Re: Translation to Latin

Ph.D. wrote:
> caeruleancentaur wrote:
[snip]
>> I'll take a stab at it:
>> Pugnare sine honore, triumphare sine gloria.
>>
>> "Triumphare" emphasizes the exultation after the victory.
>>
>> If it's the overcoming that is to be emphasized, perhaps:
>>
>> Pugnare sine honore, superare sine gloria.
>>
>> or
>>
>> Pugnare sine honore, vincere sine gloria.
All possible, but the IMO the first is best.

>
> Good stab, but I think if I saw a coat-of-arms with
> the motto "Pugnare sine honore, triumphare sine gloria,"
> I'd interpret it to mean "(I aspire to) fight without honor
> and triumph without glory."
Why? there's no 'and'. I would assume we had _est_ (is) "understood",
which is not uncommon in certain styles of Latin, i.e. To fight without
honor is to triumph without glory.

> I'd be more inclined to use something like "Nulla
> pugna sine honore, nullus triumphus sine gloria."
> (= "No fight without honor, no triumph without glory")
> but even that is not quite satisfying.
I agree - it's less punchy IMO

> But Ray is the Latin expert here, so I'll defer to him.
Thanks - I've been away for the weekend and only just got back.
----------------------------------------------

> Den 22. nov. 2008 kl. 14.23 skreiv Ph.D.:
>
>> Good stab, but I think if I saw a coat-of-arms with
>> the motto "Pugnare sine honore, triumphare sine gloria,"
>> I'd interpret it to mean "(I aspire to) fight without honor
>> and triumph without glory."
>
> It would work perhaps if you used the copula.
Not need, tho I would remove the comma to make clear that it's a single
sentence.
----------------------------------------------

Peter Collier wrote:
 > Keep it simple:  NVLLA GLORIA SINE HONORE  /  SINE HONORE NVLLA GLORIA

Too simple IMO - but I do like the use of chiasmus.
----------------------------------------------

Edgard Bikelis wrote:
 > yep, that's the spirit! : )
 >
 > nullus honor in proelio, in triumpho nulla gloria.

I like that.

With this the comma is indeed needed. Basically the idea is "If there's
no honor in battle, there is no glory in the triumph." But the chiasmus
makes the point nicely without the need of a conjunction and the 'empty'
verb "to be."
-------------------------------------------

Peter Collier wrote:
 > Or maybe:  NUNQVAM VINCIT (perh. VINCAT ?)  QVI DEDECORET.

VINCIT makes a statement (indicative); the subjunctive (VINCAT) would
presumably mean 'let him [never] conquer' or 'may he [never] conquer.'

But this surely changes the meaning of the original. As I understand it
what the motto is to convey that a victory won without honor is a sham
victory.
--------------------------------------------
maikxlx wrote:
 > Here's my (long time lurker) crack at it.  The most literal translation
 > seems to go:
 >
 > Sine honore pugnanda, sine gloria triumphatur. - By fighting without
honor,
 > it is triumphed without glory.

Except that _pugnanda_ does not mean "by fighting"! That is _pugnando_
(ablative of the gerund).

_pugnanda_ is a gerundive, either feminine nominative or ablative (a
woman who has to be fought) or neuter plural nom. & acc. (things which
have to be fought).

The impersonal passive, however, is nice and corresponds more closely to
the French original: e.g.

pugnatur sine honore, sine gloria triumphatur.
If one fights without honor, one triumphs without glory.

 >
 > But FWIW I'd personally express the gist more positively:
 >
 > Honore pugno ut gloria triumphem.  I fight with honor that I might
triumph
 > with glory.
 >
 >
 > Or simply:
 >
 > Honore pugna, gloria triumpha!  Fight with honor, triumph with glory!

The latter is punchier than the former IMO - but the positive twist does
change the tone of the original.
---------------------------------------

OK - my twopen'orth:

I like the use of chiasmus that has been suggested. The main contrast
surely is between "without honor" ~ "without glory", so I would put
these two phrases at the two opposite ends. The most impersonal passive
is the more literal rendering of the French, so:

sine honore pugnatur, triumphatur sine gloria.

But I do like Edgards's

nullus honor in proelio, in triumpho nulla gloria.

I guess after these suggestions, it's up to maikxlx to decide    :)

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Reply