Latin Translation Check

[ravensnake]

I've got a few Latin phrases that I was hoping someone would be able to check for me. I've been studying declensions and cases and everything for the last week but I'm not 100% sure I've translated these right. Given that my lead character was born a Roman, it'd be embarrassing if he messed up his mother-tongue!

cursed people = exsecrati homines

Comments

[alextiefling]

As goldvermillion87 indicates, the exact form of the word in each instance depends on its role in the sentence. In answer to your last question, every part of a compound noun phrase declines together. So 'good friend' is amicus bonus, but 'of a good friend' is amici boni. The vocative is a little odd, in that it's the same as the nominative for all but certain second-declension masculine nouns and adjectives. 'Prince' is princeps, which is third-declension, so it'll be the same in the nominative. But 'prince' as a title didn't really exist in the classical era; Gaius princeps would be understood as 'Gaius, one of the foremost men', or 'Gaius, the leader'.

On to the translations themselves:

I prefer maledictus to exsecratus for 'accursed', although either will do. Damnatus also works, as it means 'condemned'. For 'people', homines is correct if it's an arbitrary group of people, but a population is populus, and a clan is gens (both singular). All that said, exsecrati homines would be understood, but it's more usual - except in specific instances - to put the adjective second: homines exsecrati. My father's Latin grace from college refers to nos miseri homines et egeni - 'we wretched and unworthy people' - putting one adjective each side, so these things are flexible.

Senatus is a senate. The stem of homo, hominis is homin-, so the genitive plural is hominum. (The Christmas carol 'Angelus ad Virginem' refers to salutem hominum, 'the salvation of (all) people', in its first verse.) So senatus hominum exsecratorum would be understood as intended. Note that hominum exsecratorum doesn't then decline, even if senatus does. But the sort of 'people' that has a senate is definitely populus, as in SPQR: Senatus Populusque Romanus, so senatus populi exsecrati might be better.

The ablative of description doesn't use a preposition, and ruber loses its 'e' in most cases, so the red-eyed devils are diaboli oculis rubris. Again, only diaboli declines any further.

'Devils of the sun' would be diaboli solis, with the same note.

[10littlebullets]

+1

The distinction between 'people' as in 'multiple persons' and 'people' as in 'a people, population, folk, etc,' is much muddier in English than in the Romance languages. Use homines only if you really are going for 'cursed men' (in the wider gender-neutral sense) rather than 'the cursed race.' Since they have a senate, it's almost certainly the latter.

I'll also second the suggestion of maledictus, which sounds a bit less clunky than exsecratus. So populus maledictus and senatus populi maledicti.

Another option might be a substantive use of maledictus alone: maledicti, 'the accursed,' and senatus maledictorum, 'senate of the accursed.'

And another +1 for diaboli oculis rubris.

[penhaligonblue]

+1 for use of a substantive noun instead of tacking a translation of 'people' onto your adjective.

[alextiefling]

Agreed. I should have thought of that.

[ravensnake]

I like senatus maledictorum. I originally just wanted 'senate of the cursed' and only came up with exsecratus for cursed and I didn't think I could use only the adjective by itself so I stuck people in there as well. This suggestion is much better though, so thanks for that!

[10littlebullets]

Another note: even though everything alextiefling said about adjectives, conventions, and flexible word order is bang-on, I want to add that there are places where it would be not just unconventional but really strange to move the adjective around. Titles are among them--you definitely want Gaius princeps (or however you decide to translate 'prince') instead of princeps Gaius, which just sounds off to my ear, like saying 'The Great Alexander' instead of 'Alexander the Great.' You can see examples of this in English borrowings of names with titles: Oedipus Rex, Julius Caesar, etc.

[ravensnake]

Thanks for that note on word order for titles. I'm using regulus for prince, and even though there are only three people in the story who even have Roman names that can be declined I want to make sure I get it right. It's a bit of a running gag that my MC insists on correcting the people who get it wrong (of which there are many).

[10littlebullets]

Sounds good! You might not even have to bother with the vocative if the Latin phrases are being dropped into an English sentence, as opposed to one character addressing another in full-on Latin. If a character says "I spoke to the Senatus Maledictorum" it's not really necessary to put senatus in the dative--actually, trying to do things like that is a recipe for a headache, even (especially?) if the speaker is fluent in both. (As I discovered to my chagrin when trying to talk about literature while switching between English and French, where book titles are subject to the same subject/verb agreement rules as any other noun. So I would end up saying things like "Les Misérables are an interesting example of--oh god I really need more sleep, don't I?")

[ravensnake]

The ablative of description doesn't use a preposition, and ruber loses its 'e' in most cases, so the red-eyed devils are diaboli oculis rubris. Again, only diaboli declines any further.

That was the one I spent the most time trying to figure out. I wasn't sure about using the preposition either but all those cases confuse me and I wasn't sure if what I meant was entirely clear without the preposition, so thanks for clearing that up!