Hi ive been looking every where to find a latin translator this is my last option
please can someone translate this following sentance i need it for a poster im doin anbout health and safety
“Health and safety does away with natural selection”
can some one translate that and email me at iainharris@gmail.com thanks sooooo much
Iain
You do know that the concept of natural selection was not proposed until well after the Roman language was spoken? Also, I doubt the Vatican has coined a new phrase for natural selection 
You do know that the concept of natural selection was not proposed until well after the Roman language was spoken? Also, I doubt the Vatican has coined a new phrase for natural selection
It scarcely needs translating, it’s practically Latin already:
selectio naturalis
The difficulty is health and safey, because that would be salus et salus. I would translate it as helath/safety rules, i.e. regulae salutis.
Salutis regulae selectionem naturalem tollunt.
securitas for safety could refer more exclusively to the “safety” aspect, though I fear it is a post-classical sense (if that is of concern to the OP). ualetudo or sanitas could refer more exclusively to the “health” aspect. I prefer the idea and brevity of regulae salutis though, well put.
sanitas salusque animantia deligendum Naturae dissoluere.
dissoluere = gnomic aor. of pf.
Naturae = dat. of disadvantage.
~D
Selectioni naturali salus firmaque valetudo nullo modo conceduntur.
‘Selectio naturalis’ as in section 2.2 of http://wredmond.home.texas.net/metaphysica2.html
I put salus first cause it sounds better in Latin. But I use it for ‘safety’, cause the real meaning of it is ‘being healtyh cause you are not in danger, the fact of being not in danger’.
Firma valetudo or bona valetudo means good health, you have to put the adjective in it, cause you can also find mala valetudo.
Nullo modo concedere: I used this word combination, because it is a metrical clausula used by Cicero
Let me know what you think …
Nice, but I think I was right to emphasise the H&S rules in my translation. When we use the formula “health and safety” in English we are usually referring to a set of regulations that promote health and safety in an enviroment.
However this idea is not conveyed by a straightforward translation of the formula.
The spirit of the original statement is (I think) that by the observance of H&S regulations natural selection is eliminated, because the rules guarantee health and safety, and so nobody dies.
But just to say that if everyone is healthy and safe then nobody dies is to make a tautologous statement.
I could phrase it more accurately (pinching whiteoctave’s vocabulary) as:
Observandis sanitatis salutisque regulis selectio naturalis tollitur.
But the fellow won’t read this as he’s expecting the answer in a e-mail. Too bad.
Well I stay with my translation, because I don’t think a Roman would speak of rules in his translation of English, if it would be possible. You also mean the ‘rules’ of … in English, but you don’t use that word, you simply say ‘health and safety’. If you translate it with ‘rules of …’ it becomes to rigide, I think.
Sanitas is not used in classical Latin for health in this way. In real classical Latin ‘sanitas’ is only used for mental sanity!
And I also likle the metrical clausula. And naturalis tollitur ends in a sponeus + trochaeus, it would be horribible to have a poetic end in a prose construction for a Roman.
Ergo, sicut dixi:
Selectioni naturali salus firmaque valetudo nullo modo conceduntur.
But thanks you to let me know your opinion, I simply did the same. No it’s up to you again … Narratio continuatur!
moere, as much as i appreciate your comments, it is no less than misleading to make sweeping statements that lack truth.
nullo modo concedere may make perfect sense, but it is not usually classed as a clausula used by Cicero. cretic+dispondee is obviously found, but i have never known it termed one of the main clausulae. Cicero is as ever instructive: “depressam, caecam, iacentem domum pluris quam te et quam fortunas tuas aestimasti”. dichoreo finitur. At spondeis proximum illud. nam in his, quibus ut pugiunculis uti oportet, breuitas faciet ipsa liberiores pedes; saepe enim singulis utendum est, plerumque binis, et utrisque addi pedis potest, non fere ternis amplius. (orat.224)
your assertion that sanitas is not used in Classical Latin for health is also unfounded. i do not deny that it mostly has the specific leaning towards the health of the mind, but its wider sense of bodily health is well attested:
Cicero himself makes clear the initial sense of sanitas (as evident earlier in Plautus, e.g. Mer.679): enim corporis temperatio, cum ea congruunt inter se e quibus constamus, sanitas; sic animi dicitur, cum eius iudicia opinionesque concordant. clearly Cicero is making the progression here from the corporeal sense of sanitas to its specific application to the mind, so sc. sanitas with animi.
the corporeal sense continues with the closer prose authors after Cic.
Var.r.3.14 (c.40BC) sed ut hoc aptissimum ad sanitatem apium, sic ad mellificium thymum. (do bees have mental constitutions?)
Cels.prooem. (c.AD 20) ut alimenta sanis corporibus agricultura, sic sanitatem aegris Medicina promittit.
Phaed.5.7.12 (c.AD 30) ad sanitatem dum uenit curatio
Sen.dial.6.1.8 (c.AD 40) uulnerum quoque sanitas facilis est, dum a sanguine recentia sunt.
these are all under the aegis of ‘Classical’ Latin: from the rhetorica ad Herennium to the Neronian period.
rather than pushing for clausulae, you may want to remove ‘selectio naturalis’ which, in spite of your non-Classical reference, is hardly good Latin.
