Neither is correct, and timetere isn't a real Latin word. A correct translation depends somewhat on whether the command is directed at one person (e.g., you, the bearer of the tattoo) or the world at large (e.g., those who see the tattoo).
For the former case (audience = one person), you could say Noli messorem timere or Ne messorem timueris. Ne messorem ...
There is a well-known Latin equivalent in fairly common use : carpe diem (literally, 'seize the day), taken from Horace, Odes 1.11. The full phrase is carpe diem quam minimum credula postero, implying that you should take nothing on trust for tomorrow.
Although it's not a literal translation of the Russian, it catches the sentiment exactly.
Pray to God but row away from the rocks.
You are correct in that ora means "pray" (it is the singular imperative of oro). Deo (dative of Deus) is the "to God" bit. Sed means "but," ab saxis (ablative plural) means "away from the rocks," and finally remiga is the singular imperative of remigo meaning "row."
Now, the meaning of the quote, as I take it, is ...
I would translate "not safe" with inconveniens or haud opportunus. I have always found "work" difficult to translate, since it reflects a post-industrial cultural division between "work" and "life" that the Romans would not have understood very well. My best shot would be personalize it: operantes (="those who are working").
This gives us:
I'd go for a wordplay:
Pater optime cerevisiam sapit
Just as the other answers, pater is straightforwardly father
The verb sapio means both to taste and to know/understand. Hence sapit is the right conjugation to speak about a third person (a "he", the father) who knows.
In Latin you have different words for knowing. Not sure how to describe them in ...
When (Sir) Terry Pratchett was knighted, he chose this phrase as his heraldic motto. The official translation in that context is Noli Timere Messorem.
This isn't the most natural word order (which would be noli messorem timere), but the meaning is the same: a command to a single person, "do not fear the reaper".
The verb cadere ('to fall'), when paired with an adverb (or when its subject is paired with an adjective), can mean 'to turn out (in the manner denoted by the adverb/adjective)' – for example:
quis negat, aut quis iam audebit, quod male cecidit, bene consultum putare?, 'Who denies it, or who now will dare to consider what has turned out badly to be a good ...
This quote is from the Historia Ierusalem Baldrici Dolensis Archiepiscopi, Book 2 (pg. 1092 of Migne, Patrologia Latina, CLXVI).
Your quote is only a fragment of the relevant sentence, which is likely why you are not able to make any sense of it. Here is the full sentence:
Iter enim aggressi, gradiebantur rependo per montana, nimis aspera et scopulosa, ...
The phrase you are looking for is either of these:
Ut supra, sic infra.
Ut supra, ita infra.
They both mean the same thing. I think the first one sounds better.
I just searched a bit for these on Google Books and was surprised not to find many hits. I thought I'd first encountered this phrase in descriptions of the medieval worldview, as a well known way ...
I would translate the boldfaced sentence as
It is not clear which part would be rightfully considered the front and which part the rear in the whole genus.
For creatures of that appearance, that description makes sense.
If you want more details or explanation, do ask.
Notice that habere does not only mean 'to have', but also 'to consider as something'.
To expand a little on Joonas's answer, the nominative singular ending in Latin was originally /os/ for all masculine nouns of the second declension, which developed to /us/ as part of a more general sound change of /o/ to /u/ in certain positions. (Somewhat confusingly, Latin /u/ in turn corresponds to /o/ in a number of Romance languages. It's thought that ...
The motto calls upon connotations and associations in Latin that are hard to evoke in an analogous way in English. So here is a clumsy translation followed by some exposition of generosus and virtus so you can follow for yourself how they combine in the motto:
High-born manliness fears nothing.
The adjective generosus = genus + -osus. Genus is ...
It is servŏs in both instances, not servōs.
The old form of the nominative has the ending -os instead of the later -us.
What you see is indeed the singular nominative, but not in the form you are used to.
The Latin you provide is actually incomplete (though not incomprehensible). The English translation is not accurate at all.
The quote in question, which appears in the L&S entry for scribo, meaning I.B., is from Statius's Thebaid. Here is some more context:
hasta subit velox equitis femur inter equique ilia,
letum utrique volens; sed plaga sedentis
In Latin, "fish" is piscor, -ari, -atus sum, a first conjugation deponent verb.
The form you use, piscantur, is third person plural. It means "they fish."
