Quis lies secundum nos quod pro nos es vegrandis res foedus ut quis lies intus nos Can anybody tell me what this says I think its surposed to say What lies behind us and before us are small matter when compared to what lies within us But I cant be sure I know its a long shot but oh well Thanks
who wrote that? It doesn't sound like classical latin at all. I'm having a think about it now though.
In answer to you original question: No However, this page suggests that you are about right: http://able2know.org/topic/77168-1
It's definitely wrong I'm afraid. He's translated it literally, which you can't do because a lot of Latin words are not equivalent to English ones. His use of 'lies' is completely wrong, for example. I'll have a go translating it now though, if I can find a decent dictionary.
There is no Latin word "lies" (as far as I know). Perhaps it was meant to be "late" ("lie hidden"). Also, if "secundum" is intended to mean "follows" then a better word would be "consequor". In any case it obviates the need for a Latin equivalent of the English "lies". Similarly, the word "precedes" ("praecedere") would make a more elegant translation, again obviating "lies". The word "foedus" is missing altogether from the English translation. With my (very) limited command of Latin, I'm guessing the sentence should read: Quod nos praecede et consequi es res minimus foedus ut quod late intus nos "What precedes us and follows us is a far less frightful matter than what hides inside us."
I think you are unintentionally twisting the original quote by translating into Latin and then back to English. What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us. It's attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson, who definitely wrote in English.
"foedus" is there because the guy who originally translated it to 'latin' used a dumb/literal English-to-Latin online translator which thought that "foedus" was somehow appropriate. Jumeira_Johnny is correct, you are altering the meaning. It'd be better to use a word like 'stand before' (praesto) than 'goes before'. I agree with Moriquendi. It does seem odd to translate an English quote into Latin to try and sound clever... especially when it's quite hard to verify that the Latin is in any way correct. Some other points: I think you're supposed to use a gerund in the ablative for the first two 'lies' equivalents because they are things that are lying before (yes, the Romans could express that entire notion in just one word) and things that are lying behind us in time. It should probably be 'est' or 'sunt' rather than 'es' because they're third person, not second. Even 'sunt' and 'est' might not be correct - I think you're supposed to use a different form when making a comparison, but I can't remember.
I used to be good at Latin, A* at GCSE, but I was sane, so I gave it up as quickly as was humanly possible.
I was saner - I gave it up before GCSEs. All I remember is "-bam -bas -bat -bamus -bat(i/u?)s -bant". No idea what it means now, but I don't tend to work in latin very much.
It seems like the kind of thing someone might have tattooed on them thinking it makes them look clever. I hope it is, I need a good laugh. I think in order to really get the Monty Python clip you have to have been taught Latin in a public school in the 1960s, it cracks my father and uncles up much more than me. Moriquendi
