# Don't dream it; be it



## Ptrope

This is the title of a song from the movie _The Rocky Horror Picture Show_. I want to use this phrase as the motto for an educational organization, and I've searched online for an English-to-Latin translator, but they all seem to point to tranexp.com, which times out whenever something is submitted; it may no longer be up and running, and these other sites haven't gotten the news.

Thanks for any help you can offer.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Singular:

Nolle videre in somnis; fi!


Plural:

Nollete videre in somnis; fite!



Literally: Don't see (it) in your sleep; become (it)!

Nolle(te) literally means "don't want to"; it is used as a negative command.

It isn't really necessary to translate "it", because a simple pronoun like that would be understood from the context.

NB: The English version really has the meaning of "to daydream" rather than to dream in one's sleep. I don't know if there's a Latin verb that means precisely that.


----------



## Ptrope

Kevin,

Thanks for the quick answer! I've been looking for weeks - I was afraid I'd have to learn Latin just for one phrase .


----------



## Fred_C

Kevin Beach said:


> Singular:
> 
> Nolle *Noli* videre in somnis; fi!
> 
> 
> Plural:
> 
> Nollete *Nolite* videre in somnis; fite!


 
Your translations seem strange to me :
They mean : "Do not see in your dreams, become".
this seems strange because the only purpose to use the phrase "see in your dreams" is if you want to specify a object to the English verb "to dream". In your latin sentence, you do not.

It would be much easier and more straightforward to say :
"Noli somniare, fi".


----------



## Fred_C

Ptrope said:


> Kevin,
> 
> Thanks for the quick answer! I've been looking for weeks - I was afraid I'd have to learn Latin just for one phrase .


 
You are right.
Learning latin is such a complete waste of time.
Especially for just one sentence.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Fred_C said:


> Your translations seem strange to me :
> They mean : "Do not see in your dreams, become".
> this seems strange because the only purpose to use the phrase "see in your dreams" is if you want to specify a object to the English verb "to dream". In your latin sentence, you do not.
> 
> It would be much easier and more straightforward to say :
> "Noli somniare, fi".


Thanks for correcting the spelling, Fred, but I stick by my use of words.

The English uses "dream" transitively. It has a direct object. *Somniare*, as I understand it, is usually intransitive. "Noli somniare, fi" means just "Don't dream; exist". But, as you say, *videre in somnia* implies an object which, as I said in my earlier post, would be understood without stating it.

The English original has a very unusual construction. It cannot be translated literally. I believe that my Latin version, equally unusual, is closest to the English meaning.


----------



## Mezzofanti

An idea more in keeping with the usual way of expressing mottos in Latin, though a little more distant from the wording of the original, might be simply "esse non fingi".


----------



## Fred_C

Kevin Beach said:


> Thanks for correcting the spelling, Fred, but I stick by my use of words.
> 
> The English uses "dream" transitively. It has a direct object. *Somniare*, as I understand it, is usually intransitive. "Noli somniare, fi" means just "Don't dream; exist". But, as you say, *videre in somnia* implies an object which, as I said in my earlier post, would be understood without stating it.
> 
> The English original has a very unusual construction. It cannot be translated literally. I believe that my Latin version, equally unusual, is closest to the English meaning.



But not stating the object is actually making a verb intransitive, and you precisely chose "somnis videre" instead of "somniare" because the former was transitive ! (besides, I do not understand why it should be absolutely forbidden to make a transitive use of the intransitive "somniare" in Latin when it is forbidden, but ok in English.)

What's more, the pronoun you are using but not stating should be in the accusative for "videre" and in the nominative for "fieri", this is a bit much to leave it unstated.

I fear that it is quite impossible to understand your sentence, or to guess why you chose such a strange phrasing if the reader does not know English, and does not know that the latin sentence was translated from English.

In my opinion, this reflects the sad habit of considering Latin as a code to cypher one's mother tongue, instead of an independent language.

