Talk:Illegitimi non carborundum

Latin Corner

Comment

Is nil illegitimi nor corporandum the proper phrasing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.240.88 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 February 2006.

What ever happened to "Semper ubi sub ubi." ?

The decline of western civilization. — LlywelynII 06:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"to the bastards" vs "by the bastards"

..the gerund/gerundive ("carborundum (est)") would probably require a dative ("illegitimis," "to the bastards"), or even a double dative ("illegitimis tibi," "to the bastards, by you")..

Surely it should be "by the bastards", not "to the bastards". ie lit: "by the bastards" "do not" "be ground down" ..not that my latin is good enough to comment ;-| MaherCoen (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should have said that the song is sung to the tune of one of the traditional Harvard football songs, "Ten thousand men of Harvard (Want Victory Today)."

I remember that in the 1960's the band used "Illegitimis," but I could be wrong about this. Also, since I don't know Latin I can't say whether "carborundum" has any meaning in Latin, but it is the common name of an abrasive product, silicon carbide. I thought this was the association with "grinding down" and was a principal component of the joke. Speaking of jokes, I'm disturbed that the article points out that in Latin the equivalent of "bastard" is not an all-purpose insult, since this very contrast between Latin and contemporary English is the other main component of the joke. 75.21.206.95 (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the part of the article referring to the Harvard song, a citation of some sort is needed. The reference to the compound carborundum or Silicon carbide was probably intended as, per that article, the product was being marketed under that name as an abrasive from sometime shortly after 1893. I agree that it should be included in the explanation as a potential source for its presence in the phrase. I don't understand why you are disturbed that the article "points out ... the other main component of the joke." To do otherwise would be to leave the reader in ignorance of it.

I think we should include a rough translation of the Latin part of the Harvard song, as they use it. I believe "Gaudeamus igitur!" is intended as: Therefor let us rejoice. I have no idea what "fac" might be, other than an abbreviation of faculty. Does anyone know? Ileanadu (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard song section is weak and perhaps unnecessary. The original fight song isn't a spoof song (whoever put that in might have been thinking of Fight Fiercely Harvard, which certainly is). It's just a college fight song. It's the extra verse(s) that are a spoof. The Latin verse doesn't mean anything, it's just a collection of more or less well known Latin phrases: "Domine salvum fac" isn't a complete sentence, but it's complete as a title of some song or other. If I can find cites for what I'm saying I'll edit the main article accordingly. Claudia (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literal Latin

The "literal" Latin translation discussed in this article looks wrong. I'm unwilling to correct it because that would be very clear original reasearch. The illegitimi (actually a nominative or geninitive ending) can't be an agent, as the article suggests, because that would require an "a" or "ab" (cf "patriae est a te consulendum"). Also, this can't mean "one must not be ground down"; but it could conceivably mean "one must not grind down", because this is surely an impersonal construction of the "mihi eundum est; eundum est" (I must go; one must go) type. The dative indirect object is the thing that must (not) do the action, not a general "one". In other words, this must mean "bastards (not 'one') must not grind down". Also to say the gerundive must be in the passive voice is either tautological, or unhelpful, or wrong, because with gerundives the distinction in Latin doesn't really exist between active "fighting wars" and passive "wars being fought" but the literal translation seems to have an active force. I'm sorry if all that seems terribly pointless and pedantic. I suppose taking nonsense-Latin literally is pointless. It's just that the article does just that and seems to get it wrong. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper translation

It seems the article ought to include a proper translation of the intended meaning into Latin. --Belg4mit (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking the same thing, I went to google translate, which gave me: "Noli illegitimi carborundum." Not that Google Translate is authoritative. Sjponder (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper" Rendering in Latin

Just for funsies, how would you say it in proper Latin? My guess is "Unus spuriis non defatigandus [est]" = "One must not be worn down by those of illegitimate birth." If we're talking strictly Classical Latin, "unus" and "est" are probably not needed, but I'd like to keep 'em there. Any thoughts?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Latin but Google translate says that "Noli pati a scelestis opprimi." translates to "Do not allow criminals to be oppressed." So that first sentence apparently really needs to be corrected. WikiAlto (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic (the talk page is for writing the article, not discussing the topic the article is about) but perhaps this bears on the section discussing Dog Latin vs. "real" Latin.

Anyway, if you want to render the sentence "properly," you need to frame it as an imperative sentence ("Do not") rather than a declarative ("One must/shall not"). -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 14:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is fine and topical and, no, there's nothing better about an imperative. If anything, the subjunctive is completely correct ("You shouldn't/oughtn't...") in capturing the tone. No one is ever giving another person a direct order that they MUST not be ground down by bastards or they will have failed in their duty to the Empire and there will be punishment. — LlywelynII 06:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know Latin but Google translate says that "Noli pati a scelestis opprimi." translates to "Do not allow criminals to be oppressed.""

