Please translate the following to Latin.

"To those who were maimed, to those who perished, and to the fathers
who buried their sons"

(Let me know if this is underpriced--I don't know how easy/hard it is
to do Latin translations.)

---

Clarification of Question by biophysicist-ga on 17 Feb 2005 06:42 PST

I had posted this on behalf of someone else.  Now I've found
out what the purpose of it is.  It's to be tattooed on his back, in a
circle around the eagle, globe, and anchor that's already there.

Under the circumstances, I'm going to raise the price (if I can figure
out how to do so).  The answer *must* be extremely accurate.  If there
are alternate phrasings with identical meanings, I would personally
prefer the shorter one, but definitely not at the expense of accuracy.

I don't know Latin, but I know the idea of latin. The words that you
have, "maimed" and "perished" are fairly recently evolved English
words. You wouldn't be able to get an exact translation. It would be
along the lines of "To those who were hurt, to those who died, and to
the fathers (Pater Familiari I think that one is) who buried their
sons".

It is true that English has more words than other languages, so
perhaps it's not possible to convey these nuances in Latin.  However,
"maim" comes to English from French.  "Perish" comes from a French
word that comes from Latin.  So I'm hopeful that there words may exist
in Latin.  If not, could someone who knows Latin please tell me so I
can consider rewording the text?

Mancis, mortuis et patribus quis suos filios sepeliverunt.

The previous comments about translating English to Latin are not
correct. No translation from one language to another is entirely
precise, but that does not mean that things cannot be translated.

There are different ways of translating your phrase, but one of the
benefits of Latin is that a lot can be said in a few words. What I
have here would often be translated as 'To the maimed, to the dead and
to fathers who have buried their sons', but can equally accurately be
translated as you have suggested.

Hmm, "It is true that English has more words than other languages, so
perhaps it's not possible to convey these nuances in Latin."

That's utter b/s. It is simply not true. There was a time when people
saw one language as superior over another, therefore better evolved.
We now know better. Read the interesting works of Franz Boas and
General Powell, the `fathers' of modern language research.

Any concept is expressible in any language, including their nuances.
Some languages use one word to convey a concept, others use three for
the same one. But that doesn't mean that speakers of that language
cannot make these nuances.

Okay...  I had posted this on behalf of someone else.  Now I've found
out what the purpose of it is.  It's to be tattooed on his back, in a
circle around the eagle, globe, and anchor that's already there.

Under the circumstances, I'm going to raise the price (if I can figure
out how to do so).  The answer *must* be extremely accurate.  If there
are alternate phrasings with identical meanings, I would personally
prefer the shorter one, but definitely not at the expense of accuracy.

On the topic of languages, what I meant was that one can't necessarily
translate word for word and still preserve the subtle nuances. 
Obviously people can still express ideas in all languages, but
sometimes the poetic qualities can be lost in a direct translation
because of changes in the pace and number of words.  However,
benmoreassynt seems to feel that Latin has words that are comparable
to "maim" and "perish."

(Incidentally, see recent papers in Science or Nature about a tribe in
South America whose language does not have words for numbers.  The
claim is basically that because they cannot express numerical concepts
clearly, they have impaired ability to do math.  This is considered
highly controversial, though.)

I got the following Translation for:- 

 "To those who were maimed, to those who perished, and to the fathers
who buried their sons"

In Latin it's:- 

"Illis quisnam erant trunco , illis quisnam pereo , quod ut abbas
quisnam seputus suum filius "

1. "Illis quisnam erant trunco , illis quisnam pereo , quod ut abbas
quisnam seputus suum filius "

This is very wrong. "Erant trunco" means "they were I slaughter."
Doesn't make any more sense in Latin than it does in English. A Roman
would not understand the rest either.

2. "Mancis, mortuis et patribus quis suos filios sepeliverunt."

This is good, but I have some changes. 

3. My version is: 

"Mancis, mortuis et patribus qui filios sepulierunt."

1. qui, not quis. This is a straight relative, not an interogative or indefinite.
2. remove suos. Latin is very comfortable with that sort of
construction; it's clear whose son they are. Suos would in such a case
call too much attention to it, e.g., "who buried their very own sons."
3. sepulierunt is acceptable for sepuliverunt, and preferable in this
sort of pithy context.

Literally speaking, this is "to the maimed, the dead, and the fathers
who buried sons." This strikes me as the sort of pithy Latin that gets
inscribed on seals and suchnot, and is often translated expansively.
Using "pereo" (mancis, peritis et patribus) rubs me the wrong way, for
both sound and meaning. "Maimed" and "buried" are simple, clear and
hard word. "Perished" is a soft one, in English and Latin.

Can ben agree or disagree? I took two semesters of Latin prose comp,
but a few years ago.

If you can get some agreement on mine feel free to close it down. I
doubt any of us want to make $10 off a Marine who wants to commemorate
the dead.

One more comment. Mancis (maimed) may not be best. I'd need to
research usage more carefully, but I believe it has a strong negative
connotation, like "defective" or "cripled." By itself, I think the
first meaning would be "to the disabled" not "to those who were MADE
disabled." It's a very strong word--a motto beginning with "macis" has
punch--but I have qualms.

I'd switch "mancis" to "mutilis". "Mutilatis," verb, would be
parallel, but I don't like a Latin motto that starts with such a close
English cognate. You could also use "truncis" but it's poetic. If you
wanted to go in the direction of "injured," "laesis" would  one
choice. But I think the point is to look back from the distance of
time, when wounded has become maimed.

Anyone want to find a positive instance of mancis?

Sorry, rethinking. I think it's strong, but works. "Maimed" is strong
too. Juvenal uses it to describe his military wounds,
bitterly--http://www.jimbabwe.com/khl/juvenal.htm .

lectiodifficilior, thanks a lot for your comments.  During the weeks
that this wasn't being answered on GA, I obtained a translation from a
Latin professor (a colleague of a friend):

Mancis et mortuis et patribus qui natos sepelivere

(sepelivere is a shortened form of sepeliverunt that means the same
thing, they tell me.)

This is very similar to what you suggested:
Mancis, mortuis et patribus qui filios sepulierunt

The main difference is filios vs. natos.  Perhaps you can explain the
different connotations of the two?

As for the choice of "mancis," I also had a question about the
appropriateness of "mancis."  Everyone who doublechecked the
translation I listed above thought it was fine except for the company
chaplain (a priest trained at the Vatican), who claims that "mancis"
is used only for inanimate objects.  However, the text that you link
to seems to prove him incorrect.

Thank you again for taking the time to look at this.

His translation is good too. 

Filius is the most bare ("unmarked") word for son. Natos is used for
son, but still feels the weight of its origin in the verb nascor, to
produce. It's a slightly indirect way of saying it, emphasizing the
productive part--more like "offspring." In Church Latin, I think
filius is triumphant, eg., "In nomine patris et filius..." (In the
name of the father and of the son...). Natus is fine, and may be more
common in the authors the classicist reads.

Sepelivere is fine. It's an alternate form, but a very common one.
When you'd doing a tattoo, you might as well use forms with fewer
letters. I think -ere forms crop up more often in poetry, but I
couldn't confirm any difference in tone in the various grammars at my
disposal. It has metrical advantages to sepeliverunt, so it may be
just because it fits better in poetic lines.

Glad it worked out, and best.