I originally deleted this because I felt I was trying to run before I could walk, in trying to translate quotations, but I'm just going to get stuck in, because I'm so curious, and it will help me to learn.

These are some favourite quotes. Some time ago, I toyed with the idea of having a literary tattoo, but I didn't want it in English, I wanted it to be something a little more mysterious and ambiguous. Of the many languages I considered, they all carry either political, religious or cultural implications which I would not necessarily wish to carry with me until my dying day - but then I discovered Esperanto!

Here's (a slightly adapted) quote from Empedocles:

"God is a circle, whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.".

My attempt:

"Dion estas cirklo, kiel centrejon estas ĉie, kaj kiel randon estas ninie.".

The reason I use 'centr-ej-on', is to define the central place of the circle, to just use 'centron' may imply a 'centre' such as a sports centre, or a shopping centre, which is of course, not what I want to say.

'Circumference', is, 'cirkonferenco', but I don't like the rigidity of this purely mathematical term, I like, 'rando', meaning 'rim/edge', which is more more poetic and conveys the sense of roundedness.

I thought I needed to define 'Dio', 'centrejo', and, 'rando', as the accusative, because, 'God', is affected by the state of being a 'circle', the 'centre' is affected by the state of being 'everywhere', and the 'edge' is affected by the state of being, 'nowhere'.

Is this correct? It probably isn't, but you can see my line of thought.

Another, from Aleister Crowley:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will.".

"Faras kio vi volas estos la tuta de la leĝon. Amin estas leĝo, amin sub voli.".

This is difficult, because the word for, 'will', 'voli', also means, 'desire/wish', and it really isn't that kind of willing being implied at all, it refers more to force of determination, than a mere wish.

I had trouble working out the accusatives here. The 'law', is directly affected by the state of being, 'whole', hence, 'leĝo-n'. 'Love', is directly affected by the state of being 'the law', and also the state of being, 'under', in the second sentence, hence, 'amin'.

I sense I have made more errors here, than with the last one.

I had one more, but I'll see how badly I did with these first. Lol!

*bump*

*Drako*:Here's (a slightly adapted) quote from Empedocles:

"God is a circle, whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.".

My attempt:

"Dion estas cirklo, kiel centrejon estas ĉie, kaj kiel randon estas ninie.".

I like your use of rando; you're right...cirkonferenco is a little to "bookish."

Anyway, here's my take: Dio estas cirklo, kies centro estas ĉie, kaj kies rando estas nenie."

Some hints: If the main verb in a sentence is a form of esti, there is never any need for the -n ending in the sentence. Same goes for verbs like "seem" "appear" "live" "be located."
Kiel means "how"..."whose" is "kies" (except usually in a question we would say "De kiu estas la X" for "whose X is it?"
Centro" is perfectly fine for this sentence. The "centre" you're thinking of would be taken care of with the -ej- suffix: sportejo, butikumejo/vendejo.

(I'll give you feedback on the other quote in the next post)

drako:Another, from Aleister Crowley:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will.".

"Faras kio vi volas estos la tuta de la leĝon. Amin estas leĝo, amin sub voli.".

Here is where you use the -n: Faru (tion), kion vi volas estos la tuto de la leĝon. Amo estas leĝo, amo sub volo.

1. The command form (*Do* what you will) ends in -u, and kion because it's the direct object of "volas" (because the basic sentence is "vi volas *kion*...and you may wish to put quotations around this first part).
2. The tion is there...well, I consider it a slavicism; it provides a direct object for "faru" and I gather that the slavonic languages don't allow a verb to use a clause as an object.
3. Tuto becuase it's really a noun, not like "la angla" being a abbreviation for "la angla lingvo"
4. Amo and volo, as with tuto: they're really nouns so should have the noun ending.

drako:This is difficult, because the word for, 'will', 'voli', also means, 'desire/wish', and it really isn't that kind of willing being implied at all, it refers more to force of determination, than a mere wish.

