# Please tell me our friendship is not over



## Greyfriar

Hello everyone.

I need your help desperately.  My friend is a Latin scholar and I need to say, 'Please tell me our friendship is not over.'  I got stuck in my studies with 'puella in horto ambulat' so can't even have a try.  HELP PLEASE!


----------



## wandle

You could say, for example, the following:

*Dic mihi sis adhuc esse ut in pristina amicitia maneamus.*  Tell me, please, that it is still the case that we continue in our original friendship.

*Confirmas mihi precor nihil de amicitia nostra deminutum esse*.  I beg you to assure me that there has been no reduction in our friendship.


----------



## Cagey

Would you explain the construction with _'sis'_? 
I'm afraid I don't understand it.


----------



## wandle

It is a contraction of _*si vis*_: 'if you will', or 'please'.


----------



## Cagey

Thanks.


----------



## Greyfriar

Thank you so much for your help, Wandle and Cagey.  My friend will be most impressed.


----------



## Joca

I know my Latin is still broken or like that of Astérix, as someone once told me, lol, but could this be written in a simpler form?

*si me amas, dic mihi amicitiam nostram mortuam non esse.*

PS. Correction of mortuam after wandle's post.


----------



## wandle

First of all, unfortunately _mortam_ is not correct: the past participle of *morior* is _*mortuus*_, which means the fem. sing. acc. is *mortuam*.

However, even with *mortuam*, I am afraid the idea does not work. That is because the Romans did not use the verb *morior* in this way in relation to emotions. We find from Lewis & Short that they did not speak of emotions or relationships dying, and the same applies to correlative verbs, such as 'live', 'flourish', 'decay', 'decline'. 

The reason for this is that the Romans, at least in the period up to and including the classical age, thought in more concrete and less abstract terms than we do nowadays. Our use of metaphor is more wide and varied than theirs and the task of translation into Latin always has to take this into account.


----------



## Joca

Thanks, wandle, for the clarification. Yet, as you probably know, you can find sentences like this - amor nunquam moritur - everywhere on the net.


----------



## wandle

That is a different expression. A Roman could understand it as meaning that the god Love never dies. 
However, as mentioned, we find from the scholarly dictionary Lewis & Short that the ancients did not use *morior* to express the end of a personal emotion or relationship.

A quick internet search shows *amor nunquam moritur* used in modern contexts, but I have not seen any ancient source for it.
Apparently, people thinking in a modern language have translated 'love never dies' word for word into Latin. 

Word-for-word translation is well known to lead to errors. It is used by people who do not have a good command of the target language, or do not understand the principles of translation, or both.


----------



## Joca

I agree. <Word-for-word translation is well known to lead to errors. It is used by  people who do not have a good command of the target language, or do not  understand the principles of translation, or both.>

So, wandle, isn't there any Latin verb to express the end of a relationship or sentiment? Well, I may be insisting too much on this point...


----------



## wandle

Joca said:


> So, wandle, isn't there any Latin verb to express the end of a relationship or sentiment?


It is not so much a particular verb, as the way the Romans thought. They thought about such matters in terms of people doing things (not emotions doing things): remaining or not remaining in friendship, for instance, as in my first suggestion above.


----------



## Joca

So, am I right to infer that in Latin it is not possible to say either that a feeling survives? Because that would be again a feeling doing something, right?


----------



## Joca

Wandle, how about the famous sentence: omnia vincit amor, from Virgilius? Does amor here stand also for the god rather than the feeling?


----------



## wandle

Joca said:


> So, am I right to infer that in Latin it is not possible to say either that a feeling survives? Because that would be again a feeling doing something, right?


The Romans would say rather that the person still feels the emotion. The poets use the verb *ardeo*, for instance, to express love.

They might say of Apollo: *ardet adhuc Daphnen* 'he still  burns with passion for Daphne'.


Joca said:


> Wandle, how about the famous sentence: omnia vincit amor, from Virgilius? Does amor here stand also for the god rather than the feeling?


Yes, but we have to understand also that the conception of the god Love is a way of expressing ideas about love.
Some Romans would interpret it literally, some metaphorically; but they would still share the same mode of thought and speech.


----------



## Joca

wandle, I'm burning all my ships on this, lol. You won't pardon me, but how about this? Is it viable?

dic mihi amicitiam nostram non consummari


----------



## wandle

It is good Latin, but the meaning is: 'Tell me that our friendship is not being perfected'.


----------



## Joca

Ok, wandle, I'm giving up. LOL Thanks for your attention and patience.


----------

