# We gladly feast on those who would subdue us.



## Macrosent

I would be grateful if anyone could translate the following into Latin:
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us."


----------



## XiaoRoel

Continuo et libenter illos qui nos subiiciant laute tractamus


----------



## cgarrison32

Actually, both the movie "latin":  "Sic gorgiamous allos subjectos nunc" AND the previous statement "Continuo et libenter illos qui nos subilciant laute tractamus" are incorrect.  The former is nonsense- some of the words in it don't exist at all in latin, and the latter, which directly translated, means: to be after and gladly us who we make compliant splendor manage (I can only guess that the writer of the last comment meant to say: We gladly and splendidly make compliant them after us.)  A better rendition of the quote into latin would be "Nos libenter epulor super illos qui volo ut opprimendum nos," which, directly translated, means:  we gladly feast upon those who want to oppress us.


----------



## XiaoRoel

De dónde sale ese Sic gorgiamous(?) alios subjectos(?).
Del resto para que ¿comentar? Si esto, _Nos libenter epulor super illos qui volo ut opprimendum nos_, te parece mejor traducción ya me la podrás justificar ya que su traducción: "Con gusto comemos en un convite sobre/más allá de aquellos… el resto es un puro dislate: _qui_ con _uolo_, ut opprimendum nos (que no sé como interpretar, quizás quisieras decir _ut nos opprimendum essemus_, o quizás _ad nos opprimendos_, o quizás _ut nos opprimant. Qui lo sa?).

_


----------



## cgarrison32

The words "edomuissem" (which means subdue) or "mansuetaveramus" (which means to tame) or "deviceramus" (which means conquer entirely) can be substitued in the aforementioned quote: "Nos libenter epulor super illos qui volo ut opprimendum nos" for the word "opprimendum".


----------



## cgarrison32

En Anglais, por favor.


----------



## XiaoRoel

Mi inglés no llega para expresarme con propiedad. Seguramente el paciente Cagey te lo explicará en inglés antes o después. En tu traducción es raro ese _epulor super illos:_ parece que dices que te das un banquete sobre ellos (¿quizás sean mesas humanas en una orgía?),; _qui_, que se supone tiene como antecedente _illos_, sería un nominativo plural, un caso sujeto, que no se puede referir a _uolo_ (1ª persona con sujeto _-o_, igual a _yo_, incorporado); _ut_ tras _uolo_ (quizás mejor sería una substantiva de infinitivo) tiene que ser marca de subordinada substantiva, que requerirá un subjuntivo de subordinación, también en el caso de la perifrástica que pareces proponer (necesitarías un essemus). En fin, que tu traducción no se puede sostener con arreglo a las estructuras del latín.
P.S.: *_mansuetaveramus_ es una forma fantasma que representa quizás _mansueueramus_; el morfema de modo y tiempo -*isse*-, no tiene nada que ver con -*era*-, más allá de la pertenencia al tema de _perfectum_. Mejor no perder el tiempo en elucubraciones. Para debatir hay que tener un mínimo de conocimientos, en caso contrario, mejor antes aprender.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete!

My tuppence-worth: the Addams-family "movie Latin" is indeed nonsense (#3 ), but so is cgarrison's 





> Nos libenter epulor super illos qui volo ut opprimendum nos.



"we" as subject requires _epul*amur*_, and "who/they" as subject requires _vol*unt*_; in any case _epulari super... _looks to me highly dubious, "we hold a feast (going over) those..." - _epulari_ is (rare and) intransitive, "to hold a banquet", and _super_ with the accusative implies motion.

Moreover _ut_ is hardly used after _velle_ - this verb should be followed by a prolative infinitive - and _ut_ with the sense of purpose cannot be followed by a gerund(ive) such as _opprimendum_.

Better - if you want something in "proper" classical Latin:
_
illos libenter devoramus qui nos opprimere velint_ [subjunctive because generic - "anyone _who ever might_ wish..."]

The clauses could be neatly inverted for rhetorical impact:
_
qui nos opprimere velint, illos libenter devoramus_.

I am moved to wonder why the question arises in the first place.


----------



## XiaoRoel

> I am moved to wonder why the question arises in the first place.


I also.


----------



## Cagey

XiaoRoel said:


> Mi inglés no llega para expresarme con propiedad. Seguramente el paciente Cagey te lo explicará en inglés antes o después. En tu traducción es raro ese _epulor super illos:_ parece que dices que te das un banquete sobre ellos (¿quizás sean mesas humanas en una orgía?),; _qui_, que se supone tiene como antecedente _illos_, sería un nominativo plural, un caso sujeto, que no se puede referir a _uolo_ (1ª persona con sujeto _-o_, igual a _yo_, incorporado); _ut_ tras _uolo_ (quizás mejor sería una substantiva de infinitivo) tiene que ser marca de subordinada substantiva, que requerirá un subjuntivo de subordinación, también en el caso de la perifrástica que pareces proponer (necesitarías un essemus). En fin, que tu traducción no se puede sostener con arreglo a las estructuras del latín.
> P.S.: *_mansuetaveramus_ es una forma fantasma que representa quizás _mansueueramus_; el morfema de modo y tiempo -*isse*-, no tiene nada que ver con -*era*-, más allá de la pertenencia al tema de _perfectum_. Mejor no perder el tiempo en elucubraciones. Para debatir hay que tener un mínimo de conocimientos, en caso contrario, mejor antes aprender.