And here's where we get into trouble with more archaic forms of English. "will" used to mean pretty much "want" in older style English and as i've mentioned before, we should try to translate ideas rather than mere words.

drako:I had trouble working out the accusatives here. The 'law', is directly affected by the state of being, 'whole', hence, 'leĝo-n'. 'Love', is directly affected by the state of being 'the law', and also the state of being, 'under', in the second sentence, hence, 'amin'.

Again here the question is whether there is an *action* affecting an object. When the verb is "esti" there is no action, hence no -n ending is ever needed.

drako:I sense I have made more errors here, than with the last one.

I had one more, but I'll see how badly I did with these first. Lol!

You actually did VERY well.....mostly a problem with being overly analytical .

*Drako*:My attempt:

"Dion estas cirklo, kiel centrejon estas ĉie, kaj kiel randon estas ninie.".

The reason I use 'centr-ej-on', is to define the central place of the circle, to just use 'centron' may imply a 'centre' such as a sports centre, or a shopping centre, which is of course, not what I want to say.

'Circumference', is, 'cirkonferenco', but I don't like the rigidity of this purely mathematical term, I like, 'rando', meaning 'rim/edge', which is more more poetic and conveys the sense of roundedness.

I thought I needed to define 'Dio', 'centrejo', and, 'rando', as the accusative, because, 'God', is affected by the state of being a 'circle', the 'centre' is affected by the state of being 'everywhere', and the 'edge' is affected by the state of being, 'nowhere'.

Is this correct? It probably isn't, but you can see my line of thought.

My attempt: "Dio estas cirklo, kies centro estas ĉie, kaj kies cirkonferenco estas nenie"

One never uses the accusative with 'esti'.'Kiel' means 'what manner/how', 'kies' means 'whose'. I used 'centro' because to me 'centrejo' would be better for the center of a location, whereas 'centro' is more like the mathematical term.

*Drako*:Another, from Aleister Crowley:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will.".

"Faras kio vi volas estos la tuta de la leĝon. Amin estas leĝo, amin sub voli.".

This is difficult, because the word for, 'will', 'voli', also means, 'desire/wish', and it really isn't that kind of willing being implied at all, it refers more to force of determination, than a mere wish.

I had trouble working out the accusatives here. The 'law', is directly affected by the state of being, 'whole', hence, 'leĝo-n'. 'Love', is directly affected by the state of being 'the law', and also the state of being, 'under', in the second sentence, hence, 'amin'.

My attempt: "'Faru tiujn (agojn), kiujn vi faros' estos la tuto de la leĝo.Amo estas la leĝo, amo sub volo."

Verbs don't take the accusative, as happened with your 'amin'.

edit: It would appear my slow internet connection made me a little slow to the party...

orthohawk:

drako:This is difficult, because the word for, 'will', 'voli', also means, 'desire/wish', and it really isn't that kind of willing being implied at all, it refers more to force of determination, than a mere wish.

And here's where we get into trouble with more archaic forms of English. "will" used to mean pretty much "want" in older style English and as i've mentioned before, we should try to translate ideas rather than mere words.

I was thinking of 'wilt' as having an implied 'do' (thinking of it as the second-person singular present tense of will), but that explanation makes sense as well, it really depends on archaic usage, which I don't often encounter...

Anyway, here's my take: Dio estas cirklo, kies centro estas ĉie, kaj kies rando estas nenie."

Damn! That was how I had originally written it! I couldn't believe that it would have been correct so I over-thought it, and messed it up.

I had tried this one a couple of days ago, and I had written it just as you have, but I made the mistake of confusing 'kiel', for 'kies', and I spelled, 'nenie' wrongly. Silly of me not to double check the dictionary really.

Some hints: If the main verb in a sentence is a form of esti, there is never any need for the -n ending in the sentence.

Okay. Thanks. I'll bear this in mind, I was thinking about this and unsure what to do.

