# Justice, my salvation



## Tony P.

Looking for help, again, with another short translation. To put it into context, the phrase would be for a banner on a tattoo, so conciseness and correctness are key. "Justice," in this case, happens to be a woman's name, and I would like to express that she is "my salvation."  Again, the translation generators are all over the place on translating this phrase.
So, I'm turning here for help since it was so useful and successful the last time I sought advice.
Thank you, in advance, for your help!


----------



## whir77

Justitia, mihi salvatio
Justice, my salvation


----------



## Tony P.

whir77 said:


> Justitia, mihi salvatio
> Justice, my salvation


I did not study Latin, but why not "Justitia, salvatio mihi"?


----------



## whir77

It could equally be salvatio mihi, Latin is a flexible language. You can put a word ANYWHERE.


----------



## Tony P.

whir77 said:


> It could equally be salvatio mihi, Latin is a flexible language. You can put a word ANYWHERE.


OK.  Did not know that . . . . Thanks for quick response and help!


----------



## metaphrastes

My impression is that keeping Nominative case would be more idiomatic, following the pattern we find, for example, on Psalm 27:1: _Dominus illuminatio mea et salus mea - "[The] Lord [is] my illumination and my salvation". _Thus, from this pattern, we would have: _*Justitia, salus mea*.
_
I note also that the favorite word for _salvation, _in the Vulgate (the official Latin Bible, translated by St Jerome) is _salus _and not _salvatio, _that appears only seven times, most of them in a weaker sense. _Salus, _in its non-inflected form, appears 35 times, and very often in the strongest sense of being delivered from evil, from death, from sin and ultimately from damnation.

Regarding _mihi_, it is a dative form, that might be loosely translated as _for me_, thus as a whole the idea would be: _Justice (is) salvation for me. _It may work in practice as a possessive pronoun, but it does not seem particularly idiomatic in your sentence, for such pair of words _salvatio mihi _or _salus mihi _does not appear even once in the Vulgate - while _salus mea, _in this exact wording, appears six times. If one searches on the whole Corpus of Classical Latin literature one might find other results, but the results in the Vulgate seem expressive.

Anyway, let us await for more opinions on that. Latin is a very rich language and I am far from mastering all its possibilities.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all round

_salvatio _does not mean what other contributors think it means. Avoid it like the plague.

_Justitia_ (or _Justicia_) _salus mea_ (as suggested by metaphrastes) would be much neater, more tasteful, more accurate and more classical. It also comports much more than the merely religious suggestions elsewhere suggested in this thread: (source of) health, well-being, wholeness.

And no, _pace_ whirr77, you cannot put a word "anywhere" in a Latin sentence or epigram. There are clear conventions and subtle rhetorical nuances, and if you want to know my credentials for saying so, send a "Conversation" message and I'll explain more.

Σ


----------



## whir77

Scholiast said:


> Greetings all round
> 
> _salvatio _does not mean what other contributors think it means. Avoid it like the plague.
> 
> _Justitia_ (or _Justicia_) _salus mea_ (as suggested by metaphrastes) would be much neater, more tasteful, more accurate and more classical. It also comports much more than the merely religious suggestions elsewhere suggested in this thread: (source of) health, well-being, wholeness.
> 
> And no, _pace_ whirr77, you cannot put a word "anywhere" in a Latin sentence or epigram. There are clear conventions and subtle rhetorical nuances, and if you want to know my credentials for saying so, send a "Conversation" message and I'll explain more.
> 
> Σ


Frater, word usage varies by time period, education, and style. We should not limit our speech to the *obsolete *artificial vocabulary & syntax anchored by the Roman elite between the years of *100 B.C. to 200 A.D.*, especially when there are *over 2000 years* of linguistic development.

This thinking is akin to learning a specific type of language and shunning whatever else:
"_Learn Shakespeare's English because it is the best! Do ye well forstand me?_"
I don't doubt Shakespeare's great writing talent, but I don't limit myself to it. As for "_more tasteful, more accurate and more classical,_" I can only ask: more tasteful to whom? More accurate to what?

That being said, "salvatio" has been used for "salvation," mostly in a religious manner, but used nonetheless.

Charta Ludovici Pii ann. 814
"Et ubicumque advenerint, per vos Salvationem et defensionem habeant."
And wherever they may advene, may they have salvation and protection through you.

Iʼd also like to point out that the bible, although written in Latin, is a translation. The Old Testament from Hebrew, and the New from Greek.
 In the Greek Old Testament, the translator uses a different word for salvation, σωτήρ sō_tēr_,"saviour," "protector;" from "φωτισμός μου καὶ σωτήρ μου," "my light and my saviour." This word is often used in connection to Zeus and other protecting gods.
The Latin translation uses the word _salus_ because in Hebrew, וְ֭יִשְׁעִי _yesha_ means "safety," "security." Salus means safety in this context.


