What is the correct transformation for ”no man is evil” or ”nobody is bad” type of phrase? Is nemo malus or nemo est malus correct? I want the meaning of the text to be simply that there is good in everyone and no one truly is ”bad” or ”evil”. There isn’t really much context, I’d like to write it somewhere as sort of a ”quote” type of a thing.
1
-
2The only difference between your two suggestions is the est, which can be left out, though in this particular phrase I would keep it in. But if you want better and more accurate answers, can you clarify what exactly you're looking for? What meaning do you want to get across? What context will this be used? You can edit the question to include additional information.– cmw ♦Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 14:26
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
In the Vulgate, Romans 3:10 was translated as follows:
sicut scriptum est quia non est iustus quisquam
As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one.
So in contradiction to God's word, that would be:
non est malus quisquam
There is no one bad, not even one.
answered Feb 5, 2022 at 10:49
-
Thank u for your answer! What if I want it not-so-religious, is ”non est malus” just ”there is no one bad”? Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 11:52
-
I believe the word quisquam is added just to emphasize that there are no exceptions. It might also be translated "There is no one at all..." So, yes, you could leave it out if you want. Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 12:33
-
-
2@user10758 To me a mere non est malus sounds like "he is not bad" or "it is not an appletree". You should have a pronoun of some sort.– Joonas Ilmavirta ♦Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 14:33
-
Thank u for answering! Do you have a suggestion on how you would translate something like ”no one is bad”? Commented Feb 5, 2022 at 14:43