Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden8 mins ago
english to latin
31 Answers
I'm getting married soon and I want to have our rings ingraved. What is the latin translation for "God Bless Our Love." I've looked everywhere and wonder if someone can help me.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pass104. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Benedicat deus amorem nostrum would be my stab at it. However, my advice to you - based on past experience of questions involving Latin on AnswerBank - is to check with an 'expert' whatever answer(s) you get here...including mine!
For example, if your local secondary school has a Classics Department or even just a solitary Latin teacher, try to get a response from him/her. An alternative is to approach a local Catholic priest.
If someone suggests an online translation site, I'd treat that with even more<.i> care than answers here. They are generally much too vague or even ridiculous, unless you are quite knowledgeable about the language in any case.
For example, if your local secondary school has a Classics Department or even just a solitary Latin teacher, try to get a response from him/her. An alternative is to approach a local Catholic priest.
If someone suggests an online translation site, I'd treat that with even more<.i> care than answers here. They are generally much too vague or even ridiculous, unless you are quite knowledgeable about the language in any case.
It's over half a century since I was actively involved in Latin, so I'd forgotten that benedicere took the dative - not the accusative - case.
Mallam's version is correct, I'd say. He/she may well be an expert Latinist, given that, unlike myself, he/she certainly knew about the 'case-sensitivity', as it were. However, given that you mean to have the words permanently inscribed on rings, I'd still do one of the checks I suggested earlier...no disrespect to you, M.
Mallam's version is correct, I'd say. He/she may well be an expert Latinist, given that, unlike myself, he/she certainly knew about the 'case-sensitivity', as it were. However, given that you mean to have the words permanently inscribed on rings, I'd still do one of the checks I suggested earlier...no disrespect to you, M.
Such punctilio, Qmonster! Didn't I urge the would-be engraver to follow your advice about checking around? Or tried to in spite of a lamentable failure to benefit from our wranglings about punctuation! And would still echo your reiteration of that advice. My Latin's a bit rusty too, though I was a bit of an an expert. Now I'm just a fast-dementing polyglot several of whose languages are dying off like flies, but I still don't seem to be prone to mistakes in the ones that are still buzzing in my head more llike a hiveful of bees, as must be becoming apparent in these pages.
Benedico takes the dative? No. It did in classical Latin when the meaning was " to speak well of someone, to commend, praise". In late and ecclesiastical Latin, when it meant " to bless" it took the accusative. Therefore 'love' would be 'amorem' here and "our love" "amorem nostrum" [reference: Lewis and Short ]
To convey the wish 'may God bless' we need the third person singular present subjunctive of 'benedico' ,which is a third conjugation verb, like 'dico' [I say] itself. (Originally benedico was written as two words 'bene and dico') . That gives us 'benedicat'.
So we've got:
Deus benedicat amorem nostrum.
But don't rush, there's more:
Word order is not absolutely critical in Latin, so QM's word order means the same as that one. It's just that God is the important word, you are , in effect, addressing God, and he's the subject of the verb (and, in a short sentence, the subject normally precedes the verb).
So you can have " Deus amorem nostrum benedicat" That, to me, sounds better.It scans better.It would be my choice.
Now , I suggest you follow QM's advice .If you are a Catholic it's odds on that the Church itself has some preferred, conventional, form of Latin word order ( or even some other words !) for this.
To convey the wish 'may God bless' we need the third person singular present subjunctive of 'benedico' ,which is a third conjugation verb, like 'dico' [I say] itself. (Originally benedico was written as two words 'bene and dico') . That gives us 'benedicat'.
So we've got:
Deus benedicat amorem nostrum.
But don't rush, there's more:
Word order is not absolutely critical in Latin, so QM's word order means the same as that one. It's just that God is the important word, you are , in effect, addressing God, and he's the subject of the verb (and, in a short sentence, the subject normally precedes the verb).
So you can have " Deus amorem nostrum benedicat" That, to me, sounds better.It scans better.It would be my choice.
Now , I suggest you follow QM's advice .If you are a Catholic it's odds on that the Church itself has some preferred, conventional, form of Latin word order ( or even some other words !) for this.
Fred, when Mallam queried my first effort, I thought I'd better check and my Latin dictionary - admittedly, merely the Pocket Oxford - it clearly said 'with dative'. So, I was perfectly content to be corrected. Now you're telling me I was, in effect, right. My knowledge of the language is too distant and out of practice to argue the point any further, so over to you two!
Sorry for the delay in replying. I seem too be working the late shift on this site. I hope you haven�t handed over to us two completely, Qmr. I think you may still find this interesting.