----------



## metaphrastes

whir77 said:


> Iʼd also like to point out that the bible, although written in Latin, is a translation


No novelty here, whir77. The point I made in following a Vulgata sentence as a pattern has not to do directly with the original Hebrew text, but with a more idiomatic and, why to avoid the word, _classical _Latin usage.

The shifting you pointed between the proper noun _Soter - Savior - _and the abstract noun _salvation _is very commonly found throughout the Old Testament, probably due to the very concrete character of Hebrew that, differently from Greek, was not prone to abstract, philosophical concepts, but rather to very concrete images. I am not an expert in Hebrew, but I know a handful of cases where the Vulgate, too, renders _Savior _where one would expect to find _salvation - _and other cases where the Vulgate renders "the Righteous one", "the Just one", where one would expect _"justice, righteousness". _This is a very common thing whenever any text is translated _from _Hebrew.

Anyway, that is not the point of the original post, that asks for a _concise and correct _translation - and, although he did not mention style and idiomatic character, it is more than natural to give answer about good style, too, and following classic patterns is always a guarantee of idiomatic writing and good style for most people.

And, having interacted with Scholiast a few times and benefited from his answers, I am sure he has good reasons to advise avoiding the word _salvatio. _By the way, I would be glad to learn from him the exact reasons but now, probably this might just create more fruitless polemic. His comments are consistently constructive, well-grounded, enthusiastic, cheerful and sympathetic - and more, synthetic enough to do not be burdensome to the less knowledgeable.

If you remain here, you will have surely many opportunities to know his kindness. You are certainly a talented, smart young man, and you know a few things about some languages - but that does not do anyone (including myself) a master on all of them. Then, if one admits he does not know everything, he will find kindness from the kind ones (the ones who may actually benefit us) and will benefit by learning and sharing too his own knowledge on a few things.

Regarding the whole thing about _classical style _as _obsolete _or not - that is a very important discussion with deep philosophical consequences - probably the best forum here would be the one about cultural issues. There the matter might be discussed in depth and with freedom to fight for different points of view.


----------



## whir77

I include the information about Classical Latin because I disagree with Scholiast's dismissal of the use of "salvatio."


Scholiast said:


> _salvatio _does not mean what other contributors think it means. Avoid it like the plague.


There is no reason to dismiss it other than that it is not Classical. Ecclesiastical Latin (the only extant Latin used beyond that of linguistic hobbyists) is very liberal when it comes to syntax and vocabulary. It follows the principle of Christian Latin to free the language of its constraints.

The usage of "salvatio" is both _concise and correct _in Latin_; _had the OP specified "Classical," of course it wouldn't be the same. I agree that "salus mea" is a perfectly fine idiomatic substitution.



metaphrastes said:


> The point I made in following a Vulgata sentence as a pattern has not to do directly with the original Hebrew text, but with a more idiomatic and, why to avoid the word, _classical _Latin usage.
> 
> Anyway, that is not the point of the original post, that asks for a _concise and correct _translation - and, although he did not mention style and idiomatic character, it is more than natural to give answer about good style, too, and following classic patterns is always a guarantee of idiomatic writing and good style for most people.


"Good style" is subjective; the "_Vulgate_" is not written in Classical Latin, it is written in Christian Latin. The Vulgate is a compromise between Classical and Vulgar Latin, hence "Vulgate."

If "good style" is Classical Latin, the Vulgate certainly isn't the source to make that claim; this task is better left to Cicero or Virgil.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again



whir77 said:


> Ecclesiastical Latin (the only extant Latin used beyond that of linguistic hobbyists)



Not so: "ecclesiastical" Latin is one domain of _late_ Latin, as used by philosophers, jurists, mathematicians, scientists and scholars of all religious persuasions (and none) throughout Europe and beyond, from the Middle Ages until the 20th century, and still in use for some purposes today, quite apart from academic philology.



whir77 said:


> I agree that "salus mea" is a perfectly fine idiomatic substitution.



On the contrary: _salvatio _would be a "substitution", and in terms of nuance a more restricted substitution at that, for _salus._



whir77 said:


> the "_Vulgate_" is not written in Classical Latin, it is written in Christian Latin.



No. In translating the scriptures into Latin Jerome was largely responsible for _creating_ "Christian Latin", because he had to deal with (and sometimes invent words for) theological concepts largely alien to the received language. _salvatio_ (which is actually quite rare even in the Vulgate) is one such example.

If therefore Tony P. (the OP) really wants to treat his Lady as an object of religious veneration, rather than of personal and emotional devotion, he is of course welcome to do so. But I would not recommend it, for reasons given in my previous post (# 7).