The original phrase is a later Latin translation of Plutarch's Greek translation of what Pompey said, presumably in Latin: "πλεῖν ἀνάγκη, ζῆν οὐκ ἀνάγκη."
Navigare is active infinitive: "to sail." The ...
I would venture to suggest an emendation of your first option:
Facio quod velim.
Or, to amend the order in a way that sounds more fluent to my ear:
Quod velim facio.
The difference is that velim is in the subjunctive. Why? Because the relative clause is not talking about "this thing that I want," but rather "whatever I want." The ...
I'd suggest something like Familiam ad sustinendam vivo. Literally translated, this means something like "I live for the sustaining of my family." Latin word order is pretty free, so putting familiam ("family") first emphasizes the importance of that word in the sentence.
This construction (familiam ad sustinendam) is an example of the gerundive, which is a ...
The word futuraram is not well-formed: the closest correct form is futurarum (feminine genitive plural) but actually futurorum (masculine genitive plural) is the only form that seems to make sense in context to me. It is possible that it means futurarum [rerum] ("of future things")--a phrase often used by Cicero, without the ellipsis--but it comes out to the ...
Hoc (here hoc is simply 'this.') opusculum This little work,
, quamdiu vixero, for as long as I shall live,
doctioribus (here dative after offero) to those more learned
emendandum offero I offer for [their] correction.
What a generous dedication. Can it possibly be recent?
This is all about how thousands work in Latin.
The singular mille is an undeclinable adjective, the plural milia is a third declension noun.
When you are counting the youth, with mille the young are in whatever case you need and with milia it is milia that is in the correct grammatical case and the young are in the genitive.
In the singular the number is the ...
The only way I can interpret this is as follows, although I am not certain:
[Maria, you are] an offshoot to the train of angels.
So planta is like the tendril of a larger thing, or like a foot planted down somewhere as a first 'base of operations'. Maria came to earth 'representing' or foreshadowing the angels that will probably come down from Heaven on ...
Your translation is definitely on the right track, but there are a couple of things I want to point out:
Omnis modifies generis; that is, omnis generis means "of every kind". There doesn't seem to be any other word than generis that omnis could match.
Existimant doesn't have an obvious subject. The sentence you quote starts a section, so if there ...
These seem to be versions of the popular prayer "Pater Noster". Here is an approximate literal translation:
sed libera, mais delivre nous, sire, a malo, de tout mal et de cruel martire
"(Latin:) But free [us], (Middle French:) but deliver us, father, (Latin:) from evil, (Middle French:) from all evil and cruel torture."
This is a hybrid translation-...
Let's analyze the sentence word-by-word first:
Nil/nihil translates mainly as nothing (either noun or adverb). It is indeclinable (hence it gives no clue about its grammatical function in the sentence.)
virtus is a feminine noun meaning either strength or virtue. The ending tells us it is either the subject of the sentence (nominative case) or it is being ...
The plural would be aleae iactae sunt.
Alea / aleae is nominative, because it's the subject of a passive verb-form.
Note that, if you used the accusative case for alea, the verb would have to be in the active and its subject would be implicit, or else would have to be a noun or pronoun. So,
aleam / aleas iecit means 'he (she, it) threw the di(c)e'. ...
If there is an implicit sit, it does not show uncertainty.
The conjunctive mood can show uncertainty, but it has other functions.
One of them is wishes (sometimes called optative), like sit Deus tibi benignus, "may the God be benign to you".
The English "may" does not imply uncertainty either, unless I'm mistaken.
"There may be" is uncertain by "may there be"...
The second person plural form is elevatĭs, "you lift".
However, in the passage you quote it is elevatīs, which is a plural ablative of the perfect participle.
It is in the same form as oculis, which is a hint.
Oculis is not an accusative, so the translation "lift your eyes" doesn't quite make sense with "eyes" as the object.
What you have here ...
Gusto/gustare means to taste, but in the sense of someone having a taste of something.
The verb you are looking for, IMO is sapio/sapire. It can be accompanied by a noun in the accusative case to mean to taste like something. (Piscis saperet ipsum mare being an example).
Note that this like is somewhat idiomatic in English. You can translate it literally ...
Almost correct. The most common spelling of "never" in Latin is numquam.
Fecit is the third-person, to get the first person just drop that t: feci
Together you get: Numquam feci.
Now, this corresponds to the act of making something. If you had a fuller sentence, we would be able to tell you if this is the correct idiom to use. Remember that ...