# If I say that I will not go, not even you can persuade me



## Lamb67

If I say that I will not go, not even you can persuade me.

My book:1) Not even (or even...not) is _ne...quidem_, with emphatic word between the ne and the quidem.
2) For_ dico...non_ always use_ nego._
As for how to translate If I say, I prefer the present indicative.

Here we go: _Si me iturum esse nego(edit:negavero,which is more normal according to my book.But I wonder whether this Latin tense sequence looks normal or not )ne tu quidem non mihi suadere potest._

Welcome your suggestions please, thanks.


----------



## XiaoRoel

*Si me iturum esse negauero, ne quidem tu me suadere possis. *
*Negauero*, 'haberse negado en un futuro' (con cierto matiz potencial, de hecho podríamos usar _negauerim_).
*Possis*, el _potencial_ presente, con _cierto valor de futuro_.


----------



## Lamb67

Since  neither would/should nor a future tense are there in the main clause, my money is on the Latin present indicative in both clauses.


----------



## Starfrown

_Si me iturum esse negavero, ne tu quidem mihi persuadere poteris._

_Suadeo_ is an intransitive verb meaning essentially "make sweet to" (it is in fact derived from the same IE root as the English word "sweet"), "urge," "advise," etc.  The compound _persuadeo_ means "to make sweet to thoroughly (i.e. successfully)"--"to succeed in one's urging."  Thus, the latter would have to be used here.  Be cautious when translating the English derivative "persuade," as it encompasses the meanings of both the Latin _suadeo_ and _persuadeo_.
----
As Lamb pointed out, _tu_ should come between _ne_ and _quidem_.
----
_Suadeo_ and _persuadeo_ very rarely take objects in the accusative in Classical Latin, as they are intransitive.
----
I chose to go for the safe choice in the apodosis, which is the future indicative.  I will not say that the potential subjunctive is wrong, only that I have been unable thus far to justify its use here. 
----


Lamb67 said:


> Since neither would/should nor a future tense are there in the main clause, my money is on the Latin present indicative in both clauses.


I assumed that you meant:

"If I say that I will not go, not even you will be able to persuade me."

Was this not the case?


----------



## Lamb67

_Si me iturum esse nego,ne tu quidem non mihi persuadere potest._

_Both nego and potest are indicative present tense._


----------



## Erutuon

Si ego ire nolo, non tu persuadebo mihi.
If _I_ don't wish to go, _you_ won't persuade me (not you will persuade me).

Took out "say", which seems unnecessary to me; used _nolle_ in place of future tense, _non_ before _tu_ for emphasis; changed "can" to future tense.


----------



## Sandhinet

Erutuon said:


> Si ego ire nolo, non tu persuadebo mihi.



Interesting idea, but you'd better write *persuadebis*, of course.


----------



## Erutuon

Gr! Thank you!


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> _Si me iturum esse nego,ne tu quidem non mihi persuadere potest._
> 
> _Both nego and potest are indicative present tense._


Firstly, you should have _potes_ in place of _potest_ if you wish to make this sentence present--the subject is clearly _tu_.

Secondly, your original English sentence seems *strongly* to suggest future action.


Erutuon said:


> Si ego ire nolo, non tu persuadebis mihi.
> If _I_ don't wish to go, _you_ won't persuade me (not you will persuade me).
> 
> Took out "say", which seems unnecessary to me; used _nolle_ in place of future tense, _non_ before _tu_ for emphasis; changed "can" to future tense.


Replacing "if I say that I will not go" with "if I don't wish to go" is very bold--the two do not mean the same thing.

I also find changing "can" to a simple future tense to be rather unaccountable.
----
Stressing "I" significantly changes the meaning of the original sentence.  It suggests that "I" am somehow different from others--it may even seem haughty.  I don't think you may freely make such an alteration.
----
I think you will have to justify your choice of _non tu _over _ne tu quidem_.  Your English translation "not you will persuade me" is extremely unnatural and does not help your case at all.  For "_you_ won't persuade me" (with stressed "you"), I imagine the Romans would have written:

_tu mihi non persuadebis_

_Tu_ itself is emphatic.  

I must also add that, in English, stressed "you" is *very* different from "not even you."  Consider the following, for example:

"_You_ can't persaude me." (You are especially unqualified to persuade me.)
"Not even you can persuade me." (You are quite qualified, but you are not good enough to persuade me.)

Lastly, I think you will have to justify your mixed conditional.  (You have present _nolo_ in the protasis with future _persaudebis_ in the apodosis.)


----------