Σ


----------



## Tony P.

Thank you all for your thorough explanations and contributions.  On that note, perhaps I should have pointed out from the very beginning that I was avoiding a religious connotation in the phrase,  which I know may be difficult considering how often the word "salvation" is used almost exclusively in a religious context.  But, here, I am looking for "salvation" in terms of someone who has literally, not spiritually or religiously, "saved" my life.
So, with that in mind,  is "JustitIa salus mea" the more correct translation?


----------



## whir77

I gave an example of salvatio's usage not in a religious sense in my first post. The writer of the quote used the phrase in this manner: "salvation" and protection - "from evil," or "all that is bad."
This shows that the meaning is not restricted to a religious context.

This is different than the religious meaning of "the soul's deliverance from the devil(temptation)."

My advice to you Tony is that you should think of the purpose of the tattoo; do you want it to show a clear meaning in English(salvatio), or a reference to a passage in the bible(salus mea)? Latin both terms equally, and it's up to you to decide which you would like to use to convey your message.

On a side note, Latin uses "mihi" & "mea" interchangeably. If you feel like using one over the other, it is fine.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more


whir77 said:


> I gave an example of Salvatio's usage not in a religious sense in my first post. The writer used the phrase in this manner: "salvation" (deliverance) and protection - "from evil," or "all that is bad."
> This shows that the meaning that is not restricted to a religious context.


A pity that in his post # 2 whirr77 offers no citation to reference or support this claim.



whir77 said:


> or a writing that is referencing a passage in the bible(salus mea)?


This, frankly, is rubbish. _salus _is the _standard classical word_ for the concept, used in innumerable pre-Christian and secular post-Christian contexts. _salvatio _on the other hand is extremely rare, and exclusively Judaeo-Christian in its nuances.



whir77 said:


> Latin uses both terms equally,


This is likewise nonsense. L&S (Lewis and Short — a standard academic Latin-English reference dictionary, accessible online at Perseus.com) offer about 100 instances of _salus_, from all periods of classical usage and all writers of any significance, from Plautus to Tacitus; of these, precisely two are from Christian texts. For _salvatio _they offer three, all of which are from Christian authors.

I hope that that is enough said. And if the OP would like to know more of my qualifications for answering this so robustly, I will be very happy to respond in private Conversation.

Σ


----------



## metaphrastes

whir77 said:


> Ecclesiastical Latin (the only extant Latin used beyond that of linguistic hobbyists) is very liberal when it comes to syntax and vocabulary. It follows the principle of Christian Latin to free the language of its constraints


Oh my goodness, _"to free language of its constraints". _This makes me absolutely sure you have no idea about the theological discussions that went around on the first centuries of Church history, even those where Saint Jerome was involved. The linguistic rigor was a must, and a great amount of documental evidence shows that.

I would suggest reading:
- about the whole theological discussion on the Greek word _homousios (consubstantialis) _and how this word alone did not allow room for Arianism.

- The letter of St Jerome (the translator of the Vulgata) to Pope Saint Damasus, on the issue of theological terminology, and the Latin terms _Persona _and _Substantia_, and the Greek terms _Hypostasis _and _Ousia. _You will see that a rigorous lexicon was a strong concern on those times - sometimes, in excess and overlooking what was meant, nonetheless, clearly present.

- The introductions St Jerome wrote on each one of the books of Scriptures he translated to Latin, and the criteria he followed, from the Hebrew sources to the idea of not translating word by word, but rather from the meaning.

- St Jerome's discussion on the Hebrew meaning of the word _almah_, and how it was understood both in Hebrew as well in Aramaic texts, and how it should be rightly rendered in Greek or in Latin. As in many other cases, there was no room to "more or less" or to "either this or that" - there was a precise meaning, and he defended it against anti-christian writers.

- All theological discussion on the Third Ecumenical Council around the chosen term _Theotokos _in contrast with the Nestorian teaching of _Christotokos. _Here, too, a single word is an obstacle to an anti-Christian teaching.

- The theological meditation on the Greek prepositions _ek, dia _and _eis, _by St Basil the Great on his treatise on the Holy Spirit. From syntactic relations he draws high, clear and strict theology.

In your eyes, all of this may seem meaningless - I regret that. But as a matter of fact, if one actually knows something on Ecclesiastic history and theological controversies, the last thing one will say is that _"Church language was very liberal regarding vocabulary or syntax". _Unless, of course, one buys the modern myth of a non-doctrinal early Church - but that is a matter either of sheer ignorance or of ill will and distorting historical, documented facts.

I was trying to offer you a graceful exit, but the more you write the more you show you do not actually know about what you are writing.


----------



## Scholiast

To everyone, 

Please do not exercise yourselves so much: this is the Latin Forum, and surely herein we can enjoy scholarship and companionship altogether, even where there are disagreements over strict philology.

Σ


----------

