# Latin translation for ‘loyal son beyond the seas’



## dtyt2009

Is ‘fīlius fidēlis trānsmarīnus’ the correct Latin translation for ‘loyal son beyond the seas’?


----------



## dtyt2009

How about ‘fīlius fidēlis ultrā maria’?


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici

dtyt2009, is there a context for this, please?

Σ


----------



## dtyt2009

Scholiast said:


> saluete amici
> 
> dtyt2009, is there a context for this, please?
> 
> Σ



I was thinking of the following sentence in the lyrics of an older version of ‘Advance, Australia Fair!’ (the Australian national anthem): ‘For loyal sons beyond the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share’.  For details:
1. See Advance Australia Fair - Wikipedia

< Video link removed. Cagey, moderator >

But, instead of ‘sons’, I just want to say ‘son’.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de nouo amici, et praesertim dtyt2009

The Aussie National Anthem is known to me. Now for a start, you need the dative, _filio fideli_. _ultra maria_ would be an adequate (if prosaic) rendering of 'beyond the seas', but neater might be simply _peregrino_, i.e. '[living] in a foreign land'.

I hope this is helpful.

Σ


----------



## dtyt2009

Scholiast said:


> saluete de nouo amici, et praesertim dtyt2009
> 
> The Aussie National Anthem is known to me. Now for a start, you need the dative, _filio fideli_. _ultra maria_ would be an adequate (if prosaic) rendering of 'beyond the seas', but neater might be simply _peregrino_, i.e. '[living] in a foreign land'.
> 
> I hope this is helpful.
> 
> Σ


Thanks a lot for your comment, Scholiast!

How about ‘fīliō fidēlī trānsmarīnō’?  When Queen Elizabeth Ⅱ first acceeded to the throne, she also inherited her father’s style and was ‘Queen’ of ‘the British Dominions Beyond the Seas’, and ‘Beyond the Seas’ in the Latin version of her style was translated as ‘transmarinarum’:
Style of the British sovereign - Wikipedia.

In the context of ‘Advance, Australia Fair!’, I guess ‘peregrīnō’ may not be suitable, as the Australians at the time the song was written still had a strong sense of British identity and wouldn’t consider their country to be foreign (non‑British).

Also, I wonder why we need to use the dative case?  It seems the dative case is for indirect objects, like ‘him’ and ‘her’, as opposed to ‘he’ and ‘she’.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici!

Far be it from me to quarrel with the linguistic protocols or proprieties cherished by courtiers of the Royal Family. But the Dative is called for here: '_For_ a loyal son...' demands a dative.

Σ


----------



## dtyt2009

Scholiast said:


> Far be it from me to quarrel with the linguistic protocols or proprieties cherished by courtiers of the Royal Family.


From a strictly technical point of view, is ‘trānsmarīnō’ an accurate translation of ‘beyond the seas’?




Scholiast said:


> But the Dative is called for here: '_For_ a loyal son...' demands a dative.


If we’re look at ‘loyal son beyond the seas’ in isolation and make it a stand‑alone statement, do we still need to use the dative case?


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!


dtyt2009 said:


> From a strictly technical point of view, is ‘trānsmarīnō’ an accurate translation of ‘beyond the seas’?


It's not exactly stylish, but it will do.


dtyt2009 said:


> If we’re look at ‘loyal son beyond the seas’ in isolation and make it a stand‑alone statement, do we still need to use the dative case?





dtyt2009 said:


> ‘For loyal sons beyond the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share’


Yes, because even if you change 'sons' (plural) to 'son' (singular) you still need a dative to convey '_For_ a loyal son...'.

Σ


----------



## dtyt2009

dtyt2009 said:


> look at ‘loyal son beyond the seas’ in isolation and make it a stand‑alone statement





Scholiast said:


> even if you change 'sons' (plural) to 'son' (singular) you still need a dative to convey '_For_ a loyal son...'


I don’t mean changing ‘sons’ to ‘son’ alone.  I mean forgetting about the context of ‘Advance, Australia Fair!’ altogether and simply saying ‘loyal son beyond the seas’, as in describing someone who is a ‘loyal son of Britannia beyond the seas’.  Can we use the nomative case in such context?


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de nouo!

Then are you describing yourself? (I note that you are a Hong Kong resident). If so, then you are right, 'Advance Australia fair...' is hardly relevant. Do you want to send a greeting to someone else? I am still puzzled about what it is you are asking for.

Σ


----------



## dtyt2009

Scholiast said:


> If so, then you are right, 'Advance Australia fair...' is hardly relevant.


Perhaps I confused things a little bit when I mentioned ‘Advance, Australia Fair’.  You asked me if there was a context for my question.  In response, I told you what I had read and made me wonder what ‘loyal son beyond the seas’ should be in Latin.  With my extremely limited understanding of Latin grammar, I didn’t know reading the whole sentence I had quoted (instead of focusing on one part) would call for the use of a different case.



Scholiast said:


> Then are you describing yourself? (I note that you are a Hong Kong resident).





dtyt2009 said:


> the Australians at the time the song was written still had a strong sense of British identity and wouldn’t consider their country to be foreign (non‑British)


Yes, I’m describing myself, similar to how ‘Advance, Australia Fair’ is describing the Australians as a whole as ‘loyal sons [of Britannia] beyond the seas’.



Scholiast said:


> I am still puzzled about what it is you mare asking for.


What I want to know is, if we’re to describe someone as a ‘loyal son [of Britannia] beyond the seas’ in Latin, will ‘fīlius fidēlis trānsmarīnus’ and ‘fīlius fidēlis ultrā maria’ be accurate translations?


----------



## Scholiast

saluete iterum!

_filius fidelis transmarinus _would be fine.

Σ


----------

