonderfull.
My point has only to do with the fact that infinitives can stand on their own with force of a singular, indeclinable neuter noun, while supines cannot, as they must depend on a finite verb, and on top of that one of motion.
‘amare bonum est’ it is a good thing to love. As far as my command of the English language goes, I see no noteworthy difference between the meanings of the infinitives. There is the morphological difference that infinitive in English has the small word ‘to’ attached to it - however, in all uses of the infinitive, this is not present. The same phenomenon is seen in German, only with the word ‘zu’ added to the infinitive, zu lieben, for example.
I think you’re anticipating a theoretical reason, Swth\r, why the supine isn’t used in the same way as the infinitive might be in any such motto. It comes down to usage. If you were to find it used anywhere in such a way, great. I doubt it, though.
Credo, Swth\r, te rationem dialecticam praesumere, quae explicat cur non modo simile infinitivi in tale dicto supinum adhibeatur. Consuetudinis res est. Si supinum sic adhiberi ullo in loco invenias, bonum sit. Dubito autem fore ut vincas.
If you mean that the infinitive can be used in much more cases that the supine, you have wight. Supine has a very special function in Latin.
But what I say is that “amare” can not be found independently. It needs a verb to be hung upon. When you say in latin “punire bonum est”, it has no difference from “rediit punitum” (syntactically, not in meaning). In the first case the infinitive is depended on the impersonal verb “bonum est”; in the second the supine is depended on the verb of motion “rediit”. They are in both cases DEPENDED verbal-noun forms, not UNDEPENDED… This is what I say. As we can not use “punitum” by itself in any clause, we can not also use “punire” by itself in any clause… Isn’t it true?
The infinitive is rather special (in a motto or out of a motto),—it enjoys the qualities of a subject in any potential sentence (as Timeodanaos says). Here’s the motto of New York State University: “To Persist and Perform”. Everyone there might say: I’m a university member. My duty is to persist and perform.
Specialius autem infinitivum (aut intrà aut extrà emblema), quod subjecti adjunctos in quâcunque sententiâ habebit (ut dicit timeodanaos). Ecce Novi Eboraci emblema universitatis: Perstare et Praestare. Omnis illîc dicat: “Socius universitatis sum. Perstare et praestare meum est.”
So? You say that the infinitive can be used as a subject, but supine not? What does it have to do with the matter? A subject is a subject because of a verb… It is nothing but an “idea”, “an entity of the world”, if without a verbal form…
I can also tattoo on me an ADVERB! Like “CELERIVS”, if I am a sprinter. Does it “enjoy the qualities of a subject in any potential sentence”? Can it be used by itself, without dependence to another word in actual speech? Of course not, but it can be used on someone as a tattoo… I think that you are missunderstanding my ponit. I say that somenone can say (of show) on a tattoo whatever he wants.
I say it again… Latin infinitives are not like the English one… For a Roman citizen, “amare” would be nothing more than “amatum”. And if you think of that, he may had got much more from the supine (used isolated), as a meaning, than from the infinitive. Because supine has a very special syntactic function in a latin sentence. But infinitive can be a lot of things. E.g., what about “amavisse”? This is also an infinitive; do you think it can be used in such a way as the English infinitive?
hi! I need some help. could you tell me what is the latin translation of “grand treasurer”? I was thinking of “magnus thesaurer” but I am so not sure.
Thanks!