As XiaoRoel feels that his English isn't sufficient to express himself properly, he has suggested that I translate this into English.  I'll try.  (I trust that XiaoRoel will correct my mistakes.) 
In your translation, that _"epulor super illos"_  is strange; you seem to  say that you are giving a banquet on _top_ of them (perhaps they would be human tables in an orgy?); _qui_, which one supposes has _illos_ as its antecedent, would be a nominative plural, a subject case, that can't refer to _volo_ (1st person with the subject -o, equal to _I_, incorporated into the word) which [=_volo_] would require a subjunctive of subordination, likewise in the case of the periphrastic which you seem to propose (you would need an _essemus_). Finally, your translation can't be maintained in agreement with the structures of Latin. 

P.S: *_mansuetaveramus_  is an imagined form that represents, perhaps, _mansueueramus_; the morpheme of mood and time -isse- has nothing to do with -era-, other than it relaqted to the stem [?] of the perfect. But it is better not to waste more time on pedentry / elaborate arguments [?].   [....]​


----------



## capsule

Scholiast- might one omit _illos_ with advantage, or does it sound funny?


----------



## XiaoRoel

Una vez más, colega Cagey, mi más sincero agradecimiento. Ya te debo muchas… 
Gracias.


----------



## tehmightehraja

So.. is it safe to say that..
"_qui nos opprimere velint, illos libenter devoramus_." 

Is the proper latin phrase for "we gladly feast on those who would subdue us.." ..? 
I am contemplating this as a tattoo to go along with "quod me nutrit, quod me destruit." and it is REALLY important that I figure this information out before it is permanently put on my body forever. If the conjugating wonders of latin could come back to this thread and lead me into the right direction I would really appreciate it.

Help help help.


----------



## Cagey

tehmightehraja said:


> So.. is it safe to say that..
> "_qui nos opprimere velint, illos libenter devoramus_."
> 
> Is the proper latin phrase for "we gladly feast on those who would subdue us.." ..?


Yes, it is a good Latin translation of the English sentence.  This version, the Latin reverses the order of the English.  Translated more literally it is:
"Who would subdue us, them we gladly devour."
The order is unusual in English, but it is natural in Latin. 



tehmightehraja said:


> I am contemplating this as a tattoo to go along with "quod me nutrit, quod me destruit." and it is REALLY important that I figure this information out before it is permanently put on my body forever. If the conjugating wonders of latin could come back to this thread and lead me into the right direction I would really appreciate it.
> 
> Help help help.


I am a little confused by this.  What meaning do you have in mind for "quod me nutrit, quod me destruit"?


----------



## szervusz

Good morning gentlemen,

The ad. litt. translation would be "(That) who feeds me, (that) who kills/destroys me.", while the ellipsis of the verb seems to me just of stylistical measures.
I have no knowleadge concerning latin other than the semantic comprehension due to the romanic character of Romanian, but this phrase, translated to Romanian sounds okay - "Cel ce mă hrăneşte, (acela) mă distruge."

Concerning its origin, Wikipedia states, under the article of _List of Latin Phrases_:
_Thought to have originated with Elizabethan playwright Christopher Marlowe.  Generally interpreted to mean that that which motivates or drives a  person can consume him or her from within. This phrase has become a  popular slogan or motto for pro-ana websites, anorexics and bulimics._

Szervusz.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete!

This is a reply to capsule's query (#11) about my suggestion (_qui nos opprimere velint, illos libenter devoramus)_:


> Scholiast- might one omit _illos_ with advantage, or does it sound funny?



The problem here is that "qui nos opprimere velint libenter devoramus" - omitting _illos_ (or _eos_) - screams for a grammatical object to the principal verb, _devoramus_, and fails for want of clarity and balance (Latin _hates_ ambiguity or confusion).

Even "good" Latin will however sometimes allow what the grammarians call "attraction" of a relative pronoun into the case of its antecedent, so "libenter devoramus quos opprimere nos velint" is just about possible. But this is stretching things a bit, and I don't think Cicero or Caesar could have penned such a thought, never mind "quos nos opprimere..." because the juxtaposition of the two accusatives plural (_quos nos_) would be utterly clumsy and ambiguous.

Thanks to szervusz (#15) for the reference to Marlowe. I did not know this.


----------