Google Translate is terrible at parsing highly inflected languages like Latin. "a scelestis" means "by the wicked", ablative case - it can only have one meaning. For it to have the GT-generated meaning, "the wicked" would have to be in the accusative case. Mpaniello (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proscriptivism is even sillier in dead languages

The first word varies between illegitimi and illegitimis. Illegitimi is presumably the nominative plural of illegitimus meaning "unlawful" or "outlaw" in Latin, but interpreted as English "illegitimate" in the sense of "bastard", in this case, used as a generic insult.[11]

First, we shouldn't make presumptions but just discuss that the other options don't work ("bastard's") or work the wrong way ("BASTARDS, hear me! Do not let them grind you down!") so that the only option left is a typo or Life of Brian style mangling of Latin grammar.

Second, 'unlawful [offspring]' is precisely the meaning of bastard and is perfectly at home in Latin, certainly by its medieval iterations. It's not the illegitimate that's wrong or mistakenly calqued; it's the idea that it carries over into any of bastard's other senses. It certainly wouldn't've meant generally unpleasant person in ancient Rome. That said, casting aspersions on other people's mothers works just fine as an insult in any language or culture... It just works slightly differently than it does in translation. In any case, the idea that it only applies to outlaws—as opposed to those who lack legal status—is silly and should be cleared out of the article. — LlywelynII 07:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So put the correct Latin phrase on the page!!! - what are you waiting for!?!?!

The article includes explanations from Latin scholars, explaining why it is not real Latin. Fair enough. This "talk" article has a discussion of what it would look like in "real" Latin. Also good stuff. So will someone commit to putting something on the actual non-talk page that explains what the correct translation of "don't let the bastards grind you down"? Put something out there, instead of hiding behind the "talk" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.56.35 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra cod=More fish?

What does "the extra cod Latin verses" mean? Does one need to be familiar with Latin to understand this phrase? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Latin, Cod Latin, macaronic Latin, mock Latin, and Canis Latinicus are all synonymous, and are used to describe sentences or phrases that are meant to sound like Latin, but aren't. The phrase "the extra cod Latin verses" just means extra verses that are written in cod Latin. 79.240.215.127 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except one is so much more common than the other that the second shouldn't be used at all. It's needlessly distracting, as noted. — LlywelynII 06:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial listings under "Use as a motto"

Why is the fact that the operations department at a niche website (kink.com) uses this motto relevant? And the RCFPA (?) club? This seems trivial and akin to if an internet forum, etc, used it. I feel it dilutes the listing of uses. Either the list should be exhaustive, listing every small adoption, or representative, in which case only institutions or movements that have had an material impact on society should be listed.173.226.186.140 (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Wiki

This phrase definitely needs an entry in the Latin Wik!195.166.150.98 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still not one but that's probably because the place to discuss it would be the Latin wiki's own Community Portal space for article suggestions. — LlywelynII 06:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectful image

The gravestone shown in the article is disrespectful to the individual and the surviving family, as it serves no purpose other than to repeat the quote. The interred was not the first to use the quote, so there is no reason to include it, or any other image with the quote, unless it serves to make a point, which this does not. Furthermore, I doubt that the family gave permission to use it. As such, it should be removed. Skaizun (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You're presuming that we all share your opinions of what is and what isn't disrespectful, whereas I don't understand where you're coming from. Showing a gravestone in a neutral context reminds us of our ancestors and is inherently respectful to the dead; it is saying "you are not forgotten". It is somewhat decorative, but we're visual creatures, and giving us an example of actual use helps.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is it not respectful. Why not just blur the name on the image? Problem solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.56.35 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I revered the recent change that turned this into what reads like a blog entry. It speculated about what Latin students commonly do, included jokes about Latin teachers, etc. This is not how we write encyclopedia articles. I also removed the "in popular culture" trivia list. The only source listed in it was to Discogs, a site that is user-generated and clearly not a reliable source. Per this consensus, these sections need to be properly sourced and clearly demonstrate why the examples are worthy of being mentioned in an encyclopedia article. This isn't TV Tropes, where we list every media title that used a popular phrase. Our articles would drown in indiscriminate examples if this were how we wrote them. These examples can return, but they need citations to reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Wikipedia is "user-generated", is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. The reason why we can't accept citations to other user-generated sites is because writing something on one website, then citing it on Wikipedia is the same as just adding it to Wikipedia without a source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

This article ought to discuss the related Nolite te bastardes carborundorum popularized in the novel The Handmaid's Tale. A DuckDuckGo search for the latter phrase led me to this article instead. The reason is that there is a WP redirect from Nolite te bastardes carborundorum to Illegitimi non carborundum, but for some reason there is no mention of the phrase in the current article and no discussion above as to why it might have been omitted or deleted. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 14:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've added mention of Atwood's use of the phrase with, hopefully, sufficient citation that it survives cleanups. Jno.skinner (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]