# Innocent blood that can never be washed clean



## Sina

What does "innocent blood that can never be washed clean" means in latin?

Please, just translate it. I am really curious about it's meaning in Latin.


----------



## Whodunit

My attempt:

Sanguis innocens qui numquam purgari potest ...

The sentence isn't finished yet.


----------



## judkinsc

_quis_, not _qui_.  _purgo, purgare_ is "to purge", I'd suggest _elavo, elavare _instead, since the blood is not the subject which is being washed, but rather the object that is being washed off.

_sanguis innocens quis numquam elavari potest.

_You can infer the "_corpore_" or "_manibus"_ to complement the "e/ex" in _elavare._  It's really "ex-lavare" "to wash away, to wash clean, to wash off of "something."


----------



## Sina

Thank you two


----------



## Cnaeius

judkinsc said:
			
		

> _quis_, not _qui_. _purgo, purgare_ is "to purge", I'd suggest _elavo, elavare _instead, since the blood is not the subject which is being washed, but rather the object that is being washed off.
> 
> _sanguis innocens quis numquam elavari potest._
> 
> You can infer the "_corpore_" or "_manibus"_ to complement the "e/ex" in _elavare._ It's really "ex-lavare" "to wash away, to wash clean, to wash off of "something."


 
Hello everyone,

why _quis_? In my opinion it is correct _qui_, since it is a relative clause, not an interrogative one
Ciao


----------



## Sina

so whats the last, full sentence, true one?


----------



## MrPedantic

Pedanticus omnibus salutem.


Fortasse:

"Sanguis innocens et purgari impotens."


Valete!

P.


----------



## judkinsc

_"qui" _is right there.  Sorry about miscorrecting it, Who.


----------



## kamome

I, too, would say 

"...INNOCENS SANGUIS, QUI NUMQUAM ELAVARI POTEST..."


----------



## Whodunit

kamome said:
			
		

> I, too, would say
> 
> "...INNOCENS SANGUIS, QUI NUMQUAM ELAVARI POTEST..."


 
Yes, that's correct. Although I want to justify my suggestion:

What is wrong in using "purge"? I don't think it's all too wrong to "purge blood", isn't it?


----------



## MrPedantic

Est ita, Whodunit, ut dicis.

Interpretationes differunt:

1. Sanguis innocens qui numquam purgari potest.

— metaphorice dicitur. "Purgari" = "to be cleansed".

2. Sanguis innocens qui numquam elavari potest.

— litteraliter dicitur. "Elavari" = "to be washed away (from something)". 

Vale!

P.


----------



## kamome

_well, MrPedantic explained it perfectly, but I need to add something, _
_being myself a latin: _

_*- ELAVARI *(right, TO WASH AWAY SOMETHING FROM SOMEWHERE) _
_seems, when coming to my latin ear, __to better suit __the painted action (oh, OK, __no more _
_than that, I admit, just a different sort __of SENSE I suddenly catch in the sentence) ...whilst _


_- *PURGARI* (rightly meaning __TO BE CLEANSED) gives me an __immediate impression _
_of someone trying __to CLEAN THE BLOOD __ITSELF from some task, or inheritance of evil..._
__ 
_...and I dare suppose, probably like we all have done, that the sentence means originally _
_I (we) WILL NEVER CANCEL THE INNOCENT BLOOD WE HAVE *VERSATO*_
** 
_(please forgive me now, I can't remember the correct english for the last expression, I apologise!)_


----------



## MrPedantic

*VERSATO*

Fortasse:

*SPILLED*

Opto omnibus <noctem bonam>.

P.


----------



## dassin

It seems to me 'purgari' is more fit to the idea of guilt introduced by 'innocens', 'elavari' being more prosaic, as if it was just some nuisance, a _bloody_ spot that has to be washed and that's it.

I hope my Latin ears aren't deceiving me. And I wish I could write all this in Latin!


----------

