# My blood is my brothers



## IceTBC

We are seeking the proper translation of this phrase into Latin: "My blood is my brothers". This is in a soldierly or military sense. We want to use the phrase on a crest/icon for our group. One of us who has some Latin suggested this: "sic sanguis meus, sanguine fratribus est" and he said it translated to "thus my blood is my brother's blood". Another suggested " Sanguis Meus Fratris Sanguis". We were hoping for something a little simpler and a more direct translation of "My blood is my brothers". Is the second correct or is there a more proper translation than either?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## wandle

What should it mean? 
Do you mean 'My family consists of my brothers-in-arms'?
Or 'My blood is my brother's blood'?


----------



## IceTBC

wandle said:


> What should it mean?
> Do you mean 'My family consists of my brothers-in-arms'?
> Or 'My blood is my brother's blood'?



Hmmm. More 'brothers-in-arms' sense altho many of us consider our group a 'second family'. Sort of a willingness to shed our blood for our brothers (in-arms).


----------



## wandle

Still unclear what the phrase should mean. Should there be an apostrophe, and if so, where?
There are three possibilities:

(1) *My blood is my brothers.* (My family is nobody else but these brothers of mine.)

(2) *My blood is my brother's.* (My blood is also the blood of my brother.)

(3) *My blood is my brothers'.* (My blood is also the blood of my brothers.)


----------



## IceTBC

wandle said:


> Still unclear what the phrase should mean. Should there be an apostrophe, and if so, where?
> There are three possibilities:
> 
> (1) *My blood is my brothers.* (My family is nobody else but these brothers of mine.)
> 
> (2) *My blood is my brother's.* (My blood is also the blood of my brother.)
> 
> (3) *My blood is my brothers'.* (My blood is also the blood of my brothers.)



3 would be most correct. Sorry if I've misused the apostrophe. I do that often.


----------



## Hamlet2508

just an idea

fratribus meis sanguis meus


----------



## wandle

Hamlet2508 said:


> fratribus meis sanguis meus


This does not seem right to me. 
First of all, I believe the possessive dative needs the verb 'to be'. 
The verb 'to be' is regularly omitted as an ordinary copula, but here it seems necessary to include it in order to make the dative work as intended.
That would give: *fratribus meis sanguis meus est *.

However, this seems to be the wrong sense, in two respects.
First, what the questioner wants is a phrase expressing a 'willingness to shed our blood for our brothers (in-arms)'. 
However, the dative of possession is saying that the brothers have or own the individual's blood.
Secondly, the natural conclusion to draw from the idea that your brothers have your blood is that they literally belong to the same family: they have the same blood because they are the same kin.

It is difficult to find any way of briefly saying " my blood is my brothers' " without creating that impression.
Some alternative phrase is needed. Hence I would suggest: 

*sanguine inter fratres devoto*

This is an ablative absolute literally meaning 'blood having been vowed between brothers'.
In other words, '(We act) on the basis that we have promised our blood between us brothers'.


----------



## Hamlet2508

Actually, I meant this to be a dative of benefit (dativus commodi) , which did get used without a verb , even in classical Latin.


----------



## Peano

Here is the literal translation I would suggest:
SANGVIS MEI EST FRATRVM MEORVM
("Blood of mine is of my brothers")


----------



## Hamlet2508

You'll want a noun adjective agreement here SANGVIS ME*VS* EST FRATRVM MEORVM , if you go for a literal translation. (of mine = my)


----------



## wandle

Hamlet2508 said:


> Actually, I meant this to be a dative of benefit (dativus commodi) , which did get used without a verb , even in classical Latin.


That does not seem to work, either, though.
If the verb to be understood here is *est *, then surely the dative has to be read as one of possession.
On the other hand, if a different verb is intended, it cannot reasonably be omitted, since without it there is nothing to indicate what the verbal idea should be.

*fratribus meis profundatur sanguis meus* ('let my blood be shed for my brothers') would work as a dative of advantage: but it changes the sense. This is positively asking to shed one's blood, instead of indicating a readiness to do so if necessary.


----------



## Peano

Hamlet2508 said:


> You'll want a noun adective agreement here SANGVIS ME*VS* EST FRATRVM MEORVM , if you go for a literal translation. (of mine = my)



Well, you will also want the adjective before the noun, for a truly literal translation: MEVS SANGVIS EST MEORVM FRATRVM ("my blood is my brothers'").

Anyway I felt it was better to have only _sanguis_ as nominative, and get two genitives compared: _mei_ and _fratrum meorum_ : SANGVIS MEI EST FRATRVM MEORVM ("Blood of mine is of my brothers").


----------



## Hamlet2508

There are no iron-cast rules concerning the position of a word in a Latin sentence (due to its inflection) so having _*meus sanguis*_ instead of _*sanguis meus*_ is merely a matter of emphasis.
In classical Latin at least , number, gender and case of both *sanguis* and _*meus*_ (possessive pronoun) would have to be matched. You would not use the genetive of the personal pronoun with _*sanguis*_.
I'm not sure (since my Spanish is quite rusty) but I seem to remember that in Spanish (forgive me if I'm mistaken in this) you might say "...... de mi" instead of "mi....." 
Regards.


----------



## Peano

Hamlet2508 said:


> In classical Latin at least, number, gender and case of both *sanguis* and _*meus*_ (possessive pronoun) would have to be matched. You would not use the genitive of the personal pronoun with _*sanguis*_.


Really? According to who?


----------



## Hamlet2508

Although Cicero used colloquial style in some of his more intimate letters, I wouldn't say his use of grammar in his letters qualifies as "vulgar Latin" .