Fred, I confess I hadn't consulted a dictionary any more than I suspect Qmr had, and like him expressed a preference and stressed the importance of checking around. I never thought he was wrong, so there was no need for him to be �content to be corrected� as he puts it.
But your post did send me straight to L&S, and I was not greatly impressed by it. I too usually cling to some authority or other in every language as at least a lodestar for this turning world, but as I tried to say on the Sitting room thread, nothing is ever that simple in language. So I was not all that devastated to find that L&S�s examples with the accusative for late and eccl. Lat. are pretty inconclusive. And their references for both acc and dat are full of counterexamples.
We all agree on the dative in classical Latin, but you certainly can�t automatically assume that in late and ecclesiastical Latin, when it meant " to bless" it took the accusative. I can see why the Pocket Oxford cut a long story short by saying 'with dative'.
If you follow up some of L&S�s examples you may find it quite shocking. I shall return!
Fred, I confess I hadn't consulted a dictionary any more than I suspect Qmr had, and like him expressed a preference and stressed the importance of checking around. I never thought he was wrong, so there was no need for him to be �content to be corrected� as he puts it.
But your post did send me straight to L&S, and I was not greatly impressed by it. I too usually cling to some authority or other in every language as at least a lodestar for this turning world, but as I tried to say on the Sitting room thread, nothing is ever that simple in language. So I was not all that devastated to find that L&S�s examples with the accusative for late and eccl. Lat. are pretty inconclusive. And their references for both acc and dat are full of counterexamples.
We all agree on the dative in classical Latin, but you certainly can�t automatically assume that in late and ecclesiastical Latin, when it meant " to bless" it took the accusative. I can see why the Pocket Oxford cut a long story short by saying 'with dative'.
If you follow up some of L&S�s examples you may find it quite shocking. I shall return!
Some examples as referred to in my last post:
A1 � Vulg. Gen. 24, 48 does not have the accusative as L&S claim, but actually has the dative! And all other occurrences in Genesis 24 are also dative exc for another nom as in Psalm 112, 2 and one genitive!
Vulg. Psa. 102, 1 sq. has the dative as advertised. Ditto all other occurrences there.
A2 � one accusative: requievit die septimo eumque benedixit, and a slew of datives, inc. the Vulgate, which has the canonical version of the selfsame text in the dative:
Vulg. Gen. 2, 3: et requievit die septimo...et benedixit diei septimo
Mark 6, 41 also dative.
Vulg. Psa. 113, 12 is a mistake for 113, 20! Not �sometimes� dative, but passim!
Vulg. Psa. 64, 12: dative..
Fred, you say �Word order is not absolutely critical in Latin.� It isn�t for the denotation but it is for the connotation. Precisely because as you say, in a short sentence, the subject normally precedes the verb, it would not be making God the important word to put it first! And it would not be giving the hortative subjunctive due weight to put that in the verb�s normal place at the end either. I think that was Qmr�s feeling in the first place, and that was why he had �Benedicat Deus� and why I went along with that. My feeling is still the same.
I agree that the Church itself has some preferred, conventional, form of Latin word order, and that is it!
And not only the Roman Church. I have the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in Latin, and it parallels the Roman missal and prayers of the rosary both in that respect and in favouring the dative with it.
Isn�t this fun?
A1 � Vulg. Gen. 24, 48 does not have the accusative as L&S claim, but actually has the dative! And all other occurrences in Genesis 24 are also dative exc for another nom as in Psalm 112, 2 and one genitive!
Vulg. Psa. 102, 1 sq. has the dative as advertised. Ditto all other occurrences there.
A2 � one accusative: requievit die septimo eumque benedixit, and a slew of datives, inc. the Vulgate, which has the canonical version of the selfsame text in the dative:
Vulg. Gen. 2, 3: et requievit die septimo...et benedixit diei septimo
Mark 6, 41 also dative.
Vulg. Psa. 113, 12 is a mistake for 113, 20! Not �sometimes� dative, but passim!
Vulg. Psa. 64, 12: dative..
Fred, you say �Word order is not absolutely critical in Latin.� It isn�t for the denotation but it is for the connotation. Precisely because as you say, in a short sentence, the subject normally precedes the verb, it would not be making God the important word to put it first! And it would not be giving the hortative subjunctive due weight to put that in the verb�s normal place at the end either. I think that was Qmr�s feeling in the first place, and that was why he had �Benedicat Deus� and why I went along with that. My feeling is still the same.
I agree that the Church itself has some preferred, conventional, form of Latin word order, and that is it!