Centro" is perfectly fine for this sentence. The "centre" you're thinking of would be taken care of with the -ej- suffix: sportejo, butikumejo/vendejo.

Ahh, now I see. Good, good.

I have listed the affixes and their meanings but I still need to explore each of them, and play around with them using different words to see what I can come up with. I haven't investigated them all yet. I think I'll amuse myself with some Esperantist 'rude words' and see what I can cook up. Lol!

Here is where you use the -n: Faru (tion), kion vi volas estos la tuto de la leĝon. Amo estas leĝo, amo sub volo.

Thank you!

1. The command form (*Do* what you will) ends in -u, and kion because it's the direct object of "volas" (because the basic sentence is "vi volas *kion*...and you may wish to put quotations around this first part).

Oh yes, I didn't even think about whether it was a command or not, but so it is. I agree, it would be better with quotes around the, 'Do what thou wilt', part, which is the command.

I need to think about #2.

3. Tuto becuase it's really a noun, not like "la angla" being a abbreviation for "la angla lingvo"
4. Amo and volo, as with tuto: they're really nouns so should have the noun ending.

Yep. Right you are! I was thinking of it as, 'the state of being whole', rather than as 'the whole thing', which of course is what it is, same for the other words.

You actually did VERY well.....mostly a problem with being overly analytical .

Thanks. Lol! I've been told this before. I'd have done better had I submitted my original translation of the 'God is a circle...', quote. Tsk.

The other one I wanted to know is a popular Shakespeare quote, and a personal favourite, and I have more chance of winning the lottery twice over than getting it right, haha, but I'll have a try!

Hi Oŝo.

Thanks for responding.

My attempt: "Dio estas cirklo, kies centro estas ĉie, kaj kies cirkonferenco estas nenie"

This is how I first wrote it out, in a literal word for word translation. I came to dislike the word, 'cirkonferenco' however, finding it too rigid, because it's a purely mathematical term. I prefered, 'rando', which sounds more pleasant, and is more poetic, it conveys a sense of roundness, and the 'cirk' sound has already been used in the word, 'cirklo'.

One never uses the accusative with 'esti'.

Yes. Ortho said this too. Mind you, I'' probably need telling this a few times before it sinks in, but I'll bear this in mind.

'Kiel' means 'what manner/how', 'kies' means 'whose'.

I get mixed up with the 'Ki..' words. I had got these mixed up in my mind. I ought to have checked the dictionary, which is a lesson to me. I will have to learn the who/what/why/where/when and how words by heart.

I used 'centro' because to me 'centrejo' would be better for the center of a location, whereas 'centro' is more like the mathematical term.

I understand now why this is better. Surely it's better to use the simplest option wherever possible, especially for a beginner.

My attempt: "'Faru tiujn (agojn), kiujn vi faros' estos la tuto de la leĝo.Amo estas la leĝo, amo sub volo."

Well, I'm a bit bewildered by that, I really will have to get my thinking cap on! Lol! Why the pluralisation?

I get what you mean about, 'wilt', it isn't the same as, 'will', and that should be somehow reflected in the Esperanto.

This was the other one, from Shakespeare's Hamlet:

This above all : to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Jenu super ĉio : al via propra estas vera,
Kaj ĝi devas sekvas, kiel la nokto la tago,
Vi ne povas do falsa al ajna viro.

I originally wrote, 'Jen-o' (the 'do' thing), but now I'm thinking of this as a command, (*This* above all), hence, 'Jen-u'.

I don't feel right about, 'devas/must', it is an intransitive verb, and I can only think of using '-as' referring to the present tense, but I don't know how a word such as, 'must' can have tense of it's own, but as it proceeds a present tense verb, I presume it ought to accord to the tense of that which follows it.

I wondered about whether to use, 'viro', or, 'homo'. When Shakespeare says 'man', he obviously refers to members of mankind, i.e: 'thou canst not then be false to anyone', and not only to adult males. As this should be obvious, I decided on 'viro' anyway.

