Cucumis - 网上免费翻译服务
. .



翻译 - 瑞典语-拉丁语 - Jag älskar dig, vi för evigt

当前状态翻译
本文可用以下语言: 瑞典语拉丁语意大利语巴西葡萄牙语汉语(简体)汉语(繁体)德语

讨论区 日常生活 - 爱 / 友谊

本翻译"仅需意译"。
标题
Jag älskar dig, vi för evigt
正文
提交 tassen
源语言: 瑞典语

Jag älskar dig, vi för evigt

标题
TE AMO,
翻译
拉丁语

翻译 Porfyhr
目的语言: 拉丁语

TE AMO, NOS IN ÆTERNUM
给这篇翻译加备注
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)
Porfyhr认可或编辑 - 2007年 九月 19日 18:06





最近发帖

作者
帖子

2007年 九月 19日 07:52

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

2007年 九月 19日 08:25

tassen
文章总计: 3
"För evigt" means forever...

2007年 九月 19日 09:20

Porfyhr
文章总计: 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?

2007年 九月 19日 09:25

Porfyhr
文章总计: 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

2007年 九月 19日 16:58

Xini
文章总计: 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?

2007年 九月 19日 12:38

tassen
文章总计: 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!

2007年 九月 19日 13:50

Xini
文章总计: 1655
Ok tassen, we were talking about how to best translate your request.

2007年 九月 19日 15:53

pirulito
文章总计: 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?



2007年 九月 19日 16:21

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

2007年 九月 19日 18:29

Xini
文章总计: 1655
Yes Tassen:

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

2007年 九月 20日 08:03

Xini
文章总计: 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.