----------



## wandle

Hamlet2508 said:


> You'll want a noun adjective agreement here SANGVIS ME*VS* EST FRATRVM MEORVM , if you go for a literal translation. (of mine = my)


The difficulty with a literal translation is that it means 'my blood is that of my brothers'. 
In other words, 'we brothers share the same blood', 'we belong to the same family'. 

That is not what the questioner wants to say. This was verified earlier in the thread.
The message to be expressed is:


IceTBC said:


> a willingness to shed our blood for our brothers (in-arms)


----------



## Hamlet2508

wandle said:


> *sanguine inter fratres devoto*



I'm not sure an ablative absolute on its own will do the trick . Still, this is quite a challenging idea.


----------



## wandle

Hamlet2508 said:


> I'm not sure an ablative absolute on its own will do the trick . Still, this is quite a challenging idea.


An ablative absolute is equivalent to an adverbial clause: *cum sanguis inter fratres devotus esset* ('given that our blood has been promised between us brothers' or 'on the basis that we brothers have promised our blood to each other'). This presupposes a main verb such as 'we act' or 'we go forward', which should therefore be understood with it.

Adverbial expressions with a main verb understood are common enough in mottoes.
*Per ardua ad astra [itur]* (RAF)
*Deo iuvante [superabimus]* (Monaco)
*Nisi Dominus frustra* (Clan Inglis) This requires two verbs: *Nisi Dominus agit, frustra agitur.*


----------



## Hamlet2508

wandle said:


> An ablative absolute is equivalent to an adverbial clause, which modifies the whole remaining sentence,which we haven't got here


I don't think you can expect anyone reading this to automatically come up with a suitable main verb like "pergimus".
Moreover, I'm a bit concerned about the mainly religious overtone of _*devoveo*_.

Even with Deo iuvante, another ablative absolute , one would expect a sentence or at least an adequate phrase.


----------



## wandle

Hamlet2508 said:


> which modifies the whole remaining sentence,which we haven't got here


All it needs is a verb, as with the other mottoes quoted.


> I don't think you can expect anyone reading this to automatically come up with a suitable main verb like "pergimus".


How else do those mottoes - and many others - work? It seems to be a recognised practice in the formulation of mottoes across the centuries.
Granted, many readers may not be able to supply such a verb: but many readers may well know no Latin at all.
Latin mottoes are often accompanied nowadays by a translation or interpretation. This one, unless it is intended to remain obscure, will need that in any case: and that will make this point clear as well.


> Moreover, I'm a bit concerned about the mainly religious overtone of _*devoveo*_.


 The idea is that by agreeing to be ready to shed blood for their brothers, they have committed or dedicated their blood in that sense. Admittedly, it cannot here imply the specific Roman practice of vowing themselves to Dis Manibus.


> Even with Deo iuvante, another ablative absolute , one would expect a sentence or at least an adequate phrase.


Nevertheless, that is the Grimaldi motto on the coat of arms of Monaco. It is a real live example of a traditional motto and thus, I would suggest, a valid pattern.


----------



## Hamlet2508

Peano said:


> Really? According to who?



Marcus Tullius Cicero, for starters.


----------



## CrusaderTBC

Hi,    I'm one of the members who came up with the original latin motto.  My background is about 5yrs of formal latin to assist my main studies of middle english literature.  The origin of the motto was derived from the intent of a toast we shared between us.  Being a very close knit brotherhood of friends.    The original toast was essentially that my own blood is not for me to shed in vain glorious pursuit. Rather, it is to be shed for the benefit of the brotherhood in whatever manner is deemed fit by my brothers in arms.  And that our individuals lives were dedicated to the brotherhood (figuratively).    And as mentioned, the motto was not meant to imply a direct familial bond or bloodline association.    





wandle said:


> That does not seem to work, either, though. If the verb to be understood here is *est *, then surely the dative has to be read as one of possession. On the other hand, if a different verb is intended, it cannot reasonably be omitted, since without it there is nothing to indicate what the verbal idea should be.  *fratribus meis profundatur sanguis meus* ('let my blood be shed for my brothers') would work as a dative of advantage: but it changes the sense. This is positively asking to shed one's blood, instead of indicating a readiness to do so if necessary.


      I'm thinking this captures the closest essence of the spirit of the motto in regards to the willingness to shed blood.  Though its implication is more direct and immediate 'I shed blood' instead of figurative 'I would shed my blood'.      Which brings me back to the original motto translation, 'Sic sanguis meus, sanguine fratribus est'.  Is this usage still correct in ascribing the intent I have described?       Tony


----------



## wandle

> 'Sic sanguis meus, sanguine fratribus est'. Is this usage still correct in ascribing the intent I have described?


No, I am afraid it is not. It does not really have a valid Latin meaning.

How about the earlier suggestion of *sanguine inter fratres devoto*?
This means  _'(We act) on the basis that we have promised our blood between us brothers'_. 

*Hamlet2508* suggested *devoto* might not fit because it alludes to the Roman practice of dedicating oneself in battle to the gods of the underworld before charging to certain death against the ranks of the enemy; it was the religious preliminary to a suicide mission.

If that implication is too strong, then *dedicato* could be used: *sanguine inter fratres dedicato*.
This means the same as indicated above, but does not suggest a suicide attack.


----------



## CrusaderTBC

I think the insinuation of the first reference: "sanguine inter fratres devoto" appropriately reflects our communal sentiments.  So we will go with that choice.  Thank you everyone for their input.


----------

