Quote Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck View Post
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.