What is the correct translation and usage of "sleep"?

Question

I'm trying to helping out my friend to write a story, the story has a scene where there is Latin sentences which the only sentence that I suppose to be written in Latin in the story but I can't figure it out.

So can anyone of you translate this?

Don't wake me up from my sleep.
And yet… will I see the light again?

I tried to use Google Translate, but it seems something off/odd with the "wake" and "sleep" part. So please let me know the correct translation.

Answer 1

Here's my attempt. I'm not specially good with translations, but I want to give it a try. Due to the way in which I have learnt Latin, it will have a post-classical flavor:

Noli me de somno meo suscitare

Numquid autem lucem denuo videbo?

A couple of notes:

• As you may note, Draconis preferred not to use noli because it sounds harsh. The alternative here would be ne me de somno suscites. Noli is the imperative form of a verb meaning not to want, and, as far as I know, is a standard form of saying don't. I agree that ne is more polite, but I perceive noli just as neutral as the original don't.
• Somnus means primarily sleep, but also dream, drowsiness, night, death, in a wider sense. To sleep is dormire (I sleep, dormio.)
• The verb suscitare literally means to raise sth up but is commonly used in the context of someone sleeping to mean to wake someone up (e.g. VG Act 12:7, and also classically.) Another verb is evigilare, but I'm hesitant about its proper usage. I also thought of educere as saying take me out of my dream, but I now think its further apart from what you originally meant.
• The way to link suscitare with I is through the accusative me.
• The way to link suscitare with somnus is with one of two prepositions: either de somno (cf. Gen 28:16) or e(x) somno (as suggested by L&S, probably the Classical way to do it.)
• Numquid is a standard interrogatory particle. Num is equivalent, and I think more used in classical times.
• Autem is an adversative conjunction than can perfectly translate to but, and (usually?) needs to be the second word of the sentence. Both num autem and numquid autem are attested at some point in Latin history. Particularly, num autem is attested by Pliny the Younger (I-II cent. AD.)
• Denuo is a rather uncommon adverb, but its primary meanings are anew, afresh, again.
• Videbo and aspiciam are both 1st person singular, future tense of verbs meaning to see (I will/will I see.) To me it seems that aspicio is more prone to mean to look at (with attention, in detail), while video is more directly to see/perceive with the eyes, just as your phrase seems to be desperately looking for.

Answer 2

I would say it like this:

Nē mē ē quiēte cieās. Sed…rursus lūcem aspiciam?

(EDIT: Standard disclaimer: the lines over the vowels are optional. I use them but many other people don't; they represent a distinction between sounds that disappeared in later Latin.)

The first sentence is fairly straightforward. Instead of the harsh nōlī+inf "don't…" I used nē+subj "please don't…", with the verb cieō "to move, to rouse". For sleep I used the rather poetic quiēs "rest, quiet".

The second sentence I'm less happy with. Sed and rursus are both rather prosaic words, and I feel there must be a more poetic way to say "ever again", but I don't know it. (Rursus is closer to "a second time".) Lūcem comes from lūx "light, daylight", often used figuratively to mean "life" (as in Aeneid 4, Anna refert, o lūci magis dilēcta sorōri "Anna replies, 'oh, you, more beloved to your sister than her own life'") and the verb is aspiciō "behold" in the subjunctive.