Latin translation?

[Galician]

Yeti, I'm not sure where your emphasis is, but for better sounding Latin, I would suggest:

Barbarus sum, sed numquam decipio

"I'm a barbarian, but I never lie."

btw, the word suggested above by Zardoz would mean to lie down

[McG]

Are ye gittin the tattoo as a tribute tae yon wee Australian fella Mel Gibson, he hee!!! sorry couldnae resist!!

[The Supreme Canuck]

Barbarus sum, sed numquam decipio

"I'm a barbarian, but I never lie."

Quite good. But if you want it a bit shorter, "Barbarus sum sed non decipio," should do.

"I am a barbarian, but I do not lie."

Or, "Barbarus sum et non decipio."

"I am a barbarian and I do not lie."

Also, as a word of warning, classical Latin does not use commas, as far as I know. Medieval Latin may, but classical does not.

Edit: Beloitpiper - I think he just doesn't want bad Latin (gobledegook) on him.

[Galician]

You are quite right, Canuck, but as a Benedictine oblate brother, one bit of wisdom passed along to me from our scriptorium, was that one needs to adjust to the masses to be able to sell a manuscript.

P.S. I realized afterwards that the "sum" could be dropped, but not the "sed."

[The Supreme Canuck]

You are quite right, Canuck, but as a Benedictine oblate brother, one bit of wisdom passed along to me from our scriptorium, was that one needs to adjust to the masses to be able to sell a manuscript.

Too true. Just wanted to get the best grammar out there. Tattoos are, well, hard to wash off.

P.S. I realized afterwards that the "sum" could be dropped, but not the "sed."

Can the "sum" be dropped? That's the only verb in the first clause. I could (definitely) be wrong, but isn't that required? I can see not having an "ego," but the "sum" is necessary since you can't carry the 1st person singular meaning from the second clause to the first, isn't it?

"Barbarus et non decipio," would translate as "A barbarian and I do not lie," right? It seems correct in the translation, but in the Latin it would not be - the subject, "barbarus," does not match with the way the verb is conjugated (1st person singular). "Barbarus et non decipit" would be grammatical. If the noun in is the nominative, it is by definition the subject and requires are 3rd person verb.

[Galician]

Too true. Just wanted to get the best grammar out there. Tattoos are, well, hard to wash off.

Can the "sum" be dropped? That's the only verb in the first clause. I could (definitely) be wrong, but isn't that required? I can see not having an "ego," but the "sum" is necessary since you can't carry the 1st person singular meaning from the second clause to the first, isn't it? "Barbarus et non decipio," would translate as "A barbarian and I do not lie," right? It seems correct in the translation, but in the Latin it would not be - the subject, "barbarus," does not match with the way the verb is conjugated (1st person singular). "Barbarus et non decipit" would be grammatical. If the noun in is the nominative, it is by definition the subject and requires are 3rd person verb.

No, in both Latin and Greek, the verb "to be" can be omitted. Consider Aristotle's famous line, "ho anthropos, ho politikos." In this case, the person can be inferred from the verb in the second part of the sentence.

As to "sed" vs. "et," that would depend on Yeti's emphasis....and the price of each letter.