I'm studying Augustine's Sermon 46, "De Pastoribus," largely via translations into Spanish and English. There are a number of places where my English source and my Spanish source disagree, but perhaps none are more blatant than in section 11. The relevant passage in Latin reads:
et tu dic: "Si in Christo pie vixeris, abundabunt tibi omnia bona. Et si filios non habes, suscipies et enutries omnes, et nemo tibi morietur".
The English translation goes:
You say instead: “If you live a holy life in Christ, all good things will be yours in abundance. If you do not have children, you will embrace and nourish all men, and none of them shall die”. (source, ostensibly from the Liturgy of the Hours; cf. LotH 1010)
The Spanish translation makes much more sense to me in context:
di tú: «Si vives piadosamente en Cristo, abundarás en toda clase de bienes; y si no tienes hijos, los recibirás, los criarás a todos y ninguno se te morirá»
you say: "If you live piously in Christ, you will abound in every kind of good thing; and if you do not have children, you will receive them, you will raise them all, and none of them will die. [my translation]
Breaking up the Latin phrase in question on Latin-English.com, I see:
- suscipies: undertake, support, receive
- enutries: nurture, rear
- omnes: all men, everything, all
It seems then that the difference in translation is due to a different understanding of omnes in context – in particular, the English translator seems to believe that it must apply to both suscipies and enutries (you will receive and nurture all), while the Spanish translator understands it as applying to only enutries (of those you receive, you will nurture all).
If I've analyzed the problem correctly, which translator is more accurately applying rules of Latin grammar? Or is this a truly ambiguous case where context reigns?