# She lost, she loves, she endures



## lucaseinhorn

My mother is interested in getting a tattoo with the subject translated into latin, with eventually her headstone to read "she lost, she loved, she endured." if someone could please provide both translations, it would mean the world to me and my mother. thank you in advance!


----------



## XiaoRoel

Et perdidit et amauit et illa stetit


----------



## Cagey

XiaoRoel said:


> Et perdidit et amauit et illa stetit


XiaoRoel has given you the version in the past:
She lost and she loved and she endured.​(Latin is more likely to use the connectives _and ... and ...._)

_Illa_ near the end is emphatic.  I can't do the same in English, but it's something like: "She lost and she loved and _she_ endured", comparing her to other people who might not have endured. 

The version in the title: "She lost, she loves, she endures."
_Et perdidit et amat et illa stat._

She lost and she loves and _she_ endures. ​


----------



## lucaseinhorn

thank you both so much! this is going to mean so much to her.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Gratias tibi ago, Cagey, per opportunam et doctam explanationem in uersionem quam fecit ex latina in anglicam linguam. 
Vale.


----------



## kreiner

Wouldn't it be better: "perdidit amavit stetit"? Just like "veni vidi vici".


----------



## Cagey

kreiner said:


> Wouldn't it be better: "perdidit amavit stetit"? Just like "veni vidi vici".


That is also possible. 

The choice between the two is one of stylistic preference. XiaoRoel's version is more literary. I like the emphatic _illa_, pointing to the fact that she remains standing, whatever she has gone through or done.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Porque se pierde el *illa* y no está en 1ª persona, con lo que quedaría una frase impersonal. La frase "de César" esta en 1º persona (sujeto *yo*).


----------



## kreiner

XiaoRoel said:


> Porque se pierde el *illa* y no está en 1ª persona, con lo que quedaría una frase impersonal. La frase "de César" esta en 1º persona (sujeto *yo*).


 
Sin duda, pero si se trata de ponerlo en un tatuaje o en una lápida, se entiende que se trata de la persona directamente referida. Estoy pensando en aquellas tumbas que llevan escrito sólo: "pulvis cinis et nihil". Por supuesto, si hay que especificar que el sujeto es femenino sería necesario un determinante para indicar el género.


----------



## lucaseinhorn

Thank you guys again. In the second version provided (by kreiner), is that amauit or amavit? Just double checking because the u/v in Latin confuses me sometimes. Also, would it be possible for somebody to translate this entirely into the past tense, i.e. "she lost, she loved, she endured."? I was hoping to etch that onto her gravestone, some (sad) day.


----------



## kreiner

The choice u/v depends on you. Nowadays most editions use u, but it is up to you. "Perdidit amauit stetit" is past tense. For "she lost, she loves, she endures" it would be: "perdidit amat stat".


----------



## Aeshna

lucaseinhorn said:


> Thank you guys again. In the second version provided (by kreiner), is that amauit or amavit? Just double checking because the u/v in Latin confuses me sometimes. Also, would it be possible for somebody to translate this entirely into the past tense, i.e. "she lost, she loved, she endured."? I was hoping to etch that onto her gravestone, some (sad) day.



Hi there! You can use both: amavit" or "amauit", but as far as I know, "u" is more primary and classical, and "v" was introduce later (I would have to check my notes for the precise periods).
And the recent linguistic studies claim for spelling "u" and "v" as "w" (like in the word "wow"; it is so called "latina/pronuntiatio restituta").


----------



## kreiner

By the way, for an inscription you will likely use capital letters: PERDIDIT AMAVIT STETIT. In this case, you cannot use u. (Excuse my English).


----------



## Aeshna

P.S. I would rather use "patitur" or "perseverat" than "stat" which is rather rare in this meaning.


----------



## Aeshna

kreiner said:


> By the way, for an inscription you will likely use capital letters: PERDIDIT AMAVIT STETIT. In this case, you cannot use u. (Excuse my English).



Oh yes, I agree, with capitals it would be totally classical


----------



## XiaoRoel

*Sto* es 'permanecer firme en algo', *patior* es 'sufrir', 'soportar un mal' y *perseuero* es 'perseverar'. La elección es tuya.
*Sto* is "to be steadfast in something ', *patior* is' suffering ',' to support an evil' and *perseuero* is 'enduring'. The choice is yours.


----------



## Aeshna

Indeed, "patior" means "I suffer", however, according to my dictionary sources and my translation experience, we can also use this word for "to endure". Maybe it is, I just have met more "patior" than "sto" in some contexts 
But, XiaoRoel, don't you think that it would be even better to use a compound verb "consto"? This is much more proper in my opinion.


----------



## XiaoRoel

*Maneo* and *consto* are widely used with the prepositional syntagma *in sententia*, meaning to _remain_, to _persevere_ in an opinion, idea, statement, declaration.


----------



## Aeshna

XiaoRoel said:


> *Maneo* and *consto* are widely used with the prepositional syntagma *in sententia*, meaning to _remain_, to _persevere_ in an opinion, idea, statement, declaration.




Now I feel a bit confused: we are here in situation to translate the verb 'endure' in meaning 'stay firm/tolerate/suffer (something painful and prolonged) patiently' (last two definition taken from WordReference.com English definitions, which would suggest, after all we can translate it as "patior").
Isn't 'endure' also some ability of mind?
I am sorry to continue this thread so persistently but I really would like to understand this and do the best translation.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Certainly PERSEVERAVIT.


----------



## jazyk

But don't you like to use u's instead of v's. How come you have perse*v*era*v*it now?


----------



## Aeshna

Thank you for your response.


----------



## Imber Ranae

jazyk said:


> But don't you like to use u's instead of v's. How come you have perse*v*era*v*it now?



The minuscule 'u' is in origin simply an uncial variant of the majuscule V. Lowercase 'v' as a variant of lowercase 'u' came later.


----------



## jazyk

I know, but I'm asking XiaoRoel.


----------



## XiaoRoel

En latín *la vocal  y la semiconsonante [w]* se representan en la escritura ambas por* /V/ *cuando se escribe en mayúscula y por */u/* cuando se escribe en minúscula. En latín *no existen* las grafías */U/* ni */v/*, como no existen */J/* ni */j/*. Estas letras que no existen en latín las inventó (o sistematizó) Petrus Ramus (Pierre de la Ramée) en el s. XV.


----------



## jazyk

> En latín *la vocal  y la semiconsonante [w]* se representan en la escritura ambas por* /V/ *cuando se escribe en mayúscula y por */u/* cuando se escribe en minúscula.



Exactly. So why didn't you write perseuerauit, as you are wont to do? Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore.


----------



## Imber Ranae

jazyk said:


> Exactly. So why didn't you write perseuerauit, as you are wont to do? Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore.



He *did* write _perseuerauit_, you're just not listening to what either of us is saying. Our capital and lowercase letters are in origin nothing more than the consolidation of two scripts into one (viz. Roman Square Capitals and Carolingian Minuscule). V and u are the original letters from their respective scripts, whereas v is an innovation for u (and U and innovation for V). Originally v was a mere variant of u that occurred in word-initial position, but eventually they started to be used, sometime after the advent of the printing press, to represent distinct phonetic values and thus became separate letters. You can still find very old books that maintain the old convention with spellings like 'haue" and 'vnless'.

Now, as far as I can see, XiaoRoel is being entirely consistent with this. He has written _PERSEVERAVIT_ and _perseuerauit_, but *not* _PERSEUERAUIT_ or _perseveravit_.


----------



## jazyk

All right.


----------

