# Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it.



## Fat Hobbit

Hello all, I'm an artist working on a commission with this phrase: "Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it." It's both a verse from the Bible (Song of Solomon 8:7) as well as the source for the title of one of Madeleine l'Engle's novels, Many Waters.

Of course I'm looking for the most accurate Latin translation of this possible- and I know enough not to trust Google Translate.  I'm hoping one of the knowledgeable linguists here can help me out!

Thank you!

Edited to correct Bible verse source.


----------



## lingobingo

Its 8:7, not 7:8.


----------



## Fat Hobbit

lingobingo said:


> Its 8:7, not 7:8.



I apologize, you are correct. I will edit my original post to reflect the correct reference.


----------



## lingobingo

In case it's helpful, here are a couple of Latin versions that can be found online:


Many waters cannot quench _Love_, neither can the floods drown it.
Aqua multus non possum extingo _Amor_, ne flumen quidem inundare is.

The above is from the book _Nolens volens, or You shall make Latin whether you will or no_, 3rd edition, 1682.


Many waters cannot quench charity, neither can the floods drown it:
Aquae multae non poterunt extinguere caritatem nec flumina obruent illam

The above is from the website latinvulgate.com (Latin Vulgate Bible with Douay-Rheims and King James Version Side-by-Side+Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ)


----------



## Fat Hobbit

lingobingo said:


> In case it's helpful, here are a couple of Latin versions that can be found online:
> 
> 
> Many waters cannot quench _Love_, neither can the floods drown it.
> Aqua multus non possum extingo _Amor_, ne flumen quidem inundare is.
> 
> The above is from the book _Nolens volens, or You shall make Latin whether you will or no_, 3rd edition, 1682.
> 
> 
> Many waters cannot quench charity, neither can the floods drown it:
> Aquae multae non poterunt extinguere caritatem nec flumina obruent illam
> 
> The above is from the website latinvulgate.com (Latin Vulgate Bible with Douay-Rheims and King James Version Side-by-Side+Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ)



Those are both very helpful! Thank you!


----------



## Scholiast

Harumph, Sirs and Ladies


lingobingo said:


> Many waters cannot quench _Love_, neither can the floods drown it.
> Aqua multus non possum extingo _Amor_, ne flumen quidem inundare is.


Grammatically, this is nonsense.
This...


lingobingo said:


> Aquae multae non poterunt extinguere caritatem nec flumina obruent illam


...is grammatical, though inelegant.

But from Jerome, what would one expect?

Σ


----------



## Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

lingobingo said:


> Aqua multus non possum extingo _Amor_, ne flumen quidem inundare is.


Just for the record, this is laughably horrible. I'd guess Google Translate or worse. It's what you would get if you translated word by word with absolutely no regard for context. No word agrees with any of the others.

Literally: _Water _(feminine) _much _(masculine) _I cannot I moisten Love _(nominative), _not even river to flood he._


----------



## Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said:


> Just for the record, this is laughably horrible. I'd guess Google Translate or worse. It's what you would get if you translated word by word with absolutely no regard for context. No word agrees with any of the others.
> 
> Literally: _Water _(feminine) _much _(masculine) _I cannot I moisten Love _(nominative), _not even river to flood he._



Edit: 1682? I find that very hard to believe.  They all knew their Latin back then.


----------



## lingobingo

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said:


> Edit: 1682? I find that very hard to believe.  They all knew their Latin back then.



Please don't shoot the messenger!  I only did Latin for a couple of years, way back in 1900-and-frozen-to-death, so I was just trying to find a translation online. The book can be accessed on Google Books, bottom of p.74:

Nolens volens; or, You shall make Latin whether you will or no ... Together with the Youth's Visible Bible: being an alphabetical collection, from the whole Bible, of such general heads as were judg'd most capable of hieroglyphicks. Illustrated ... in four and twenty copper plates, etc


----------



## Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

lingobingo said:


> Please don't shoot the messenger!  I only did Latin for a couple of years, way back in 1900-and-frozen-to-death, so I was just trying to find a translation online. The book can be accessed on Google Books, bottom of p.74:
> 
> Nolens volens; or, You shall make Latin whether you will or no ... Together with the Youth's Visible Bible: being an alphabetical collection, from the whole Bible, of such general heads as were judg'd most capable of hieroglyphicks. Illustrated ... in four and twenty copper plates, etc


Wow.  Just wow.  I have no idea what to make of that.  The grammatical exposition is fairly typical for the time, and not at all incorrect, but all the examples are entirely wrong, in the same way that the "aqua multus non possum" translation is wrong.  It's either an epic troll, or the Latin equivalent of _English As She Is Spoke_.


----------



## Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

I think I may understand what he's up to.  Those aren't translations at all, just lists of words in their most basic form (nominative singular for nouns, first-person singular or infinitive for verbs) that the students are supposed to construct their own translations from.  I hope.


----------



## lingobingo

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said:


> I think I may understand what he's up to.  Those aren't translations at all, just lists of words in their most basic form (nominative singular for nouns, first-person singular or infinitive for verbs) that the students are supposed to construct their own translations from.  I hope.



Aha! That does no doubt explain the title!


----------



## Fat Hobbit

Scholiast said:


> Harumph, Sirs and Ladies
> 
> Grammatically, this is nonsense.
> This...
> 
> ...is grammatical, though inelegant.
> 
> But from Jerome, what would one expect?
> 
> Σ



Is there a more "elegant" way to put that second translation? What would you change about it for it to read more smoothly?

I think "Aquae multae non poterunt extinguere caritatem nec flumina obruent illam" will suit my purposes (since it *is* grammatically correct and carries the correct meaning of the original phrase), but I am open to it being improved upon!


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de novo, consobrini



Fat Hobbit said:


> Is there a more "elegant" way to put that second translation? What would you change about it for it to read more smoothly?



Since these are precisely the words of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and as such instantly recognisable (though they lack the poetry-in-prose of the King James version in English, and Luther's marvellous German — 'daß auch viele Wasser nicht mögen die Liebe auslöschen noch die Ströme sie ertränken'), I'm not going here and now to try to improve on them, especially as my command of Hebrew is negligible.

I do notice, however, that both the Vulgate and the LXX have the principal verbs (_poterunt /_ δυνήσεται, _obruent _/ συγκλύσουσιν) in the future tense; and interestingly, the LXX has the first subject in the singular (ὕδωρ πολύ). Without consulting a Hebraist, I can tell here nothing more, and will shut up.

So best then leave things as they are.

Σ


----------



## Fat Hobbit

Scholiast said:


> saluete de novo, consobrini
> 
> 
> 
> Since these are precisely the words of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and as such instantly recognisable (though they lack the poetry-in-prose of the King James' version in English, and Luther's marvellous German — 'daß auch viele Wasser nicht mögen die Liebe auslöschen noch die Ströme sie ertränken'), I'm not going here and now to try to improve on them, especially as my command of Hebrew is negligible.
> 
> I do notice, however, that both the Vulgate and the LXX have the principal verbs (_poterunt /_ δυνήσεται, _obruent _/ συγκλύσουσιν) in the future tense; and interestingly, the LXX has the first subject in the singular (ὕδωρ πολύ). Without consulting a Hebraist, I can tell here nothing more, and will shut up.
> 
> So best then leave things as they are.
> 
> Σ



Those are some good points; thank you for sharing your thoughts!


----------

