# May the Father who created man, curse him... (more)



## MickBoise

My English phase needing a translation into Latin:
_"May the Father who created man, curse him. May the Son who suffered for us, curse him. May the Holy Ghost who was given to us in baptism, curse him. May the Holy Cross which Christ for our salvation triumphing over his enemies, ascended, curse him."_

My amateur attempt:
_Maledicat te Deus Pater qui hominem creavit. Maledicat te Dei Filius qui pro homine passus est. Maledicat te Spiritus Sanctus qui in baptismo effusus est. Maledicat te sancta crux, quam Christus pro nostra salute hostem triumphans, ascendit._

Sorry for the repeat post but there was some misunderstanding about what I needed. This is my last post on the subject respectfully asking for help (pretty please)


----------



## Le Gallois bilingue

It reads well. I can hear it being recited in Church. I am not sure about your _quam _as _sancta crux is nominative methinks and it should be quae._


----------



## bearded

Le Gallois bilingue said:


> it should be _quae._


Sorry, I don't agree. The cross _which he ascended:_ 'which' is the object (=quam, accusative), he (Chr.) is the subject.
'To ascend' is used transitively in this relative clause.
'Santa Crux' (nominative) is the subject of 'maledicat te'.


----------



## MickBoise

Thanks to all.


----------



## A User

Vera Croce o Santa Croce o Sacra Croce.
Con la quale (Complemento di mezzo/ablativo strumentale) = qua
_Maledicat te sancta crux, qua Christus, pro nostra salute hostem triumphans, ascendit ._


----------



## bearded

A User said:


> ablativo strumentale) = qua


Però il senso dovrebbe essere quello di salire sulla croce, non di salire al cielo per mezzo della croce. Almeno così capisco io in base al testo inglese in OP.  Dunque _crux...quam ascendit. _Il verbo latino _ascendo _può essere transitivo.


----------



## A User

Il testo, in Inglese, non è perfetto.
Qui, oltre al complemento di mezzo, c'è anche il complemento di fine(_pro nostra salute hostem triumphans_).


----------



## bearded

Sorry, A User, I don't understand your objections.



MickBoise said:


> _May the Holy Cross which Christ for our salvation triumphing over his enemies, ascended, curse him."
> Maledicat te sancta crux, quam Christus pro nostra salute hostem triumphans, ascendit. _


The translation of the sentence  into Latin seems good to me, based on the English OP original, the only change being  'him' rendered with 'te'.


----------



## MickBoise

Oh dear, I don't understand the point of correction for my English to Latin because I can't speak Italian either  Do I need to change something?


----------



## A User

bearded said:


> Sorry, A User, I don't understand your objections.


crux…quam ascendit
Sancta Crux…qua ascendit [Meglio “per quam”(per+accusativo, riferito a persona)]

«O sancta crux, in qua salus nostra pependit: per te introeamus ad Patrem: per te veniam mereamur: per te apud Christum habeamus indulgentiam et veniam» (Ibidem).

Esorcismi (08 Mag 2013, 13:00): Esorcismi - Lazio.net Community

Sorry MickBoise, could you use Google Translate?


----------



## MickBoise

I can and I have, but the irony is thick. I am using Google translate to keep up with a disagreement between two Italians discussing Latin. I think my head might explode  Especially as Google translate makes gibberish of my attempt and everybody else's.


----------



## MickBoise

But I should say I am deeply appreciative of everyone's help. I just want to get it correct.


----------



## bearded

I don't think that we must refer to an already existing Latin text, A User.  The questioner wrote ''my English'' and ''my amateur attempt (scil. at translation to Latin)''.  Therefore I think we only have to consider the OP English text, which says _Cross...which Christ ascended (_clearly ''crux quam Ch. ascendit)''.  The meaning is he ascended the Cross, not that he ascended (to)  Heaven by means of the Cross.

Sorry, MickBoise: I replied in Italian to AUser's objection (in Italian he affirmed that 'quam' is not correct and it should be 'qua' - ablative - or 'per quam' - through which.  He probably thinks that 'ascended' is used intransitively, but my point is that in your Eng. text he ascended the Cross, so 'which' (Cross) is the object of 'ascended').


----------



## A User

bearded said:


> he maintained that 'quam' is not correct


I don’t think “quam” is not correct, I think “quam” is not perfect.
That’s why there aren’t attestations of “Christus ascendit Sanctam Crucem” but only “Christus ascendit crucem (stipitem)” (Ad Horam Tertiam – Hymnus), and, in this case, it is referred to Holy Cross, not to cross.


----------



## bearded

A User said:


> ...attestations ......(Ad Horam Tertiam – Hymnus), and, in this case, it is referred to Holy Cross, not to cross.


I will repeat that (in my opinion) in the present thread we should not proceed by considering examples of existing (ecclesiastic) texts as if the questioner had quoted any of them.  Latin was/is a language in its full right, which can be used in translating like any other language.  What we have to consider is _the questioner's_ English (which clearly says ''the Holy Cross, which...Christ ascended'') and _the questioner's _attempt at Latin translation (correctly reading ...''quam Christus ascendit''). That's what the questioner asked for, methinks.


----------



## Eqmeliten

MickBoise said:


> But I should say I am deeply appreciative of everyone's help. I just want to get it correct.


1.  “Quam” is the correct case. 
2.  Your “him” should be everywhere “eum” not “te”
3.   “Triumphans” with the accusative is not classical and sounds awkward. “Enemies”
Is plural. So it should be “trumphans de hostibus” or better “hostibus victis/expugnatis”


----------



## exgerman

If you want to compare your translation of this anathema to the original, here it is, from Vol III, Chapter XXXI of Lawrence Sterne's Tristram Shandy. Your English version, Sterne's translation, is there too:


>


It's about the third or fourth paragraph of a much longer anathema transcribed there. The superscript_ os_ tells you what changes (illum ..> illos) are required to anathematize more than one person

NB: this being Lawrence Sterne, Chapter XXXI is found between chapters X and XI.


----------

