Cucumis - 무료 온라인 번역 서비스
. .



번역 - 스웨덴어-라틴어 - Jag älskar dig, vi för evigt

현재 상황번역
이 본문은 다음 언어들로 가능합니다: 스웨덴어라틴어이탈리아어브라질 포르투갈어간이화된 중국어전통 중국어독일어

분류 나날의 삶 - 사랑 / 우정

이 번역의 "의미" 번역만을 요구합니다.
제목
Jag älskar dig, vi för evigt
본문
tassen에 의해서 게시됨
원문 언어: 스웨덴어

Jag älskar dig, vi för evigt

제목
TE AMO,
번역
라틴어

Porfyhr에 의해서 번역되어짐
번역될 언어: 라틴어

TE AMO, NOS IN ÆTERNUM
이 번역물에 관한 주의사항
I would have preferred conuingit, but æternum and perpetuum seem to be the two Latin "pop"words. I do hope the vocabulary was more extended at the old days.
3rd person is natural if I talk about a he and she. Like a coin and a bill. Is that strange.
I still wish to know Xini. Is my first translation wrong?
8)
Porfyhr에 의해서 마지막으로 검증 또는 수정되었습니다 - 2007년 9월 19일 18:06





마지막 글

글쓴이
올리기

2007년 9월 19일 07:52

Xini
게시물 갯수: 1655
1) Why all caps, Porfy?
2) Can you explain för evigt -> coniungit?

2007년 9월 19일 08:25

tassen
게시물 갯수: 3
"För evigt" means forever...

2007년 9월 19일 09:20

Porfyhr
게시물 갯수: 793
1) I recently read an interesting essay according to the proper writing of Latin.
2)
coniung.it V 3 1 PRES ACTIVE IND 3 S
conjungo, conjungere, conjunxi, conjunctus V (3rd) TRANS [XXXAO]
connect, join/yoke together; marry; connect/compound (words) (w/conjunctions);
unite (sexually); place/bring side-by-side; juxtapose; share; add; associate;

Marriage is meant to last eternally. What would you have suggested instead?

Do you have any complaints?

2007년 9월 19일 09:25

Porfyhr
게시물 갯수: 793
Tassen:

Do you say that you would have preferred another translation. Why not do it yourself?

"Æternam" is often wrongly used, if you are not intending to become a dried flower.

CC: tassen Francky5591

2007년 9월 19일 16:58

Xini
게시물 갯수: 1655
"in aeternum" is more literal.

By the way, why use 3rd person?
1) That implies the existence of a third subject.
2) That implies an action which is not intended in the original.
3) The action implies that they've been "united" in a certain moment in time, while "in aeternum" can mean that they've been always united, poetically even before they were born.
4) By the way, marriage is not mentioned here.

That's why I think it's wrong.

By the way, when I translate into Italian or Latin, since there are other experts, I rarely evaluate my own translation (i do it just if they're literal and very simple) or at least I ask for a poll before accepting, so if someone has something to say he can say it before it is accepted.

About allcaps, I would not use them since, in my humble opinion, it's not proper now and here. They're too "connotated" now, since we use allcaps to shout, to say "warning" etc... I think the best is, if you want, to put the allcaps version in notes, saying that "This was the proper Latin writing since they didn't use smallcaps". I think that now, writing in allcaps, you slightly change the perception of the message.

What do you think?

2007년 9월 19일 12:38

tassen
게시물 갯수: 3
I have´nt said anything about anything! I just wanted help with translating... and one of you wanted to know what "för evigt" ment... so I explained that... I can translate it to english, but I want to know it in latin and italian!

2007년 9월 19일 13:50

Xini
게시물 갯수: 1655
Ok tassen, we were talking about how to best translate your request.

2007년 9월 19일 15:53

pirulito
게시물 갯수: 1180
Xini is right!

In aeternum = för evigt

My suggestion is to keep a litteral translation (for example, Te amo, nos in aeternum) rather than a controversial interpretation. What do you think?



2007년 9월 19일 16:21

tassen
게시물 갯수: 3
Sorry... missunderstanding... thought you talked to me when you started the sentence with Tassen. Thank you for helping me!!!

2007년 9월 19일 18:29

Xini
게시물 갯수: 1655
Yes Tassen:

Porfyhr was talking to you, but I was talking to Porfyhr.

2007년 9월 20일 08:03

Xini
게시물 갯수: 1655
Porfyhr, you wrote:

I would have preferred conuingit, but æternum and perpetuum seem to be the two Latin "pop"words. I do hope the vocabulary was more extended at the old days.
3rd person is natural if I talk about a he and she. Like a coin and a bill. Is that strange.
I still wish to know Xini. Is my first translation wrong?


Well, I really don't understand of what "he" or "she" would you have talked about. No 3rd person is mentioned in the original text, only the 1st singular and plural. And yes, I still think your first translation was wrong, sorry to say this to a collegue like you but that's my opinion.