# To inspire before I expire



## pallidaMors

Hello guys,

I am planning to get a tattoo really soon and I would like to have the above mantra translated to Latin so I can have it inked on my arm. With the help of Google Translate and my shallow knowledge of the language (though I really love to learn it someday), I came up with something like "INSPIRARE ANTE EXSPIRARE." I'm wondering if the literal translation affects the meaning? Does the word "exspirare" also mean "to die/pass away" in Latin? And if you could suggest any catchy alternative Latin translation it would be very much appreciated!

Thanks a lot!


----------



## sikjes

Exspirare can indeed mean to die. 'I die', however, would best be translated 'exspiro' and not 'exspirare'. I wouldn't use the word 'ante', instead you should use the word 'priusquam'.

Inspirare priusquam exspirare = (To) inspire before (to) expire
Inspirem priusquam exspiro = May I inspire before I expire (die)

Inspirem can either mean: Let me inspire, may I inspire, I want to inspire, should I inspire, etc. I think that would be nice to use.


----------



## beezneez

I believe your tattoo would translate into English "Breathing in before breathing out," or "Inhaling before exhaling." I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that the modern sense of "inspiration" is not so old.


----------



## sikjes

beezneez said:


> I believe your tattoo would translate into English "Breathing in before breathing out," or "Inhaling before exhaling." I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that the modern sense of "inspiration" is not so old.



'Inspirare' basically means 'to breath in' or 'to blow in'. It however metaphorically also means 'to bring into ecstasy' or 'to inspire' even in classic Roman times.


----------



## wandle

That is right. The two Latin verbs do have the meanings intended by *pallidaMors*.


----------



## beezneez

I looked it up in both of my dictionaries and they do not concur with sikjes. The translation depends on what kind of inspiration you are talking about. But there is no general equivalent in Latin for inspiration.

In any case the basic meaning of the phrase refers to the simple act of breathing first and foremost, and then, possibly, the metaphoric sense. But if you have to explain it, is it really so cool?

A good friend of mine thought it would be cool to get a tattoo in Arabic, so while in a drunken state, he stumbled into a parlor, choose a word and had this foreign word permanently inscribed on his arm. He told me what he thought it meant. I looked it up. Turns out he was wrong. It's safe to say, he now regrets his vine-inspired decision.  As a speaker of Japanese, I find a lot of kanji tattoos strange, written wrong (missing/extra marks), and occasionally hilarious. Point is, I think I'd think twice about having a foreign language tattooed on my body. If you want to say, "Inspiration before expiration" why not just tattoo that? It's much closer to your point in English than Latin. And people will actually understand it.


----------



## wandle

As a matter of fact, these verbs are used in the intended sense by first rate Roman writers, including Vergil, Quintilian, Livy, Juvenal etc. 

This can be confirmed in Lewis & Short's authoritative dictionary under *inspiro* and *exspiro*.


----------



## beezneez

wandle, I clicked on inspiro above. Thanks for the link! Great site! Unfortunately, Lewis & Short's dictionary supports what I said earlier. You can't use inspiratus/a/um as you would "inspired." You have to state what kind of inspiration: amorem, fortitudem, etc. I'm not debating exspiro. I think we all agree that exspiro is indeed identical to the modern sense, although I probably should have said so explicitly earlier.


----------



## wandle

beezneez said:


> You can't use inspiratus/a/um as you would "inspired."


Well, we are not dealing with the word 'inspired', or with *inspiratus*.
We are dealing with the infinitive 'to inspire', used absolutely: that is, without any object expressed.

L&S show Quintilian using the verb in the metaphorical sense without an object expressed:

_Inst. 2 5.8_ : *quibus viribus inspiret, qua iucunditate permulceat* (_with what vigour he inspires, with what pleasantness he charms_) where the understood object seems to be 'the judge'.

In  _Inst. 5 14.32 _*Non inspiret? non augeat?* (_Is he not to inspire? Is he not to increase?_) the understood object is presumably 'emotion'.

Besides that, L&S also quote Justinian, the Vulgate and Valerius Maximus using the word metaphorically with a person or persons as the object (or subject in the passive): in these cases, it clearly means 'inspire someone'.

Now on that evidence you may say there is no example from the classical period of *inspiro* used with the meaning 'inspire someone'. My answer is first, that Quintilian, a fine stylist of the silver age, does appear to use it in that sense; and secondly that the late legal and religous sources quoted certainly do use it in that sense. That seems to me sufficient ground to use the word in the infinitive without an object expressed for the sense required by *pallidaMors*.

Even if the usage of later writers is dismissed, and we confine ourselves to the golden or silver age, it is clear that the verb can still be used in the infinitive without an object expressed. That is how *pallidaMors* wants to use it. The difference would be that in classical usage the implied object would usually be understood as an emotion, not a person: the meaning of *inspirare* would be 'to inspire feelings' rather than 'to inspire people'. However, that still makes acceptable sense for *pallidaMors'* phrase 'to inspire before expiring'. The phrase still works on this basis.


