# Dal 1982 a guardia della Capitale



## ciaone

Hello everybody, I am trying to traslare this from italian to latin:

Dal 1982 a guardia della Capitale.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.


----------



## bearded

Hello and welcome to this forum
Please let us know the context (preceding and subsequent sentences) and possibly the source.  It is impossible (particularly with a language like Latin) to translate such an isolated expression without at least knowing the grammatical cases (era a guardia? lo misero a guardia?....etc.).
The context is crucial, and the more you can provide, the better.


----------



## ciaone

Hi, thank for your reply. Basically is just a message for a tattoo one of my friends want to do. The message is supposed to be tattooed close to a roman soldier.


----------



## ciaone

This guy was born in Roma in 1982. That is the reason of the message


----------



## bearded

My suggestion:
_Ab anno 1982 custos Urbis_
or - with capital letters and Roman numerals -
AB ANNO MCMLXXXII CVSTOS VRBIS.


----------



## ciaone

Think you bearded. Just one question. Do you think ANNO is necessary in this sentence?


----------



## bearded

Yes, I think it is.
I feel that 'ab + number/numeral' would not comply with Latin usage.
Please note that I already omitted ''Domini'' (normally, ''anno Domini'' would indicate 'after Christ' in Latin texts, but it's too long in a tattoo…).

Better suggestions could come to you from real experts (I am only an amateur as concerns the Latin language).  I therefore recommend you to wait a few more days for other members' responses.


----------



## ciaone

bearded said:


> Yes, I think it is.
> I feel that 'ab + number/numeral' would not comply with Latin usage.



Exactly what I thought. Thank you so much. 

I will wait to see if someone else may have other suggestions.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings, ciaone and bearded.

I agree fully with bearded that ANNO is necessary, and that the Latin should be capitalised. And his suggested CVSTΟS VRBIS is elegant, and epigrammatic.

Σ


----------



## jazyk

I interpret bearded's translation as stating the person has been a guard since 1982. The preposition a in Italian expresses a change. The person was born in 1982 and much later in life he or she became a guard. If that is so, I think the Latin would have to contain a preposition that shows this transition, maybe Ab anno... in custodem..., but I'm not sure if in is the right preposition here. An alternative would be constructing something with the verb fio, fieri, but then it would be much less epigrammatic, which seems to be a quality Scholiast appreciates.


----------



## jazyk

What about CVSTOS VRBIS IN ANNO MCMLXXXII GENERATVS? GENERATA in case the guard is a female.


----------



## bearded

jazyk said:


> preposition that shows this transition


Sorry, I have to disagree.  In Italian ''_essere a guardia'' _is a fixed expression meaning ''to be protecting/to stay _in_ protection'' of something, so in this case 'a' does not indicate a transition. What the jokey tattoo will express is that from the very moment of the person's birth, Rome acquired a protecting 'guard'. And according to the questioner's explanation (#4: this guy…) the person is a male friend.

PS. Being from Brno, you probably understand also German. The Italian phrase means _Zum Schutz Roms seit 1982._


----------



## jazyk

Ok, estar em guarda also means that in Portuguese, but I thought it was a transition, as I explained in my previous post. 

In that case, the suggestion is good.


----------



## bearded

Yes, thanks. Please note also my PS addition .


----------



## ciaone

Reading this discussion is very interesting. Thank you all for your help. Your suggestions have been so useful so far. I could not have made it on myself.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all round


jazyk said:


> IN ANNO MCMLXXXII GENERATVS


(Jazyk's # 11 in this thread): no, 'IN' here is superfluous, so I think is GENERATVS, affronts to Latin's natural tendency to epigrammatic terseness.
Σ


----------



## jazyk

Maybe superfluous for you but not incorrect. Not because you like everything to be epigrammatic you have to force your taste down everybody's throats. 

Anyway, the misunderstanding had been cleared up. It was your comment that was totally superfluous.

If there is something affronting, that's your comma separating a subject from its predicate, which is not only superfluous but also incorrect.


