Poena funesta natus

< Previous | Next >

Faethin

Member
Spanish, Aeternae Veris Terra
Right, although the gender discrepancy would be obvious in the phrase

Poena funesta natus

I'd like to know if this translation is correct. I include the whole paragraph to add context:

Qui mortem invitavis
Poena funesta natus
Noli nomen vocare
Ille iterum veniet

Translation:

You, who invite death,
are born to an ill-fated grief
Don't call his name
That [man] will come again

Am I correct? Thanks in advance for any help.
 
  • Joca

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    Right, although the gender discrepancy would be obvious in the phrase

    Poena funesta natus

    I'd like to know if this translation is correct. I include the whole paragraph to add context:

    Qui mortem invitavis
    Poena funesta natus
    Noli nomen vocare
    Ille iterum veniet

    Translation:

    You, who invite death,
    are born to an ill-fated grief
    Don't call his name
    That [man] will come again

    Am I correct? Thanks in advance for any help.
    It doesn't look bad, but...

    1. poena actually is punishment
    2. I don't know the form invitavis. What mood and tense is that? Do you perhaps mean invitabis or invitavisti?
    3. I don't see what ille refers to. Death is mors, mortis and is feminine in Latin, so it should be illa rather than ille.

    Could you please check the original again?

    JC
     

    Faethin

    Member
    Spanish, Aeternae Veris Terra
    It doesn't look bad, but...

    1. poena actually is punishment
    2. I don't know the form invitavis. What mood and tense is that? Do you perhaps mean invitabis or invitavisti?
    3. I don't see what ille refers to. Death is mors, mortis and is feminine in Latin, so it should be illa rather than ille.

    Could you please check the original again?

    JC
    1. You're absolutely right. My bad. It's just that the Spanish word for grief and/or punishment is, precisely, pena. Alittle mix up by my part.
    2. I believe it is the simple past, second person. Just like, again, in Spanish, invitaste, "you invited".
    3. Ille, as far as I know, is "that [person]" as in, (sorry!) Spanish, aquél, which means "that (masculine) person over there".

    So the actual verse would be more like:

    You, who invited death,
    are born to an ill-fated punishment
    Don't call that name
    That man will come again


    I appreciate your comments.
     

    Joca

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    Hi Faethin

    I am still puzzled. I don't understand "invitavis"; it appears to be 2nd person singular, but what tense? Is that the whole poem, or are there any more stanzas or strophes to it? It might help to know.

    Cheers,

    JC
     

    Faethin

    Member
    Spanish, Aeternae Veris Terra
    2. I believe it is the simple past, second person. Just like, again, in Spanish, invitaste, "you invited".
    As I said, I believe it is in the simple past tense. There are other verses, but none of them mention the word invitavis.
     

    modus.irrealis

    Senior Member
    English, Canada
    I don't want to speak for Joca, but I think he's trying to say that the problem is that invitavis doesn't seem to be a Latin word at all. If it was the 2nd person singular perfect (sort of = simple past) of invito "invite", it would be invitavisti.

    I'd also add that I'm not sure poena funesta, being ablative, is best translated with "to." I think that "in," "with," "from," or "through" would be more accurate, but I find the ablative tricky so I can't pick which one. And also, as long your addressing a male, there is nothing wrong with the gender of natus.
     

    Faethin

    Member
    Spanish, Aeternae Veris Terra
    So right word would be invitavisti...

    Right, I did not know that. :p

    As for the gender, well if instead of poena funesta natus were poena funesta nata it would (however different from the one in question) still make some sort of sense. That was, in fact, the reason of the post: I was not sure whether the sentence had a meaning if it were with natus ot not.

    Ooookay, so, with all said corrections, the stanza would go:

    Qui mortem invitavisti
    Poena funesta natus
    Noli nomen vocare
    Ille iterum veniet

    Which is:

    You, who invited death,
    are born with an ill-fated punishment
    Don't call the name
    That man will come again

    Now that I remember, I've seen some cases where the ablative is left without a cum clause, which is implied. I believe this is one of those cases.

    Oh, and in case you're wondering, the lyrics refer to Final Fantasy's self-same Sephiroth.
     

    Whodunit

    Senior Member
    Deutschland ~ Deutsch/Sächsisch
    The poem doesn't make much sense to me eitehr. Here's my try to rephrase it:

    Tu qui mortem invitavisti
    poena funesta natus es,
    Noli nomen vocare!
    Ille iterum veniet.

    You, who invited death,
    were born in disastrous punishment.
    Do not call his name!
    That one will come again.

    However, I think that they mean it like this:

    Tu qui mortem invitavisti
    poena funesta natus es,
    Noli nomen suum vocare!
    Illa iterum veniet.

    You, who invited Death,
    were born in/under disastrous punishment.
    Do not call Death's name!
    He (= Death) will come again.

    I've found many distastrous translations on the Internet; some people even suggested "He is the invited Death" for the first line. :(
     

    Faethin

    Member
    Spanish, Aeternae Veris Terra
    Could you explain to me why it doesn't make much sense to you?

    Surely I don't know Latin as many on this forum do, but I can't help it: The verses are almost Spanish disguised as Latin, if you know what I mean. So I understand many of the things Whodunit was kind enough to point out as wrong (such as the lack of Tu in the first verse, and the es in the second verse); there are cases, in Spanish, in which the pronoun can omitted because of its implication in the verb.

    As for the suum in the third verse, I'm pretty sure (because of the context of the verse) that the nomen we're not supposed to call is the name of "he who invited death".

    Thanks for everything. I wait for your response.
     

    clara mente

    Senior Member
    USA English
    I must agree with Whodunit. The reference to death (which grammatically makes the most sense) must be rendered by "illa" The stanza starts off in the 2nd person indicative and continues with the use of the 2nd per. (polite imperative) "noli" thus, the latter reference to "ille" would not follow and therefore should revert back to "mortem".
     

    modus.irrealis

    Senior Member
    English, Canada
    Maybe it's best then to think that the original invitavis should be corrected to invitavit and not invitavisti, and get rid of the the whole "you" thing. Then you'd have something like

    He, who invited death,
    [was] born with an ill-fated punishment.
    Don't call [his] name.
    He will come again.

    That way you get ille referring to the subject of natus [est], which is of course masculine, so it's grammatically okay.
     

    clara mente

    Senior Member
    USA English
    Very astute observation, modus.
    You have bolied it down to only one "typo" which would simplify the the rest entirely. Reminds me of the court case in which this doctor was about to lose his licence for malpractice and his defense attorney showed the judge the original presciption. "One dose every 2-4 hrs" but the patient read it as "every 24 hrs." and subsequently died. Darn those little mispelled letters!
     

    Faethin

    Member
    Spanish, Aeternae Veris Terra
    Absolutely. I concur. This definitely is a typo. The way Modus puts it holds, basically, the whole meaning of the context in which the song, Advent: One-winged Angel (to which the verses belong), is presented.

    Thanks a lot to everybody! I sincerly appreciate your help.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top