----------



## beezneez

wandle said:


> Well, we are not dealing with the word 'inspired', or with *inspiratus*.
> We are dealing with the infinitive 'to inspire', used absolutely: that is, without any object expressed.



Hi Wandle,
You know, I think that pretty much sums it up for me. If the sense were identical, it would not matter whether you said inspirare, inspiratus, or inspiratio. They should all correspond to "to inspire, inspired, and inspiration." The fact that you have objected to this fluidity, pretty much makes my point. 

You've convinced me that the sense could be more similar than I was originally worried about, but also that they in fact are still somewhat different in use and meaning. There are so many words in English that derive from Latin but mean something different, sometimes slightly, sometimes vastly, that I have learned to be cautious about taking these things for granted. Learning Latin for me is like trying to run a race where the further you go, the further back the finish line is moved. The more I study, the more ignorant I feel and the more hopeless the ideal of mastery becomes. So I don't mean to be contentious or argumentative -- I'm sure you know much more than I do -- but I'm just a bit skeptical, especially of Google Translator, and especially of putting a permanent mark on yourself in a language that remains a mystery to the very person whose skin it's on. It's probably close enough, but it if were me getting inked, I'd give it more thought. I don't know if this discussion has been helpful to pallidaMors, but it's been enlightening to me. Gratias tibi ago.


----------



## wandle

beezneez said:


> If the sense were identical, it would not matter whether you said inspirare, inspiratus, or inspiratio. They should all correspond to "to inspire, inspired, and inspiration." The fact that you have objected to this fluidity, pretty much makes my point.


You know, I have not denied, or objected to, that sort of correspondence at all. 

The fact is that *pallidaMors* wishes to use the infinitive without an object expressed. That is the reason for focusing on that form and usage. 
To make the answer clear to the questioner, it is much better to deal with the actual form required, rather than an alternative form or usage, even if a parallel can be deduced from that. It is simpler and clearer to leave out the parallel, and just deal with the question as put.

Is it legitimate to use the infinitive *inspirare* with no object expressed? Answer: yes, certainly: that is a regular verbal usage at all periods of Latin literature.

What does the verb mean? We can identify three meanings.

(1) In classical prose usage, *inspirare* is used literally: to blow or breathe into or on to something. In this case, the object of the verb (the 'something') is a physical object or substance.

(2) In poetic usage, and also in Quintilian, the verb is used metaphorically, meaning to inspire an emotion in someone. In this case the object of the verb is an emotion: hope, fear, anger, joy etc.

(3) In late Latin legal and religious texts, and perhaps once in Quintilian, it is used in an extended metaphorical sense: to inspire a person with an emotion or a spiritual quality. In this case the object of the verb is a person or people (whoever is being inspired). This third sense is the source of the similar modern meaning of the word 'inspire'.

What conclusion can we draw from this progression of meanings (apart from the fact that it illustrates the development of language and the etymology of words)?

If you have a school or college exercise to do, following the rules and usage of Latin prose in the classical period, then the only available meaning is (1): the literal physical meaning.

If you have a school or college exercise to do in verse translation or composition, following the rules and usage of Latin poetry, then both meanings (1) and (2) are available.

Now *pallidaMors* is not doing either kind of exercise, but simply wishes to have authentic Latin for a motto.

My conclusion is that for that purpose, the late Latin usage, meaning (3), to inspire someone with an emotion or spirit, is acceptable. After all, it is authentic Latin, as used by educated native speakers of the language at that period.
Even if someone says that late Latin is not good enough, my answer is that meaning (2), to inspire an emotion in someone, is still available, because in pallidaMors' phrase no object is expressed, which means that there is nothing to make the difference between (2) and (3). It could equally well be either.

As for tattooing oneself, I would not do it but I do not mind answering a question as well as I can about what is authentic Latin. I hope it is helpful.


----------



## beezneez

Brilliant! I think I understand it now. The only thing I would add is that I'd opt for sikjes translation using the subjunctive over Google's using the infinitive.


----------



## wandle

There is more than one possible construction. There is nothing wrong with the double infinitive _*inspirare ante quam exspirare*_. 
If Google Translate (which I have not consulted) offered that, that does not make it wrong.

If we use the subjunctive *inspirem*, 'may I inspire', then I would use subjunctive for the second verb: _*inspirem ante quam exspirem*_.

Other constructions are also possible, but the infinitive is very frequent in Latin mottoes. _Pace_ *sikjes*, I would say *ante quam* is preferable to *prius quam*, on stylistic grounds, as L&S point out that the latter is more usual in pre-classical Latin and the former thereafter.


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete!



> _Pace_ *sikjes*, I would say *ante quam* is preferable to *prius quam*,


One might suggest _*potius quam*_.

Σ


----------



## wandle

Would that not make death optional?


----------



## pallidaMors

Interesting, really interesting. Thank you so much for the input guys. I may consider *inspirare ante quam exspirare* as my motto then! As for why I would want to have a tattoo in a foreign language, it's because I would like it to become a symbol exclusively for myself, like a distinct sign that would remind me of something if I become "uninspired" or something like that. It would also be a good conversation starter  Anyway-- again, I can't thank you guys enough.


----------