----------



## Scholiast

Sorry to be argumentative here: I find Jazyk's response (# 17) somewhat unmannerly. I am absolutely ready, pleased, prepared, to have my Latin corrected, but take not kindly to being 'corrected' on the grammar, syntax or idiom of my written English, in this or any other context.
And _IN_ ANNO_ is _completely wrong. In my last post, 'affronts' was a noun (I realise this is difficult for non-native speakers to understand).
Σ


----------



## jazyk

Lots of examples with in anno in the Vulgate and a few in Google Books. I agree, though, it is extremely more common not to use IN in this case.


----------



## Scholiast

Thanks Jazyk for this more amiable answer (# 19). Out of genuine curiosity, can you point us to any more specific instances, in the Vulgate or elsewhere?

Time does not allow me to read from _Genesis_ to _Revelation_ to find them. And what did you mean by 'Google Books'?

Σ


----------



## jazyk

Just write "in anno" in quotation marks followed by the word Vulgate on Google, and you will see the occurrences.

Write "in anno" on Google but instead of hitting Enter, go to to the line below where you will see Maps, Videos, Images, etc. Choose Books (it may be hidden behind three dots) and press it.


----------



## Scholiast

@jazyk (# 21 here)

I have done as you suggested, and found only the merest handul of such references, almost all (in e.g. Exodus, Daniel, Ezra, Haggai) referring to the numerated years of a kingly or priestly rule, in the sense of 'during...' or 'in the course of...' (e.g. the 'second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar' in Daniel 2).

In other words, it is at least unusual, and I would still claim that for calendrical dates on e.g. monuments it is almost unheard of.

Σ


----------



## Kevin Beach

bearded said:


> Yes, I think it is.
> I feel that 'ab + number/numeral' would not comply with Latin usage.
> Please note that I already omitted ''Domini'' (normally, ''anno Domini'' would indicate 'after Christ' in Latin texts, but it's too long in a tattoo…).
> 
> Better suggestions could come to you from real experts (I am only an amateur as concerns the Latin language).  I therefore recommend you to wait a few more days for other members' responses.


Excuse me, but "Anno Domini" does not mean "After Christ", which would mean the years after Christ left the earth and ascended into Heaven. It means "In the year of the Lord", which means the years from Christ's notional birth date, approximately 33 years earlier.


----------



## Scholiast

Quite right, KevιnB.

That is how I have always understood the Latin.

Σ


----------



## bearded

Kevin Beach said:


> Excuse me


No need to apologize, yours is a very precise remark.
However (in this country at least) we commonly understand 'after Christ' as a time  obviously starting from Christ's birthdate, and likewise 'before Christ' as previous to Ch.'s birth date.  That's why I thought that 'anno Domini' would coincide with 'after Christ', and I'm a bit surprised to see that for you (in the UK?) it is different.


----------



## Agró

Over here, *d. C.* (después de Cristo) is the same as *AD* (Anno Domini) "after Christ's birth", not "after Christ's death".

Octavian died 14 years after Christ was born (AD 14).

*Augusto *(en latín, Augustus; Roma, 23 de septiembre de 63 a. C.-Nola, 19 de agosto de *14 d. C.*) 
*Augustus* (Latin: _Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus_;[nb 1] 23 September 63 BC – 19 August *AD 14*)


----------



## Kevin Beach

bearded said:


> No need to apologize, yours is a very precise remark.
> However (in this country at least) we commonly understand 'after Christ' as a time  obviously starting from Christ's birthdate, and likewise 'before Christ' as previous to Ch.'s birth date.  That's why I thought that 'anno Domini' would coincide with 'after Christ', and I'm a bit surprised to see that for you (in the UK?) it is different.


Well, quite simply, "A.D." are the initials for "Anno Domini", which means "in the year of the Lord". We translate it literally. I don't know about other forms of English, but in BrE, to say that something occurred "after" somebody would be taken to mean after that person had come and gone.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all

A note of clarification. The fixture, in what has become universal chronometry, of AD 1 as the year of Christ's birth was the intellectual progeny of the  4th-century Christian historian and biographer of Constantine, Eusebius, fossilised in our history-books by Jerome in the Vulgate. But it is wholly incompatible with the secular historical record, which sets the death of Herod and the Augustan census, associated in the Gospel narratives with the Nativity, between 6 BC and 4 BC (Sir Ronald Syme, _Roman Papers_ III, 881ff.). Eusebius was doubtless trying his best to calculate, and must be forgiven for this minor error. Academic historians of the Early Church are these days agreed about this mistake, and will concede that Jesus was born _ca. _6-4 BC, and crucified about AD 29.

