I need some help with the Latin reflexive pronouns from our resident Latinists.

“They see themselves” would be: Sē Vident

“I see myself” would be: Mē Videō

I’m having trouble with “we see ourselves” ??

Is it: Nōs Vidēmus ??

22 hours and nobody who actually knows this stuff well has posted.

Therefore I, Nicholas Benjamin, who kinda remembers his Latin lessons from a decade ago, will post something of questionable accuracy in the hopes a knowledgeable person will correct it.

Nos videmus works grammatically. The potential issue is that Nos is ambiguous. It could be accusative (what you want), or nominative. If the latter then the sentence means "We see," with a bit of emphasis on the "we."

The way around the ambiguity would be to have Nos twice. Then one would be the subject (ie: nominative), and the other the direct object (ie: accusative), and we would clearly be seeing ourselves. The actual word order wouldn’t matter.

Sorry for the delay. Had I replied sooner—-given the New Year festivities—-I imagine I’d have been even less helpful than Nick. In any case, Nos videmus is correct, but Nick is correct that this is ambiguous. That’s just one of the ambiguities of the language.

Now, given how rarely Latin uses subject pronouns for its verbs (i.e. ego video, tu vides,... nos videmus), nine times out of ten "nos" is the direct object (accusative) not the subject (nominative). Still, you can work around the ambiguity.

The "cheap" way is to play on the fact that 99% of the people who will see this emblazonment and motto speak an analytic language, that is to say, a language in which word order is everything. Given that almost all European languages place the direct object after the verb, Videmus nos will seem more naturally to mean "we see ourselves" whereas Nos videmus kind of looks like "WE see."

A better workaround, at least one that Cicero might have appreciated more, is adding an emphatic adjective into the mix.  Because the adjective has to agree with the antecedent in number and case, any ambiguity in the pronoun’s case is cleared up. Consider the following:

Nos ipsi videmus = "We ourselves see"

—- Ipsi is a plural nominative form and since it has to agree in case and number with "nos", it’s clear "nos" is in the nominative.

Nos ipsos videmus = "We see our very selves"

—- Ipsos is a plural accusative form and since it agrees with its antecedent, that means the "nos" is an accusative.

Daniel’s suggestion has the advantage of following the same structure as the familiar (to some) legal expression, Res ipsa loquitur, "the thing speaks for itself."

Thank you, all!

Another query:  "Solus minus solus."

I’ve found a longer version that translates "Never less alone than when alone," but this is missing the "never."  Any thoughts?

It’s in Bolton as the motto on the bookplate of the Lutheran missionary in Pennsylvania, Henry Melchior Muhlenberg.

I’m tempted to say this is ungrammatical. Minus can either be a neuter nom./acc. form of the comparative adjective minor ("smaller") or the adverb "less." Given that solus is not a neuter, you can eliminate the first option. What’s left, literally, is "alone less alone" (alt. "less alone alone").

If this were a comparative construction (i.e., "less alone than alone"), it’d require either a quam or a dative of comparison. Thus either Minus solus quam solus (alt. Quam solus minus solus) or, Minus solus solo (alt. Solo minus solus). Clearly, we do not have that here.

The translation you suggest comes from a line in Cicero’s De officiis 3.1, which reads numquam minus solus quam cum solus (Lit. never+less+alone+than+when+alone.) You can clearly see, Cicero has used quam. You can drop the "never" (numquam) and the "when" (cum) leaving "less alone than alone" but you can’t drop the "than".

"Alone, less alone" is the only thing I can come up with.

Dcgb7f;101526 wrote:

I’m tempted to say this is ungrammatical.

That’s what I thought. As a 17th century Lutheran minister, Muhlenberg would have known his Latin, so I suspect someone has mis-transcribed the motto on his bookplate.  Perhaps it was "solo minus solus."

A riff on the prayer of St. Francis: "Make me an instrument of the Lord"

Out of curiosity, how would that translate into Latin? And would it be any shorter?

Kenneth Mansfield;101531 wrote:

A riff on the prayer of St. Francis: "Make me an instrument of the Lord"

Out of curiosity, how would that translate into Latin? And would it be any shorter?

The original, "Lord, make me an instrument of your peace," is Domine, fac me servum pacis tuae, so what you want would be Fac me servum Domini. You’ll notice in the Latin that "instrument" is actually more like "servant."