-ualetudo does not need an adj. to express whether it is good or bad health. of course when such adjectives are used, they serve the benefit of removing a potential ambiguity.
~D
Before saying I am a liar, you should know the classical literature better.
I advise you to read Menge, Lateinische synonymik. The book is founded on the works of Cicero and Caesar and is therefore classical. There is indeed a difference of the sporadic and the normal use onf words in Cicero’s or Caesars works. You will see in Menge that sanitas is normally used for mental health, except of course when you oppose mental and body health and say it emphatically! But when you use sanitas without any addition it normally means mental health.The examples you give from authors after Cicero, I don’t consider them as classical and so I will not say anything about them! Valetudo can be used also in a negative sense. It needs an adjective! Look also in Krebs, Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache. You can find it all sub voce ‘Sanitas’. He also argues with the citations you made.
My clausula is indeed a classical one, maybe not often used by Cicero, but a classical one. Look at the books about that topic better (For example: Nougaret). You should also read better the citation of Cicero you made and also the context in which it is! It does not prove anything here.
Anyway, I admit that I did a mistake about the clausula Mulcebri (I simply read it to fast, anyway it’s my mistake), although my own clausula is a classical one. I still am sure about all the rest I was saying, but it will take me to long to give arguments for each word here. You simply can find my arguments in the books I mentioned. They are in it! If you know German and Frensh, you simply can read them there. Most of these words have a normal use, a strict use, and a less normal use. When Cicero uses sanitas without any explanation, it usually means health of body, like I said, like Menge said.
In fact you made me a little angry and well I think you should read your arguments better or you can simply choose to be a ‘mumpsimus amator’ like we, classical philologists, say …
Anyway I will not make a discussion of all this, think whatever you want …, but I exspect better from the things I’ve seen from you before.
Friendly,
Philippus Ludovicus Mauritius Moerus,
Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis
please remain calm and collected. i am sorry you are angry but i think the wider community should be made aware of the problems with sweeping assertions. as i conceded in my previous post sanitas does typically refer to mental health but it is purely fallacious for you to state “in real [whatever that means?] classical Latin ‘sanitas’ is only used for mental sanity!”. I proved that even Cicero himself shows the occasional use of the term with regard to corporeal health (and this is no doubt the inspiration behind his transferred usages in oratory, e.g. Brut.278). I know and respect the work of Menge, and LS unsurprisingly supports the fact that Cicero mostly and Caesar always (as it happens) uses the term of mental health. I do not object to that.
ualetudo, as i said quite plainly before, does not ‘need’ an adjective. without one it can mean either good health, bad health, or the general notion of health. again, as i said before, an adjective does help to remove ambiguities.
i am very surprised that the writings of Varro, who lived 116-27B.C. are not deemed by you to be Classical: his lifespan surrounds Cicero’s!
please do not patronise my knowledge of clausulae. i have seen many catalogues of Classical rhythms, and there does not appear a strong foundation, if any, for saying that cretic+dispondee is a clausula. i happily direct you to the discussion of the fine scholar Hutchinson in CQ n.s. 45.2 (1995) pp.485-99. in his thorough treatment he comes to the conclusion (}p.492) that ‘[such examples] suggest that —x does not have a unique status as being rhythmic.’ and shortly after (p.493) ‘It would be more damaging to our outlook [concerning clausulae] to view —x as not itself rhythmic but part of a rhythm -u----x.’ in this he challenges the work of Zielinski. you can find in this article a selection of instances of your rhythm but the conclusion that it should be given rhythmic, i.e. clausular, status.
i can read French fine, but German takes me a while, but I will address myself to what Krebs says when time allows.
this quotation cannot be right: ‘When Cicero uses sanitas without any explanation, it usually means health of body, like I said, like Menge said.’
the tale of mumpsimus vs sumpsimus is well known and a rather potently offensive remark. i aspire to textual criticism where precision is of the utmost importance. the point of my assertion was to restore some precision to an over-simplification of the truth.
~D
the gen. of Mulciber would be, unless he has some strong objection, Mulciberi (as in Cic.) or Mulciberis (as in Ovid).
the gen. of Mulciber would be, unless he has some strong objection, Mulciberi (as in Cic.) or Mulciberis (as in Ovid).
I made a new genitive to mark the difference of the persons.
When I write Latin, I condider the normal and real (I suppose it is clear now what I mean by that.) uses of words as a rule. We live in an other era and therefore we are not used to know the cases in which we can use words differently than their normal uses. Well not always. Therefore I think it’s better to use the normal uses only when we talk Latin, except when there is no word for it, then we can use some neolatin words. On this point I don’t consider Varro as classical. Of course he is classical on other levels. But I think Cicero’s language is simply more pure to use it as a norm.
I didn’t know we have to explain all things here very accurate and precisely, I think most people will understand me without all these last explanations …