And not only the Roman Church. I have the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in Latin, and it parallels the Roman missal and prayers of the rosary both in that respect and in favouring the dative with it.
Isn�t this fun?
Oh, and didn�t you see my cheeky reply to your post about the Inner Temple on an earlier thread, Grace? Ecclesiastical Latin all right, but we had three datives with benedico there, and no accusatives: "Benedicto benedicatur" �benedicas nobis, te quaesumus, et hisce creaturis tuis�!
Blimey, Mallam, I wish had your gift for reading L and S differently from their own text! The only dative in A1 is the example given after " rarely with dative" ('benedic Domino ' in Vulgate Psalm 102,1) Where do they quote Vulgate Genesis24,48.?
In A2 beginning 'of men and things' not one is dative. Do you, perhaps , think that " requievit die septimo eumque benedixit' has 'benedixit' with a dative object ? Which word do you think the object is ? The object, in the accusative, is in eumque ! (It's the accusative 'eum' plus the suffix, or if we're being technical, 'copulative particle', -que signifying 'and' ).
It's too late for me to flog through the rest, I don't see much point in labouring. I'll take it that Land S , being right so far, are right on the rest.
On the grace, please say which of the words there you think are objects ,or an object, of a verb benedico.
In A2 beginning 'of men and things' not one is dative. Do you, perhaps , think that " requievit die septimo eumque benedixit' has 'benedixit' with a dative object ? Which word do you think the object is ? The object, in the accusative, is in eumque ! (It's the accusative 'eum' plus the suffix, or if we're being technical, 'copulative particle', -que signifying 'and' ).
It's too late for me to flog through the rest, I don't see much point in labouring. I'll take it that Land S , being right so far, are right on the rest.
On the grace, please say which of the words there you think are objects ,or an object, of a verb benedico.
1st of 3 answers
Oh c�mon, fred, you�re just trying to wind me up, aren�t you? If by any chance you're not, then with Cromwell I say "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." And that L&S may at least be misleading at times. Homer is allowed to nod, and as the Japanese say, even monkeys fall from the trees!
I�m not reading L and S differently from their own text. I see that their text and references are contradictory in this case. Yes, the only dative given (i.e. cited, printed) in A1 is the example after " rarely with dative" ('benedic Domino ' in Vulgate Psalm), but they give references for the citations, and also references with no citations. Perhaps you don�t believe that anyone could be so obsessive as to follow all of those references up. But I did, as I said above. And you may yet do the same, and find it a disconcerting experience.
Oh c�mon, fred, you�re just trying to wind me up, aren�t you? If by any chance you're not, then with Cromwell I say "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." And that L&S may at least be misleading at times. Homer is allowed to nod, and as the Japanese say, even monkeys fall from the trees!
I�m not reading L and S differently from their own text. I see that their text and references are contradictory in this case. Yes, the only dative given (i.e. cited, printed) in A1 is the example after " rarely with dative" ('benedic Domino ' in Vulgate Psalm), but they give references for the citations, and also references with no citations. Perhaps you don�t believe that anyone could be so obsessive as to follow all of those references up. But I did, as I said above. And you may yet do the same, and find it a disconcerting experience.
2nd of 3 answers
Let us leave aside the examples with the passive infinitive in an accusative and infinitive construction, where of course the accusative marks the subject and not the object (benedici Deum) and the gerundive construction, where we actually have the nominative (Deus benedicendus), both of which may be taken merely to imply an underlying accusative, inasmuch as they are not �benedici Deo� and �Deo benedicendum�, with the gerund instead of the gerundive, which would both equally mean literally �for God to be blessed�, but involving the circumlocution �for blessing to be made to God�, to accommodate the dative. These examples are not very conclusive because there is not much to recommend the notoriously erratic behaviour of such constructions when there are more straightforward constructions derived from the alternative use of the accusative.
After those moot examples, they don�t quote Vulgate Genesis 24, 48 as you seem to think I claim: what they do is give it as a reference for the accusative with benedico, and if you read the Vulgate at that point, it doesn�t contain a single example of the accusative with benedico! Only the dative: it has �adoravi Dominum benedicens Domino Deo domini mei� �I adored the Lord, blessing the Lord God of my lord�. Do you suppose some sub thought that Dominum went with benedicens?
And the dative with benedico they do quote from Vulgate Psalm 102, 1 sq, if you follow that up, turns out to be one of six in that psalm alone. Not �rare� in that short psalm, then.
