Latin translation?

[Brian F]

De gustibus non est disputamdum

I'd go with something Greek since the letters look cool.

I'm already getting "With it or on it" inked onto me (check out 300 for the reference). But thanks for the suggestion!

[thescot]

I'm already getting "With it or on it" inked onto me (check out 300 for the reference). But thanks for the suggestion!

Now that's cool!

And I didn't even have to check the movie. I knew about the Spartan mothers.

[hallmarktex]

I'm already getting "With it or on it" inked onto me (check out 300 for the reference). But thanks for the suggestion!

I bet the Greek speaking Spartans would be offended to have their saying remembered by it's Latin (vulgar) derivative. Besides, what could be more eloquent than "Συν ται η επι ται!"

[Brian F]

I bet the Greek speaking Spartans would be offended to have their saying remembered by it's Latin (vulgar) derivative. Besides, what could be more eloquent than "Συν ται η επι ται!"

It shall be in Greek, my friend, don't worry! I just didn't feel like looking up the appropriate thought at the time!

[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.

[The Supreme Canuck]

You know, you've gone and jogged my memory - I remember omitting "est" frequently. So of course you're right. Thanks - I've re-learnt something here.

[McFarkus]

EGO nunquam recubo Tamen EGO sum a barbarus

or .Nunquam recubo tamen sum barbarus'. In latin the Ego is understood most of the time.

[Galician]

or .Nunquam recubo tamen sum barbarus'. In latin the Ego is understood most of the time.

Though, as I noted above, "recubo" means to lie down or rest, as on a bed.

P.S. I can think of nothing scarier facing than a bunch of barbarians hopped up on caffeine and never able to sleep

[McFarkus]

Though, as I noted above, "recubo" means to lie down or rest, as on a bed.

My bad!!