And I should add: there is no evidence whatever about the date within the year of Christ's birth. But in the course of the 2nd-4th centuries 'AD' it came to be associated with the ancient Roman _Saturnalia_, a winter-solstice festival to greet the re-arising sun (much-needed, doubtless).

Σ


----------



## bearded

Scholiast said:


> and crucified about AD 29


...and here you certainly mean about 29 years after his birth, don't you, Scholiast? Glad to see that for you ''Anno Domini'' means 'after Christ('s birth)'-  like (to my knowledge) for the rest of the world.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete de nouo, amici

_A propos_ bearded's # 29 in this Thread: there's a slight misunderstanding here: what I meant, and still believe, is that Christ was born around 6/5/4 BC, and was executed in his early-mid 30s, probably in the year we now call 'AD 29'. But I shall consult with theologians of my acquaintance and report back.

And as always, I am very willing to be corrected by anyone whose scholarship or knowledge outstrips mine, which is not hard!

Σ


----------



## Kevin Beach

Scholiast said:


> Greetings all
> 
> A note of clarification. The fixture, in what has become universal chronometry, of AD 1 as the year of Christ's birth was the intellectual progeny of the  4th-century Christian historian and biographer of Constantine, Eusebius, fossilised in our history-books by Jerome in the Vulgate. But it is wholly incompatible with the secular historical record, which sets the death of Herod and the Augustan census, associated in the Gospel narratives with the Nativity, between 6 BC and 4 BC (Sir Ronald Syme, _Roman Papers_ III, 881ff.). Eusebius was doubtless trying his best to calculate, and must be forgiven for this minor error. Academic historians of the Early Church are these days agreed about this mistake, and will concede that Jesus was born _ca. _6-4 BC, and crucified about AD 29.
> 
> And I should add: there is no evidence whatever about the date within the year of Christ's birth. But in the course of the 2nd-4th centuries 'AD' it came to be associated with the ancient Roman _Saturnalia_, a winter-solstice festival to greet the re-arising sun (much-needed, doubtless).
> 
> Σ


You would have been better not to post that. It contains inaccuracies, but it would be off-topic for me to reply.

The question was about how "AD" is interpreted in English, not about whether the dating is right or wrong, or about other issues like taking over pagan festivals.


----------



## bearded

Kevin Beach said:


> The question was about how "AD" is interpreted in English, not about whether the dating is right or wrong


I agree. I will open a new thread in the 'English-only' Forum.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes, praesertim KevinB et bearded

If I have offended, profound apologies. Yes I realise this may constitute 'Topic Drift'. I will dismount my post when I have heard from a Moderator. But for my own improvement, I would like to know what what the 'inaccuracies' are.

Σ


----------



## Kevin Beach

Scholiast said:


> saluete omnes, praesertim KevinB et bearded
> 
> If I have offended, profound apologies. Yes I realise this may constitute 'Topic Drift'. I will dismount my post when I have heard from a Moderator. But for my own improvement, I would like to know what what the 'inaccuracies' are.
> 
> Σ


I'll PM you about it soon.


----------



## bearded

Please find some advice concerning the usual interpretation of 'AD' in English 
here <----


----------



## Scholiast

Kevin Beach said:


> You would have been better not to post that. It contains inaccuracies, but it would be off-topic for me to reply.
> 
> The question was about how "AD" is interpreted in English, not about whether the dating is right or wrong, or about other issues like taking over pagan festivals.


Dear Kevin,

In the process of tidying up (and scrapping) some old WR files, I came of course across this. Naturally, if I have offended, I apologise. I am as it happens an observant Anglican, but with strong sympathies (i.e. High Church) with the Oxford-Movement/Newman tendency. I seriously wonder where I was 'off-topic', and what you consider my inaccuracies to be.


----------

