# in esto fatum nihil obstat



## dianapath

In response to throwing the old "Quo fata ferunt" in an e-mail, I was sent this phrase:
"in esto fatum nihil obstat"

So, I'm guessing that to mean something along the lines of "Upon fate there can be no objection"  ?

I'm thinking I need to stop using quotes from languages I don't speak, but in the meantime any help would be appreciated!

Sheepishly and with thanks,
Diana


----------



## berndf

I understand "In the heat nothing stands in the way of fate"


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

berndf said:


> I understand "In the heat nothing stands in the way of fate"


 
Are you sure that "esto" means the same as "aestus,us "? To say the truth, this form is puzzling me.


----------



## dianapath

Thank-you, both. It is possible that the person who wrote this in fact understands even less latin that I.


----------



## berndf

J.F. de TROYES said:


> Are you sure that "esto" means the same as "aestus,us "? To say the truth, this form is puzzling me.


 
No, I am not. But the only anternative would be imperative of "sum" which doesn't make sense with the "in" in front. That is why I understood "esto" to be an ablative noun (and the form "estus" as alternative to "aestus" exists).


----------



## relativamente

Nihil obstat means "nothing hinders"
You can see this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_obstat
So fate doest'n hinder.In esto maybe is not o.k.Could be in isto?


----------



## Flaminius

Saludos relatively,  

While I was not aware of the exact phrase, I think _esto_ should be _aesto_ in Classic Latin.  It is the ablative of _aestum_ _aestus_ (I should have read *berndf* above...) which means heat, passion and so on.

By the way, in _nihil obstat_, _nihil_ or nothing is the subject but it is the object in the discussed phrase.


----------



## berndf

relativamente said:


> So fate doest'n hinder.


In "nihil obstat" "nihil" is the subject. If this is the same here, fatum must be accusative, i.e. "nothing hinders fate". The opposite is also possible as "fatum" is also nominative and "nihil" is invariant. You simply can't tell which is the object and which is the subject.


----------



## Hamlet2508

Flaminius said:


> While I was not aware of the exact phrase, I think _esto_ should be _aesto_ in Classic Latin.  It is the ablative of _aestum_ _aestus_ (I should have read *berndf* above...) which means heat, passion and so on.



still , _*aestus*_ being a noun of the fourth(=_*u*_) declension this wouldn't support _*aesto

*in my humble opinion,
this could simply be a slightly faulty quote of Vergil's

"fata obstant" Aeneid,IV
in esto amounting to in isto
thus, meaning 
in this the Fates do not oppose<us> at all

which would be in keeping with
*Quo fata ferunt* "Where the Fates carry us" Aeneid,III

regards,
Hamlet

_


----------



## berndf

Hamlet2508 said:


> being a noun of the fourth(=_*u*_) declension


4th declension ablative is also in -o


> _in my humble opinion,_
> _this could simply be a slightly faulty quote of Vergil's_
> 
> _"fata obstant" Aeneid,IV_


"fata obstant" occurs in line 440. But it hasn't anything to do with this sentence. I don't see where you are aiming at.


> _in esto amounting to in isto_


Good thinking!


> _thus, meaning _
> _in this the Fates do not oppose<us> at all_


It is still not clear to me, if "fatum" is subject or object here.


----------



## Hamlet2508

berndf said:


> _
> *4**th declension ablative is also in -o*_



Well, I'm afraid, not according to my grammar book
which gives 
_*exercitu*_ as ablative case for *exercitus* as well as *aestus*
there being just one exception to the rule,namely domus.

* "fata obstant" occurs in line 440. But it hasn't anything to do with this sentence. I don't see where you are aiming at.*
I meant to say that " fata obstant" was quite frequently used as household quotation even while Vergil was still alive; of course,the original context-based meaning would have been lost quite soon
regards,
hamlet


----------



## Kevin Beach

According to this page:http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/lang/lvesse.html, *esto* is the second and third person singular of the future tense of the imperative mood of *esse*, "to be".

The only incidence of "esto" that I know of is in the Catholic hymn "Ave Verum":

Ave verum Corpus, natum de Maria virgine:
vere passum, immolatum in cruce pro homine:
Cuius latus perforatum, unda fluxit sanguine:
*Esto* *nobis praegustatum in mortis examine*.
O dulcis, O pie, O Jesu Fili Mariae, miserere mei. Amen

In that context, *esto* seems to mean "may thou/it be", as in "May thou/it be a foretaste for us in the trial of death".

Not that that gives any obvious clue to its meaning in this case.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Just another thought: I wonder whether the author accidentally slipped into Spanish and said *esto* when (s)he meant *hoc* or *ho*?


----------



## Hamlet2508

Kevin Beach said:


> Just another thought: I wonder whether the author accidentally slipped into Spanish and said *esto* when (s)he meant *hoc* or *haec*?



That was what I thought at first.
It wouldn't be too difficult to put down span. *esto* instead of Lat. *isto  *either.

regards,
hamlet


----------



## berndf

Hamlet2508 said:


> Well, I'm afraid, not according to my grammar book
> which gives
> _*exercitu*_ as ablative case for *exercitus* as well as *aestus*
> there being just one exception to the rule,namely domus.


oops, of course you are right.


> I meant to say that " fata obstant" was quite frequently used as household quotation even while Vergil was still alive; of course,the original context-based meaning would have been lost quite soon.


An this means "fatum" should be the subject?


----------



## Hamlet2508

berndf said:


> oops, of course you are right.
> An this means "fatum" should be the subject?



I should think so
_*nihil *_would merely serve as Accusative of Respect or Greek Accusative


----------



## Kevin Beach

So, has _anybody_ got a clear idea of what it means yet? !


----------



## berndf

I guess Hamlet's in #9 makes the most sense.


----------



## Cagey

In post #4, Dianapath warned us that this was written by someone who may not know Latin.  It may not say what it was intended to.  Perhaps she will ask her correspondent and let us know what was meant.

We are curious now.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

berndf said:


> An this means "fatum" should be the subject?


 
If, as I think , "obstare" is always intransitive, "fatum" is its subject.


----------

