# Don't dream your life. Live your dreams



## alinis

Hi everyone. I was Wondering if anyone could  be so kind  to translate  this  prhase  to latín. 

"Don't dream your life. Live your dreams"

Thank you in advance .

Kind regards


----------



## Pugnator

the you in question is singular or plural ?
Anyway if it is singular I would translate it into:
"Noli somniare vitam tui. Vive somnia tui"
Instead if it is plural
"Nolite somniare vitam vestri. Vivete somnia vestri"
I keeped the syntax of the original english sentence but it sound better on both language coordinate it with a "sed" on latin and a "but" in english.
So "Noli somniare vitam tui sed vive somnia tui"
"Nolite somniare vitam vestri sed vivete somnia vestri"


----------



## alinis

Well the first you is singular and the second one plural. 

Thank you very much pugnator!


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!



Pugnator said:


> "Noli somniare vitam tui. Vive somnia tui"
> Instead if it is plural
> "Nolite somniare vitam vestri. Vivete somnia vestri"
> ....
> So "Noli somniare vitam tui sed vive somnia tui"
> "Nolite somniare vitam vestri sed vivete somnia vestri


With the greatest respect, a couple of amendments seem to be necessary.
_tuus_ and _vester_ are adjectives and must agree with the noun(s) they qualify. Therefore _vitam tu__am_, _vestram_, &c., and _somnia tua_, _vestr__a_.
Secondly, the imperative plural of _vivere_ is _vivite_.

I am also not convinced that this transitive syntax is suitable for either _somniare_ or _vivere_, but that is another question.

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> salvete omnes!
> 
> 
> With the greatest respect, a couple of amendments seem to be necessary.
> _tuus_ and _vester_ are adjectives and must agree with the noun(s) they qualify. Therefore _vitam tu__am_, _vestram_, &c., and _somnia tua_, _vestr__a_.
> Secondly, the imperative plural of _vivere_ is _vivite_.
> 
> I am also not convinced that this transitive syntax is suitable for either _somniare_ or _vivere_, but that is another question.
> 
> Σ


I didn't used the adjective but I've used the possessive genitive: Life of you so your file, dreams of you so your dreams. This is very common on latin and can be seen even rarely on  italian poetry.  Regarding the plural imperative you are right, my mistake. And why the transitive sintax should be wrong ? I remember to have translated a transitive form of Vivo so I think it is correct, regarding "somniare" I'm not sure but I think is correct.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete iterum



Pugnator said:


> I didn't used the adjective but I've used the possessive genitive: Life of you so your file, dreams of you so your dreams. This is very common on latin ...



From A&G § 143:

[*] *c.* The genitives *meī* , *tuī* , *suī* , *nostri* , *vestrī* , are chiefly used _objectively_ (§ 347):—


memor sīs nostrī, be mindful of us (me).
mē tuī pudet, I am ashamed of you.
Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> salvete iterum
> 
> 
> 
> From A&G § 143:
> 
> [*] *c.* The genitives *meī* , *tuī* , *suī* , *nostri* , *vestrī* , are chiefly used _objectively_ (§ 347):—
> 
> 
> memor sīs nostrī, be mindful of us (me).
> mē tuī pudet, I am ashamed of you.
> Σ


You have quoted the impersonal construction of pudet and memor, I'm not speaking about it. the Tui I've used is the genitive of *Tu *which mean "you" but put on genitive mean "your(lit. of you)" (Tui is both the genitive of Tu (You) and Tuus (Your) but I've used in this case as genitive of TU) and is not an adjective. Same for Vestri which in this case is the genitive of Vos and not vester(At example on that sentence I could have wrote Vestrum which is an alternative form of genitive for Vos but that is not of Vester). I Hope to have explained well what I'm saying, the TUI and VESTRI are correct on my sentence and are not the adjective but the pronoun.(I could have used also the adjective concoording it on accusative as you did on your "correction" but, regarding the meaning, nothing change)


----------



## Scholiast

@Pugnator


Pugnator said:


> I'm not speaking about it. the Tui I've used is the genitive of *Tu *which mean "you" but put on genitive mean "your(lit. of you)" (Tui is both the genitive of Tu (You) and Tuus (Your) but I've used in this case as genitive of TU) and is not an adjective. Same for Vestri which in this case is the genitive of Vos and not vester


I know all this, which is why in #6 I referred to A&G's section on the personal pronouns, rather than the pronominal adjectives. My point, which A&G support, is that use of the genitive pronoun to indicate possession is very rare and stilted, in comparison with that of _meus_, _tuus_ &c.
Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> I know all this, which is why in #6 I referred to A&G's section on the personal pronouns, rather than the pronominal adjectives. My point, which A&G support, is that use of the genitive pronoun to indicate possession is very rare and stilted, in comparison with that of _meus_, _tuus_ &c.


It could be rare (I don't think so, I find it pretty frequently even if I acknowledge that is more frequent on third person with eius and eorum ) but surely isn't incorrect as you said.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete amici!



Pugnator said:


> I don't think so, I find it pretty frequently



Could you please let us know, dear Pugnator, some of the specific instances in classical literature where you find this, "frequently"?

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> salvete amici!
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please let us know, dear Pugnator, some of the specific instances in classical literature where you find this, "frequently"?
> 
> Σ


On third person both singular and plural (Eius/eorum) I think we all agree it's pretty frequent so I will only give example of the other person(which of course didn't pair with a genitive case): Here some examples, I've find more but I don't want to make an useless big wall of text. (also because there are a lot of example).
*CLASSICAL:
Cicero:*
Letter to Atticus:


> CICERO ATTICO salutem





> aviam tuam scito desiderio tui mortuam esse et simul quod verita sit ne Latinae in officio non manerent et in montem Albanum hostias non adducerent.


