Considering the original phrase:
The king who all citizens love is happy.
(Portuguese: Feliz é o rei a quem todos os cidadãos amam.)
Here is a proposed Latin translation:
Felix est rex is quem omnes cives amant
Is the pronoun "is" necessary?
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Not sure where you got that is from. The original phrase, which seems to be from a 1845 book of Latin exercises, does not has it. For instance, see here.
In any case, is as pronoun means "he", or as demonstrative, "this/that", so maybe the phrase with the is could be translated as
Happy is he the king who all citizens love
or
Happy is this/that king who all citizens love
-
1Appreciated. The translation to latin I got is from someone who translated from the portuguese version. But any way, I couldn`t found a reason as well.– ryuichiJul 26, 2018 at 7:37
-
1It could easily be a happy king is he whom all citizens love with felix fronted for emphasis.– AnonymJul 26, 2018 at 19:04
-
In this context, where is agrees with the subject, I think he would be a less likely translation: this/that is better. It gives extra emphasis but it is optional. P.S. A defining relative clause (subjunctive) might be more appropriate here, in which case is is desirable: felix est rex is quem omnes ament.– Cerberus ♦May 29 at 16:21
The best of Latin: the best of English: happy is the king; he (is), whom (quem) all citizens love. To omit "is" may be acceptable; but, the assertion becomes sloppy. Guys with the erudition of Cicero would not thank you.
-
I don't get this argument at all. The antecedent of the relative clause is rex.. Why does it need a demonstrative in apposition? What's sloppy about omitting it? Jul 29, 2018 at 21:40
-
@Colin Fine: Here, "king" is being emphasised (possibly for a dramtic effect); HE, whom...Omit "si", which you may do, the emphasis is reduced; assertion is weakened.– tonyJul 31, 2018 at 9:11