Wiseman have wealth in himself, in himself there are true goodness. (I have put himself twice in english but different in latin, that is because in my native langugae (Serbian) there are different ways of describing that word, so do take that in mind.)
Sapiens in se divitias habet; nam in eo ipso vera bona sunt.
Citizens of same country have same rights, same customs, to the same laws and same magistrats they oblige. Eadem iura, eosdem mores cives eiusdem rei publicae habent, iisdem legibus, iisdem magistratibus parent.
Patient and brave man make himself happy. Patiens et fortis homo se ipsum feliciem facit.
**One complicating factor here is that English uses the -self ending to indicate not only reflexive pronouns but also intensive pronouns. For example:
We all love ourselves. ← reflexive: same person as subject
We ourselves love her. ← intensive: emphasizing that it is in fact we who love her
Since Latin, by contrast, has both an intensive and a reflexive pronoun, you must be careful to determine which type the context demands when translating into Latin from English. (I wish I knew how reflexive pronouns worked in Serbian! Maybe you could try to explain?)**
Wiseman have wealth in himself, in himself there are true goodness.
(I have put himself twice in english but different in latin, that is because in my native langugae (Serbian) there are different ways of describing that word, so do take that in mind.)
Sapiens in se divitias habet; nam in eo ipso vera bona sunt.
(One note: “wise man” and “goodness” are both singular; “have” and “are” are both plural. I’m not sure which number was intended in the original. I’ll assume that the noun and the Latin translation is right and that the verbs ought to be “has” and “is.”)
If I’m not mistaken, the Latin idiom here that you should use for “in himself” is “per se” and, in the next sentence, “per ipsum.” Since “vera bona” is the subject, you correctly chose the intensive pronoun ipse. “Himself” must be emphasizing the identity of the person and thus would not be “se.” However, I’m pretty sure that it’s not necessary to repeat the weak demonstrative “eo” - “ipso” is sufficient.
Citizens of same country have same rights, same customs, to the same laws and same magistrats they oblige.
Eadem iura, eosdem mores cives eiusdem rei publicae habent, iisdem legibus, iisdem magistratibus parent.
I might render this with dative of possession: “Eadem iura, eidem mores civibus eiusdem reipublicae sunt,” etc. “Habeo” usually connotes physical or mental possession - owning something (also possideo) or having an opinion about something. This is a fine distinction, though, and your translation is fine. By the way, pareo is better rendered in English as “obey, be obedient to, comply with.” (cf. obtempero).
Patient and brave man make himself happy.
Patiens et fortis homo se ipsum feliciem facit.
Small mistake: sing. acc. m/f of felix is “felicem.” Also you have an extra “ipsum.” You would only want that amount of emphasis if the sentence contained some extra indication - since “himself” here is used in a reflexive sense. “se” will do just fine (so: “homo patiens fortisque se felicem fecit.” Also. . . I’m curious about “felix.” It is certainly a good adjective, but be sure to consider other synonyms which may be more appropriate depending on the context (if there is any context…): laetus, beatus, and fortunatus come to mind; all have their particular shade of meaning.
It’s a bit tricky for me to explain grammar rules but I will try.
Since Latin, by contrast, has both an intensive and a reflexive pronoun, you must be careful to determine which type the context demands when translating into Latin from English. (I wish I knew how reflexive pronouns worked in Serbian! Maybe you could try to explain?)
Reflexive pronouns in Serbian language are applied to all three persons and in Latin they are only applied to 3. person.
Wiseman have wealth in himself, in himself there are true goodness.
Sapiens in se divitias habet; nam in eo ipso vera bona sunt.
(One note: “wise man” and “goodness” are both singular; “have” and “are” are both plural. I’m not sure which number was intended in the original. I’ll assume that the noun and the Latin translation is right and that the verbs ought to be “has” and “is.”)
Yes, my mistake, there had to be “has” and “is”.
If I’m not mistaken, the Latin idiom here that you should use for “in himself” is “per se” and, in the next sentence, “per ipsum.” >
In Serbian I would translate “per se” as “accros himself” or “by himself” so I am not sure that is the right translation of meaning that “Wiseman has IN HIMSELF wealth”, “in se” is I think more logical.
Since “vera bona” is the subject, you correctly chose the intensive pronoun > ipse> . “Himself” must be emphasizing the identity of the person and thus would not be “se.” However, I’m pretty sure that it’s not necessary to repeat the weak demonstrative “eo” - “ipso” is sufficient.
Here is the problem translating right from Serbian to English.
The meaning has to be “in him himself” which is literal translation from Serbian but in English that is not in use (I think). So I have translated “in him” as “in eo” as ablative, and “himself” as “ipso”
I hope I helped you in order to solve this problem!
Thanks for your help!
It’s a bit tricky for me to explain grammar rules but I will try.
It’s hard for me, too! So no sweat.
Reflexive pronouns in Serbian language are applied to all three persons and in Latin they are only applied to 3. person.
Technically, there are reflexive pronouns in Latin for the first and second person - however, they are identical in form to the personal pronouns.
Tu gladium capis → Dicis te gladium capere.
Is gladium capit → Dicit se gladium capere.
In Serbian I would translate “per se” as “accros himself” or “by himself” so I am not sure that is the right translation of meaning that “Wiseman has IN HIMSELF wealth”, “in se” is I think more logical.
…
Here is the problem translating right from Serbian to English.
The meaning has to be “in him himself” which is literal translation from Serbian but in English that is not in use (I think). So I have translated “in him” as “in eo” as ablative, and “himself” as “ipso”
I’m not really the expert on reflexive pronouns, and especially since we’re dealing with translations back and forth between three languages, I doubt my ability to provide reliable answers. One consideration, though, is that even if Serbian has two pronouns (which you render as “in him himself”) Latin may not require two also. Beware of word for word translations. Whereas, in English, “I myself was there” is good grammar, the Latin version would only need “Ipse aderam.” Adding the “ego” would make it something like, “As for me, I myself was there.” However, as I said before, I’m not entirely sure about the proper usage of ipse.
I hope I helped you in order to solve this problem!
Thanks for your help!
I’m not really the expert on reflexive pronouns, and especially since we’re dealing with translations back and forth between three languages, I doubt my ability to provide reliable answers. One consideration, though, is that even if Serbian has two pronouns (which you render as “in him himself”) Latin may not require two also. Beware of word for word translations. Whereas, in English, “I myself was there” is good grammar, the Latin version would only need “Ipse aderam.” Adding the “ego” would make it something like, “As for me, I myself was there.” However, as I said before, I’m not entirely sure about the proper usage of > ipse> .
Yes, it is a real problem dealing with three languages (even dealing with one is problem!), and I think I can satisfy with conclusion that your latin idiom is acceptable for now.