REQ: Latin translation for HPMOR

Eliezer Yudkowsky

If anyone can do non-wrong Latin, I could use a translation of the following for HPMOR. The original is supposed to be circa 1200.

No rescuer hath the rescuer.
No Lord hath the champion,
no mother and no father,
only nothingness above.

If anyone can do non-wrong Latin, I could use a translation of the following for HPMOR. The original is supposed to be circa 1200.

No rescuer hath the rescuer.
No Lord hath the champion,
no mother and no father,
only nothingness above.

Okay, I'll stop lurking and register, if it will help get a new HPMOR out. Here is my translation:

non est salvatori salvator

neque victori Dominus

nec pater nec mater

modo nihilitas supera

I do have confidence in my translation, which I suppose is a tiny amount of evidence in its favor. The sense is very well preserved, and it has a rhythm that flows well (admittedly subjective). I did not fit it to a classical Latin poetic form such as a hexameter or elegaic couplet; I could do this as well but I doubt I could do it while leaving the sense strictly unchanged.

(note for fellow Latinists: the construction in the first two lines is the dative of possession, which I think is very nice for this metaphorical (as opposed to physical possession) sense of "hath")

2Adam Scherlis2y

In "no Lord hath the champion", the subject of "hath" is "champion". I think this matches the Latin, yes? "nor for a champion [is there] a lord"

1atykhyy1y

I suppose that is a possible reading, but in my opinion a most unnatural one. Compare: "No dog has the home". This can technically be parsed as "the home [a specific home I'm talking about] has no dog", but this would be a very weird word order in English. Furthermore, if one is making a simple general statement, which is one reading of the OP verse, one is by that token not talking of a specific something, so one does not expect a definite article: "No dog has a home" or "No home has a dog". "The" would be warranted in a didactic or normative text, e.g. "The [good] home has no dog" or "The [good] home shall have no dog," and in fact reverting the OP verse to normal word order - "The rescuer has no rescuer / The champion has no lord" - enables one to read it as a didactic statement (which seems reasonable), but inverting the word order renders such sentences unintelligible. In fact, the prior probability of the definite article in that position of the OP verse is so low that it only really registered on my mind after I read your comment. Word order in English is so strict that I was always perceiving it as "No rescuer has a rescuer / no lord has a champion", and I suspect I am not the only one. You yourself used the indefinite article in your rewording!

No Lord hath the champion,

This is how you write 'ye olde english' sounding english. No power has he to face the dark lord. No force of will should rival that black terror. But cunning he has yet, to hide from him.

Keeping this in mind:

"The rescuer has no rescuer [himself]. The champion has no lord" sounds much more natural than "A rescuer does not have the [which?] rescuer. A lord does not have the champion".

You can introduce a person by saying "the champion", speaking about the archetype. You can't start talking about a generic champion and then say he's m... (read more)

22

REQ: Latin translation for HPMOR

22

22

22

REQ: Latin translation for HPMOR

22

22