Perhaps you can get a grasp of what I mean if you forget about "do not dream it, be it" and consider "do not see in your dreams, become". It sounds almost like nonsense.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Fred_C said:


> But not stating the object is actually making a verb intransitive, and you precisely chose "somnis videre" instead of "somniare" because the former was transitive !
> What's more, the pronoun you are using should be in the accusative for "videre" and in the nominative for "fieri", this is a bit much to leave it unstated.
> 
> I fear that it is quite impossible to understand your sentence, or to guess why you chose such a strange phrasing if the reader does not know English, and does not know that the latin sentence was translated from English.
> 
> In my opinion, this reflects the sad habit of considering Latin as a code to cypher one's mother tongue, instead of an independent language.


Well, we obviously don't see eye to eye on this. However, your words that I have reddened are exactly what the OP asked us to do. This is 21st Century wordplay, not Cicero or even Aquinas.


----------



## Lamb67

I assume that somnio,-are doest mean everything the dream does because every human being ancient or modern, universally share the same sleeping experience.

So both of your attempts are acceptable and English dictionary says exactly dream: vt to see in a dream. Cheers !


----------



## Flaminius

Hi,

But we are not dealing with dream in sense of what one sees/does/experiences in one's sleep.  I don't think Romans used "dream" as a metaphor for ambitions that they want to realise in a hopeful future.  In fact, ancients may not have regarded future as full of hope (at least while they are in this world).


----------



## Lamb67

So, this saying Sominium est vanum, Dream is empty to support your arguement.

But I gather from our moderator's previous message, our two friends's attempts are both not perfect 
Dream is so empty that we need to look at the reality,so lets try Don't hope at bed( in sleeping)
Noli sperare dormiendo.
On 2nd thought, that's no good at all. Just to hope is to become, Sperare est fieri.


----------



## Stoicorum_simia

Kevin Beach said:


> Well, we obviously don't see eye to eye on this. However, your words that I have reddened are exactly what the OP asked us to do. This is 21st Century wordplay, not Cicero or even Aquinas.


 
In my view, there's a difference between jokey translations suitable for t-shirts ('go comb a monkey') or conversations ('apud canem' = 'in the doghouse') and more serious ones for mottoes. The former can be literal versions of contemporary phrases, the latter should be something that could actually be said in Latin, though not necessarily classical Latin. That said, it's not clear to me in which category the motto of an educational organisation which is inspired by the Rocky Horror Show should fall into.

As several people have remarked, there is a basic problem in translating 'dream' in the modern, positive sense (Martin Luther King, etc) into Latin, where the connotations of 'somnium' are quite different. This has come up several times in (fairly) recent posts. To get a motto that sounds right in Latin, the dreaming will have to be abandoned; hoping, as Lamb67 suggests, is more promising. But then of course the allusion will be lost.


----------



## Fred_C

Yes, but even in the second category, (using latin in a serious manner, to say mottoes), it is not necessary to avoid metaphors that the romans could not understand.
the Romans are dead, therefore, I think that the purpose of using latin is to be understood worldwide, not by the Romans, but by everyone who knows latin.

That is why I consider acceptable to use "somniare" in a modern metaphor, but  unacceptable to use word-for-word translations that can only be understood if you know the original language.


----------



## Stoicorum_simia

Fred_C said:


> Yes, but even in the second category, (using latin in a serious manner, to say mottoes), it is not necessary to avoid metaphors that the romans could not understand.
> the Romans are dead, therefore, I think that the purpose of using latin is to be understood worldwide, not by the Romans, but by everyone who knows latin.
> 
> That is why I consider acceptable to use "somniare" in a modern metaphor, but unacceptable to use word-for-word translations that can only be understood if you know the original language.


 
Yes, the Romans are dead (although when, exactly, did 'they' become 'us'?), but I feel one should still respect the idioms of the Latin language, and I am not sure that the difference between using 'somniare' in the sense of 'I have a dream' (which after all is not what it means) and making a word-for-word translation is so very great. But we may have to agree to differ here.


----------



## Hulalessar

How about?

_Esto quod animo concipis_


----------