Let us leave aside the examples with the passive infinitive in an accusative and infinitive construction, where of course the accusative marks the subject and not the object (benedici Deum) and the gerundive construction, where we actually have the nominative (Deus benedicendus), both of which may be taken merely to imply an underlying accusative, inasmuch as they are not �benedici Deo� and �Deo benedicendum�, with the gerund instead of the gerundive, which would both equally mean literally �for God to be blessed�, but involving the circumlocution �for blessing to be made to God�, to accommodate the dative. These examples are not very conclusive because there is not much to recommend the notoriously erratic behaviour of such constructions when there are more straightforward constructions derived from the alternative use of the accusative.
After those moot examples, they don�t quote Vulgate Genesis 24, 48 as you seem to think I claim: what they do is give it as a reference for the accusative with benedico, and if you read the Vulgate at that point, it doesn�t contain a single example of the accusative with benedico! Only the dative: it has �adoravi Dominum benedicens Domino Deo domini mei� �I adored the Lord, blessing the Lord God of my lord�. Do you suppose some sub thought that Dominum went with benedicens?
And the dative with benedico they do quote from Vulgate Psalm 102, 1 sq, if you follow that up, turns out to be one of six in that psalm alone. Not �rare� in that short psalm, then.
3rd of 3 answers
You say �In A2 beginning 'of men and things' not one is dative.� Why only the beginning? The next thing they say is once again �Sometimes with dat.: benedixit domui Israel, Vulg. Psa. 113, 12 ; 64, 12.� Again, if you follow that up Vulg. Psa. 113, 12 is a mistake for 113, 20, as I say above. Not very confidence-inspiring, is it? And there�s not just one dative there, but a slew of them, followed smartly by a fake dative in �benedicti Domino� (blessed by the Lord). However, Vulg. Psa. 64, 12 has the straightforward dative.
Your question whether I think that "requievit die septimo eumque benedixit' has 'benedixit' with a dative object is just plain insulting. Of course I know the object is �eum�. And before they go on to say �Sometimes with dat.� they send you to Vulg. Gen. 2, 3, which as I say has the canonical version of the selfsame text in the dative: requievit die septimo...et benedixit diei septimo�. Do you think that has �benedixit� with an accusative object then? Where is it? �Die septimo� is ablative, and lo, �diei septimo� which is the object is in the dative again. This is the canonical version of the selfsame text, remember!
Mark 6, 41 reverts to the accusative with 'benedixit': �intuens in caelum benedixit et fregit panes�
On the grace, the words there I know, not just think, are objects of a verb benedico, and definitely straightforward dative direct objects, are �nobis� and �hisce creaturis tuis� in �benedicas nobis, te quaesumus, et hisce creaturis tuis�. In "Benedicto benedicatur", �benedicto� is a dative direct object which has been passivized, and therefore is the semantic subject of that passive, i.e. �The Blessed One be blessed� (lit. �To the Blessed One be blessed�).
So as I said, we had three datives with benedico there, and no accusatives.
You say �In A2 beginning 'of men and things' not one is dative.� Why only the beginning? The next thing they say is once again �Sometimes with dat.: benedixit domui Israel, Vulg. Psa. 113, 12 ; 64, 12.� Again, if you follow that up Vulg. Psa. 113, 12 is a mistake for 113, 20, as I say above. Not very confidence-inspiring, is it? And there�s not just one dative there, but a slew of them, followed smartly by a fake dative in �benedicti Domino� (blessed by the Lord). However, Vulg. Psa. 64, 12 has the straightforward dative.
Your question whether I think that "requievit die septimo eumque benedixit' has 'benedixit' with a dative object is just plain insulting. Of course I know the object is �eum�. And before they go on to say �Sometimes with dat.� they send you to Vulg. Gen. 2, 3, which as I say has the canonical version of the selfsame text in the dative: requievit die septimo...et benedixit diei septimo�. Do you think that has �benedixit� with an accusative object then? Where is it? �Die septimo� is ablative, and lo, �diei septimo� which is the object is in the dative again. This is the canonical version of the selfsame text, remember!
Mark 6, 41 reverts to the accusative with 'benedixit': �intuens in caelum benedixit et fregit panes�
On the grace, the words there I know, not just think, are objects of a verb benedico, and definitely straightforward dative direct objects, are �nobis� and �hisce creaturis tuis� in �benedicas nobis, te quaesumus, et hisce creaturis tuis�. In "Benedicto benedicatur", �benedicto� is a dative direct object which has been passivized, and therefore is the semantic subject of that passive, i.e. �The Blessed One be blessed� (lit. �To the Blessed One be blessed�).
So as I said, we had three datives with benedico there, and no accusatives.
Latest Posts
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News11 mins ago
Technology17 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News17 mins ago