*Drako*:This was the other one, from Shakespeare's Hamlet:

This above all : to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Well, first of all, Zamenhof himself translated Hamlet so for THE definitive version, go with that! That being said,
Ĉi-tio super ĉio: al vi mem estu vera,
Kaj ĝi devas sekvi, kiel la nokto la tagon,
Vi ne povas, do, esti malvera al iu ajn homo.

Just one note here: you probably noticed that I used -n on "tago"? well, that phrase is "really" the clause "kiel la nokto sekvas la tagon" so it's the direct object of sekvi.

Jenu super ĉio : al via propra estas vera,
Kaj ĝi devas sekvas, kiel la nokto la tago,
Vi ne povas do falsa al ajna viro.

I originally wrote, 'Jen-o' (the 'do' thing), but now I'm thinking of this as a command, (*This* above all), hence, 'Jen-u'.

I don't feel right about, 'devas/must', it is an intransitive verb, and I can only think of using '-as' referring to the present tense, but I don't know how a word such as, 'must' can have tense of it's own, but as it proceeds a present tense verb, I presume it ought to accord to the tense of that which follows it.

Try not to think in English; devi in Esperanto is a normal verb: has all the tenses, and nothing says the English translation of any Esperanto word can't have more than one word! Oh, and note, that in the same sentence or clause, only one verb is conjugated, the other one is in the -i form (the infinitive); of course once you use a k- word (either ke or one of the ki- correlatives) it's a new clause.

I wondered about whether to use, 'viro', or, 'homo'. When Shakespeare says 'man', he obviously refers to members of mankind, i.e: 'thou canst not then be false to anyone', and not only to adult males. As this should be obvious, I decided on 'viro' anyway.

Heh, there you go again being over analytical

Well, first of all, Zamenhof himself translated Hamlet so for THE definitive version, go with that! That being said,

I believe so. I ought to try and get a copy of this.

Ĉi-tio super ĉio: al vi mem estu vera,
Kaj ĝi devas sekvi, kiel la nokto la tagon,
Vi ne povas, do, esti malvera al iu ajn homo.

Okay. I knew I'd not get it right, as this one's quite complicated. I should have gone for something simpler, but this is one of my favourite Shakespeare quotes and I was curious.

Just one note here: you probably noticed that I used -n on "tago"? well, that phrase is "really" the clause "kiel la nokto sekvas la tagon" so it's the direct object of sekvi.

I see. Had it been literally, 'as the night follows the day', this would be easier to see. I thought that something needed to be defined as accusative in this sentence. I was thrown off the scent by the word order.

Try not to think in English; devi in Esperanto is a normal verb: has all the tenses, and nothing says the English translation of any Esperanto word can't have more than one word!

It's tricky trying to get used to thinking in Esperanto, which I suppose will come with practice through experimenting with the language, and learning from mistakes. Oh well, that's what learning's all about, I'll crack it sooner or later.

Heh, there you go again being over analytical

I know. I do have that problem. Lol!

This is a difficult one because of the archaic language of Shakespeare, such as the word ordering, making it more tricky to identify the accusative, especially when you're not used to mulling over sentences in this way. It's just that my favourite writings tend to be in 'ye olde', 'thee/thy/thou', style. So I might as well become aware of these things.

Here's another, less archaic quote from Oscar Wilde:

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars".

"Ni estas ĉiuj en la kloako, sed kelka da ni estas regardi la stelojn".

Hmm. Something's not quite right here. I can't fathom it.

I think 'stars' should be accusative, because I'm bearing in mind how Riot and Alve advised to think about it on the other thread:

Looking at (what?) = the stars.

I was very tempted to use 'regardas', but then I remembered the previous example was, 'devas sekvi', rather than my, 'devas sekvas', so I bore that in mind here. I have to try and think in Esperanto, and if this bit is correct, I've learned something.

I can't find the word for, 'gutter', so I used the word for, 'sewer', which isn't quite the same thing, but imparts the same meaning in context.