# My loss and sadness, my joy and love



## amargulies

I would like to say in Latin, 'My loss and sadness, my joy and love' (using love as a noun). Can I use the words 'amissio', 'tristitia', 'laetitia' and 'amoris'? How would I phrase it - perhaps 'Mei amissio et tristitia', or 'Amissio et tristitia meus'?

Thanks very much for your help.


----------



## Kael

Meus calamitatem et tristitiam; gaudium et amorem.


Re-worded your phrase a little.

Transalation is: "My loss and sadness; joy and love"


----------



## brian

Hi Kael, I agree with all your word choices, but why the accusatives? Also, I'm a bit rusty on this so I figured I'd bring it up: can the possessive adjective ("meus") as such (in the singular, and in one gender only) be attributed to more than one subject (which may be of different genders), or must it be in the plural (as amargulies originally did)? One could bypass the problem by repetition:

_Calamitas mea et tristitia mea, gaudium meum et amor meus._


brian


----------



## Kael

brian8733 said:


> Hi Kael, I agree with all your word choices, but why the accusatives? Also, I'm a bit rusty on this so I figured I'd bring it up: can the possessive adjective ("meus") as such (in the singular, and in one gender only) be attributed to more than one subject (which may be of different genders), or must it be in the plural (as amargulies originally did)? One could bypass the problem by repetition:
> 
> _Calamitas mea et tristitia mea, gaudium meum et amor meus._
> 
> 
> brian



I used the accusatives because the accusative case refers to a direct object, unlike the nominative which tells you the subject of a sentence - but I don't think it really matters if they are in the nominative or accusative in this sentence.

Also, I think that 'Meus' should refer to the other objects in the same gender/number/case after looking over the sentence a bit.

As for your translation; it's a bit odd for me to see that many nominatives in one sentence, but since there are no verbs and they all agree in gender/number/case it seems to work.


----------



## amargulies

Thanks very much.  So you do think that your original suggestion of 'Meus calamitatem et tristitiam; gaudium et amorem' is the best translation?  Thanks.


----------



## brian

If you're asking me, I think mine is the best translation.  Kael's translation, as is, cannot be correct because "meus," being nominative masculine singular, cannot modify any of those accusative nouns. If anything, it'd have to be accusative, but then the question arises as to whether it should be singular or plural, considering it modifies multiple nouns. For this reason, I chose to repeat the possessive adjective. I also think it's better to have the words in the nominative case. With all this in mind, I vote for:

_Calamitas mea et tristitia mea, gaudium meum et amor meus._


brian


----------



## amargulies

Thanks again Brian.  It sure sounds complicated; I have no knowledge of latin and don't really remember all the various grammatical terms very well from English class.  So apparently, there isn't a possesive adjective which could be used meaning 'my' that could address those various nouns?  Thanks.

Adam


----------



## brian

The problem, Adam, is that in Latin (like in modern Romance languages), the adjective must _agree_ (in gender, case, and number) with the noun it modifies. In English this is not so. In simpler terms, I would say in English:

_*My* loss and *my* sadness, *my* joy and *my* love._

In English, you can use "my" for all 4 nouns, and therefore (because of this repetition), you can even remove the extra my's and it still makes sense: _*My* loss, sadness, joy, and love._

Well, in this Latin sentence, the nouns are of 3 different types: "calamitas" and "tristitia" are feminine, which require "mea"; "gaudium" is neuter, which requires "meum"; and "amor" is masculine, which requires "meus." I'm arguing that you *cannot* use just one Latin word for "my" to modify all 4 nouns because of this very fact that they all require a different (declined) form of the possessive adject. Hence, I repeated "my" for a total of 4 times.

In my opinion it still sounds perfectly fine. It has a nice ring to it. 


brian


P.S. Isn't Latin just great?


----------



## amargulies

Brian,

Thanks very much for all the help.  I do find Latin quite interesting.  I signed up for a Latin class in college, but on the first day only 4 people showed up and the class was canceled.  I am somewhat surprised that it's possible to accurately translate modern phrases and language into Latin, since Latin is so ancient.  Thanks.


----------



## Flaminius

Probably this is nothing more than putting sand in a running engine, but I have been wondering if "escaping" English _my_ by dative possession construction can convey the meaning.
mihi calamitas et tristitia, etiam mihi gaudium et amor.


----------



## Mezzofanti

*



'My loss and sadness, my joy and love'

Click to expand...

*I suggest "amissio et maestitia, laetitia et amor meus"

Latin of course requires the adjective to agree with the case of the nouns it qualifies (which should be nominative if the noun is not part of a sentence or an exclamation) and with their gender. That can be clumsy when one adjective qualfies several nouns of different genders.  But it is quite acceptable with a list of nouns to make the adjective agree only with the one it is nearest to.


----------



## Cagey

Mezzofanti said:


> I suggest "amissio et maestitia, laetitia et amor meus"
> 
> Latin of course requires the adjective to agree with the case of the nouns it qualifies (which should be nominative if the noun is not part of a sentence or an exclamation) and with their gender. That can be clumsy when one adjective qualfies several nouns of different genders.  But it is quite acceptable with a list of nouns to make the adjective agree only with the one it is nearest to.



For the same reason, you might also say:
 "mea amissio et maestitia, laetitia et amor"

Which version, and where you put the "meus/ mea" will be a stylistic choice.   My preference would be to put it first, so that the reader has it in mind when reading the following nouns.  I put it before the noun for emphasis.


----------



## brian

Just a question: why do you all persist in using "amissio"? Lewis & Short say it's given "several times in Cic., elsewhere rare." Perseus has only 10 instances of its useage. "Calamitas," on the other hand, has 231 uses, and apart from meaning "loss," it also can mean "misfortune," "mishap," "disaster," etc., which combined, in the context of "sadness," seems to be a better interpretation of "loss."


----------



## Cagey

brian8733 said:


> Just a question: why do you all persist in using "amissio"? Lewis & Short say it's given "several times in Cic., elsewhere rare." Perseus has only 10 instances of its useage. "Calamitas," on the other hand, has 231 uses, and apart from meaning "loss," it also can mean "misfortune," "mishap," "disaster," etc., which combined, in the context of "sadness," seems to be a better interpretation of "loss."



In my previous post didn't intend to take a stand on _amissio_. I was focussing on something else. 

_Amissio_, though found less frequently, can refer to a personal loss that causes sorrow, for instance loss through death,* and so might appear preferrable in an emotional context. _ Calamitas_, can, as you say, refer to material losses, and you feel that makes it more appropriate. 

The choice seems to me to depend on the author's intention.  I have no convictions on the matter.

*For instance, Cicero refers to _amissionem liberorum_ (loss of one's children) as something that might challenge a philosopher's acceptance of his lot in life (_De Officiis_ 3.5).


----------

