# we were meant to be



## pieri0789

*S*omeone can tell me how to say " we were ment to be " in *L*atin

please*.* 


*T*hanks .


----------



## Kevin Beach

I presume you mean "meant", not "ment". 

It's almost impossible to translate those words into Latin as they stand, because Latin verbs are changed by their endings, not by auxiliaries as in English.

If you want to say "we should have been [good]/[tidier] etc., you could use the imperfect subjunctive of the verb *esse* (to be), which would come out as *essemus*. However, it would be a very artificial translation.

Perhaps you could give us the full sentence that you want to translate.


----------



## pieri0789

jajajajajajajaja GREAT , " u can not leave  , 'cause we were meant to be since i met you" (that's a part of a song )

that's the full sentence .if u guys help me I would really aprecciate it


----------



## Kevin Beach

pieri0789 said:


> jajajajajajajaja GREAT , " You cannot leave , 'cause we were meant to be since I met you" (that's a part of a song )
> 
> That's the full sentence. If you guys could help me I would really appreciate it


That makes a big difference.

First, you have to understand what it really means in English. I think that "We were meant to be...." means "We were always meant to be together/a couple/lovers.......".

Is that what you think it means? If so, we can work on it for you.


----------



## pieri0789

YES , thanks !


----------



## Kevin Beach

Well, if you want it to sound authentically Latin, we must first convert it culturally.

I suspect the ancient Romans would have thought in terms of "The gods [or the fates] always intended us to be together".

Would a translation of that suit you or is it too archaic?


----------



## Joca

Kevin, good afternoon.

What do you think about this?

_Facti sumus ut pariter essemus/vivamus..._

Well, that is maybe the so-called macaronic Latin, I am afraid.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Joca said:


> Kevin, good afternoon.
> 
> What do you think about this?
> 
> _Facti sumus ut pariter essemus/vivamus..._
> 
> Well, that is maybe the so-called macaronic Latin, I am afraid.


Erm ..... accurate but slightly prosaic, maybe? Mechanical, even?  

Can "facere" be used for the creation of human beings? 

How about "Vita nobis ut unum simus data fuit"? (Life was given to us that we might be one?)


----------



## Joca

Kevin Beach said:


> Erm ..... accurate but slightly prosaic, maybe? Mechanical, even?
> 
> Can "facere" be used for the creation of human beings?
> 
> How about "Vita nobis ut unum simus data fuit"? (Life was given to us that we might be one?)


 

Very poetical, very elaborate, but maybe a little bit too distant from the original straightfoward idea. Anyway, if he likes it, let him have it.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Joca said:


> Very poetical, very elaborate, but maybe a little bit too distant from the original straightforward idea. Anyway, if he likes it, let him have it.


Well, that's why I offered the cultural conversion first! 

Perhaps we should wait until pieri0789 answers.


----------



## pieri0789

YES, that's great for me  THANKS GUYS !


----------



## Mezzofanti

May I suggest a different approach ? "In fatis erat ut simus". This seems to me to be faithful to the original and to the requirements of latinity without yielding to embroidery.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Mezzofanti said:


> May I suggest a different approach ? "In fatis erat ut simus". This seems to me to be faithful to the original and to the requirements of latinity without yielding to embroidery.


Well, yes, but what does it mean?

"It was in the fates that we should be" (?)

"Simus" denotes merely existence, doesn't it, without the implications of togetherness that pieri0789 seems to want?


----------



## Mezzofanti

Well, it's supposed to mean "we were destined to be" and thus "we were meant to be". The verb "meant" after all invites the question "meant by whom or what ?" and I'm not sure that it's possible to translate the statement without having in mind some answer to the question. I think that the Roman concept of fate or destiny supplies an appropriate implicit subject for the verb "mean". 
I appreciate that the English is probably meant to be read with a heavy emphasis on "we" in order to communicate "we were meant to be...as a couple", but it doesn't actually _say _that and I don't think the translator should do more interpretation and embroidery than is really necessary. The addition of "unum", for instance, seems to me to make explicit what the English deliberately leaves implicit, and to that extent to fail to reflect the quality and effect of the original. If the Latin version I suggest makes the reader stop and think in order to extract the intended meaning (and perhaps still leaves him with some degree of doubt), surely that is precisely what the English does...and what many such slogans are meant (_sit venia verbo !_) to do. And has plenty of honourable precedents : "brevis esse laboro...obscurus fio".


----------



## Kevin Beach

Mezzofanti said:


> Well, it's supposed to mean "we were destined to be" and thus "we were meant to be". The verb "meant" after all invites the question "meant by whom or what ?" and I'm not sure that it's possible to translate the statement without having in mind some answer to the question. I think that the Roman concept of fate or destiny supplies an appropriate implicit subject for the verb "mean".
> I appreciate that the English is probably meant to be read with a heavy emphasis on "we" in order to communicate "we were meant to be...as a couple", but it doesn't actually _say _that and I don't think the translator should do more interpretation and embroidery than is really necessary. The addition of "unum", for instance, seems to me to make explicit what the English deliberately leaves implicit, and to that extent to fail to reflect the quality and effect of the original. If the Latin version I suggest makes the reader stop and think in order to extract the intended meaning (and perhaps still leaves him with some degree of doubt), surely that is precisely what the English does...and what many such slogans are meant (_sit venia verbo !_) to do. And has plenty of honourable precedents : "brevis esse laboro...obscurus fio".