Epistulae ad Familiares:


> hac regia causa excepta ceteris in rebus se acerrimum tui defensorem fore ostendit.


*Cornelius tacitus:*
Annales


> tui memoria isdem istis cum militibus, quos iam pudor et gloria intrat,


*
Carmina Burana:*
Denutada Veritade (Cb193)


> Mensa per te non ornatur,
> nullus homo fabulatur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in tui presentia.
> Sed qui prius est iucundus,
> ridens verboque facundus,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> non rumpit silentia.


Dira vi amoris teror (CB107)


> Nescit, quid agat; moritur,
> amore tui vehitur,
> telo necatur Veneris,
> sibi ni subveneris


*Anonymous*:
Sidus Clarum:


> Nescit, quid agat; moritur,
> amore tui vehitur,
> telo necatur Veneris,
> sibi ni subveneris


*Archpoet*:
Fama tuba dante sonum:


> Voluptate volens frui
> comparabar brute sui
> nec cum sancto sanctus fui.
> Unde timens iram tui,
> sicut Ionas dei sui
> fugam petens fuga rui.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete et iterum

Thanks to Pugnator, #11, for this illuminating collection of examples.

The trouble is, however, _desiderio tui_ (Cicero) and _tui memoria_ (Tacitus) are precisely instances of the type of objective genitive referred to by A&G § 143, as I mentioned in #6 (so, incidentally, is _amore tui_, from _Sidus Clarum_). The further examples (from _Carmina Burana_ and other mediaeval texts) would not normally be regarded as "classical" Latin - and in the last example, _tui_ has clearly been chosen for the rhyme rather than the sense.

That leaves _defensorem tui_ (I cannot check the reference at present): here it is almost an objective genitive too - "he who defends you", and certainly does not indicate, as the personal adjectives do, either an attribute or possession.

At this point I would like to rest my case.

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> The trouble is, however, _desiderio tui_ (Cicero) and _tui memoria_ (Tacitus) are precisely instances of the type of objective genitive referred to by A&G § 143, as I mentioned in #6 (so, incidentally, is _amore tui_, from _Sidus Clarum_). The further examples (from _Carmina Burana_ and other mediaeval texts) would not normally be regarded as "classical" Latin - and in the last example, _tui_ has clearly been chosen for the rhyme rather than the sense.


I forgot to add Medieval Latin, I wanted to separate the medieval example from classical one but I forgot to write Medieval Latin. Anyway under Cornelius was all meieval.. Anyway it isn't an objective genitive because there is no verb built imperonally, desiderio and memoria aren't verb.  Sidus Clarum is medieval too. Anyway I can find other classical source:
*CLASSICAL
MARTIAL*:
Epigrammaton Liber X:
LXXVIII


> "Nos Celtas, Macer, et truces Hiberos
> Cum desiderio tui petemus.
> Sed quaecumque tamen feretur illinc"


*P. VERGILI MARONIS*
AENEIDOS LIBER DUODECIMUS:


> Victus amore tui, cognato sanguine victus
> coniugis et maestae lacrimis, vincla omnia rupi;





> praeterea regina, tui fidissima, dextra
> occidit ipsa sua lucemque exterrita fugit.


*TERTULLIAN*
Carthaginensis ad Uxorem Liber Secundus:


> aut in conscientiam mariti, si sit patiens, aut in conflictationem tui, dum uitatur impatiens.



*NOT CLASSICAL
ALBERTANO OF BRESCIA*
Liber Consolationis et Consilii


> Prudentia dixit: Domine mi, rogo te ut, si forte aliquid dixero, quodtibi displiceat, ad animum non revoces, quia in tui honorem atque utilitatemhoc dicam sperans,


*SANCTI AUGUSTINI*
Confessionum Liber Tertius Decimus:


> cui dicam? quomodo dicam? neque enim loca sunt quibus mergimur et emergimus. quid similius et quid dissimilius? affectus sunt, amores sunt, immunditia spiritus nostri defluens inferius amore curarum et sanctitas tui attollens


*AUGUSTIN TUNGER:*
Facetiae Latinae et Germanicae (1486)


> _Quo autem audacius in tuum prodeant conspectum, ubi non nisi mundo et bene polito venire licet, quælibet aliqua pro hominum moribus doctrina, qua quasi aureo amiculo in tui presentia utetur, stipata erit. _


*ERASMUS*
Laude:


> amicos summo consensu tibi puellam summo genere natam, forma praestanti, optime moratam, postremo tui amantissimam, summa cum dote obtulisse


Do you want other sources ? I can find it if you want but I think it's enough.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!

An impressive range of citations, indeed, in Pugnator's latest contribution (# 13). But I am beginning to wonder whether this discussion is veering off-topic. Perhaps we should have a separate Thread on the "objective genitive" use of pronouns.

Moderator, advice, please?

Σ


----------



## djmc

I am not at all sure that you need a pronoun here or even a possessive since these can be assumed. What one needs is something which  is slightly gnomic and which keeps the chiastic effect of the original. How about ne somniis perdas vitam, vivas quae somnias


----------



## Eqmeliten

The genitive pronoun is not "wrong" but the adjective is the usual and expected part of speech.


----------



## Pugnator

Eqmeliten said:


> The genitive pronoun is not "wrong" but the adjective is the usual and expected part of speech.


In case of third person the genitive pronoun is the most used (Eius) or at least the one I've most found, regarding other person the genitive pronoun is just more uncommon.


----------



## Eqmeliten

Recte dixisti.  Et insuper, the use of ejus is particularly important when in English there can be doubt as to whether the reference is to the subject (reflexive) or not:

e.g., Curavit vulnera sua / Curavit vulnera ejus is to.  He took care of *his* wounds.


----------