See posts #4 and 5. The OP confirmed my suggestion that he was talking about people being united as lovers or a couple.


----------



## Mezzofanti

I assure you that I had not overlooked the posts to which you refer. But is exegesis translation ? Once again, the English deliberately doesn't say in full what it means - it invites the reader to _think_. My Latin also "is talking about people being united as lovers or a couple" but like the English it requires you to crack the nut to reach the kernel.

If a translator spells out not only what an original text says but also what it means, it seems to me that his zeal has carried him beyond the limits of his remit.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Mezzofanti said:


> I assure you that I had not overlooked the posts to which you refer. But is exegesis translation ? Once again, the English deliberately doesn't say in full what it means - it invites the reader to _think_. My Latin also "is talking about people being united as lovers or a couple" but like the English it requires you to crack the nut to reach the kernel.
> 
> If a translator spells out not only what an original text says but also what it means, it seems to me that his zeal has carried him beyond the limits of his remit.


I would agree if this were a formal translation of a technical or legal text. However, this is an informal situation and the OP has confirmed that he was looking for meaning. There is nowhere near enough evidence to support the proposition that his English version "deliberately" didn't say in full what it means. In my opinion, even in its brevity, it was clear he wanted more.

Anyway, as he hasn't come back again to clarify what he wants in detail, the discussion is becoming rather


----------



## Velaz

The common phrase for someone being meant to something is "fas est", where someone is listed in dative and the something being expressed with infinitive or a.c.i.

So you can actually express the phrase "We were meant to." by just saying "Fas nobis erat."

"We were meant to be together" would then be something like "Una esse fas nobis erat" (una being the adverb with long a and "una esse" perhaps not being strictly classical latin).


----------



## Mezzofanti

The English expression "to be meant to do something" is not, I think, univocal. It is sometimes a statement of _duty_, in which case "fas est" will do nicely. But it is sometimes a statement of the intention of some superior authority or destiny, in which case I would question whether "fas" is always really appropriate.
E.g. You're meant to bow when you meet the queen - fas est reginæ occurenti caput demittere.
But : My fiancée died a week before our wedding : it wasn't meant to be. Sponsa mea septem diebus ante nuptias vita functa est ; in fatis non erat ut locum haberet.

I'm reading "we were meant to be" as the expression is used in songs and verse and I think it's destiny rather than duty, though I'm quite open to other opinions.

Mezzofanti


----------



## Joca

Mezzofanti said:


> The English expression "to be meant to do something" is not, I think, univocal. It is sometimes a statement of _duty_, in which case "fas est" will do nicely. But it is sometimes a statement of the intention of some superior authority or destiny, in which case I would question whether "fas" is always really appropriate.
> E.g. You're meant to bow when you meet the queen - fas est reginæ occurenti caput demittere.
> But : My fiancée died a week before our wedding : it wasn't meant to be. Sponsa mea septem diebus ante nuptias vita functa est ; in fatis non erat ut locum haberet.
> 
> I'm reading "we were meant to be" as the expression is used in songs and verse and I think it's destiny rather than duty, though I'm quite open to other opinions.
> 
> Mezzofanti


 
Mezzofanti

I am no expert on Latin, but I am beginning to agree with you. 

As an alternative, I would offer: Fatum nobis est unum essere.


----------



## pieri0789

*Y*es , I was talking about that ...
*" talking about people being united as lovers or a couple. "*

*T*hanks ! 

*B*y the way , *I'*m not a boy , I'm a girl*. *u_u


----------



## BarnacleBill

Kevin Beach said:


> Well, if you want it to sound authentically Latin, we must first convert it culturally.
> 
> I suspect the ancient Romans would have thought in terms of "The gods [or the fates] always intended us to be together".
> 
> Would a translation of that suit you or is it too archaic?


I would really like to hear this translation Kevin. I am looking for text that means just that and for me you have hit the nail on the head with your interpretation of the question. I see this thread got a bit tangled up in acadmeic argument but here you are answering the question for me. I need a latin transaltion of 'we were meant to be' for a scroll and it is exactly that, you and I were meant to be together, sent by the gods, the universe or whatever unknown 'other' there is!


----------



## Sobakus

My thoughts:

_In fatis erat ut simus > *essēmus*_ - otherwise the sentence falls apart in terms of time reference. Apart from that, I think this translation is the most felicitous of the ones proposed... but for the fact that while English uses "to be" in the meaning "to happen", while Latin doesn't. This is why however much I approve of Mezzofanti's general reasoning, I don't agree with his conclusion in this particular case:


Mezzofanti said:


> Once again, the English deliberately doesn't say in full what it means - it invites the reader to _think_.


No, it's about semantics: the reader is supposed to reach for the semantics of "to be destinied to happen", as in _'this was meant to be'_, which is poetically hidden under the first person plural reference, but exists in the language. No such expression with *esse* exists in Latin, as far as I know, and thus the sentence makes no sense on its own. *locum habēre* on the other hand does have a similar meaning; but in your example its subject ends up being *spōnsa mea*, inherited from the main sentence. You need to have an explicit subject switch for this to work: _...ut locum habērent *quae spērābam*_. It also smacks to me of officialese ("to have place, opportunity to happen"). The most neutral verb for "to happen" is *fierī*, and there's *contingere* specifically for fortunate occurrences.

*fās est* has to do with possibility, so in this case it implies some universal obstacle: "there was nothing preventing us from being together; we could be together". It has no connotations of predestination, which is the main requirement in our case.

This whole thing reminds me of these beautiful lines by Catullus: _tōtō...lectō versārer cupiēns...ut tēcum loquerer, *simulque ut essem*_ "I was turning on my bed the whole night aching to talk to you and to be with you". *ūnā esse* seems to be different from this in implying privacy (_~sōlōs esse_); *simul* on the other hand is about togetherness.

Therefore my suggestion would be _*in fātīs erat ut simul essēmus*_*.* But if you specifically need to telegraph something happening by predestination without being explicit about what that is, but with a first person plural reference, you can probably say _*in fātīs nōbīs erat ut fieret/ut ita contingeret* _"it was destined for us to happen/to turn out like this"; or even shorter, _*in fātīs id nōbīs erat.*_ The only _personal_ option that comes to mind is *ita ēvāderēmus,* but it means "to come out, end up this way", which doesn't sound very auspicious


----------



## Le Gallois bilingue

_sic fatus nos in amore aeterna coniunxit. _Oh,yes, I’m a tad rusty but hope it helps if only ephemerally.


----------



## Kevin Beach

jonnylovett said:


> I would really like to hear this translation Kevin. I am looking for text that means just that and for me you have hit the nail on the head with your interpretation of the question. I see this thread got a bit tangled up in acadmeic argument but here you are answering the question for me. I need a latin transaltion of 'we were meant to be' for a scroll and it is exactly that, you and I were meant to be together, sent by the gods, the universe or whatever unknown 'other' there is!


Maybe: Di semper in animo nos esse simul


----------



## bearded

Kevin Beach said:


> Di semper in animo nos esse simul


Isn't  some verb missing here? E.g. Di semper _habent _in animo nos esse simul...


----------



## Kevin Beach

bearded said:


> Isn't  some verb missing here? E.g. Di semper _habent _in animo nos esse simul...


Is it necessary? Given the poetic sentiment of the phrase, couldn't it survive without one?


----------



## Sobakus

I don't think it's particularly necessary, but I've yet to see the Romans talk about "animus deōrum" - even though it's an idiom, I believe it still retains enough of the literal meaning of *animus* - and I think to the Romans, the gods were a pure manifestation of a powerful _animus_ as opposed to one bound to a mortal animal (or even otherwise) body. Not that I've ever read _Dē nātūrā deōrum_... Anyway, with its connotation of 'whim', such an expression seems to me to downgrade the gods to a mortal's level.


----------



## BarnacleBill

Thank you for all your contributions, this is important to me. For me a nice neat way of putting it is *in fatis nos esse simul *which I read and with the help of 'google translate' (sorry for swearing there) is simply *fated to be together*. That is my message and it is exactly what I need to say. Does anyone disagree with this translation? Or is *nos esse simul in fatis* a more accurate latin?


----------



## symposium

Definitely not a translation of the original sentence, but I couldn't help thinking of the traditional phrase uttered by Roman spouses during the wedding ceremony: "Ubi tu Gaius, ibi ego Gaia" which basically means "we're a forever one, nothing's ever going to part us" etc.


----------



## Sobakus

jonnylovett said:


> Thank you for all your contributions, this is important to me. For me a nice neat way of putting it is *in fatis nos esse simul *which I read and with the help of 'google translate' (sorry for swearing there) is simply *fated to be together*. That is my message and it is exactly what I need to say. Does anyone disagree with this translation? Or is *nos esse simul in fatis* a more accurate latin?


I think *in fatis nos esse simul* is perfect. It skips the *erat* for a more timeless effect, not to mention more idiomatic.


symposium said:


> Definitely not a translation of the original sentence, but I couldn't help thinking of the traditional phrase uttered by Roman spouses during the wedding ceremony: "Ubi tu Gaius, ibi ego Gaia" which basically means "we're a forever one, nothing's ever going to part us" etc.


I had to smile at being reminded of this phrase - but it's not exactly poetically inventive, which I think is the main thing the OP and jonnylovett are looking for.


----------

