Here’s a quote showing these words in Latin literature, only for the aficionados :)
According to the writer Flavius Lucius Dexter (4th century): «A. C. 375. A. R. 1126. Valentinianus, imperator catholicus ac vir pius, obiit: cui in imperio succedit filius eius Gratianus».
[In 375A.D, 1126 (should be 1128 AVC) Ab urbe condita, Valentinian, catholic emperor and a pious man, died: he was succeed by his son Gratian].
Origin of sacrifice
Old (& modern) French (sacrifice) from Classical Latin sacrificium from sacer,
sacer + facere, to make sacred/holy
To offer a sacrifice: The Greek warriors sacrificed to their gods.
To make a sacrifice: parents sacrificing for their children.
to offer (something/someone) as a sacrifice to God or a god
to give up, destroy, permit injury to, or permit injury or
disadvantage to (something that is valued), for the sake of
something else/someone else.
to sell at less than the supposed value
to offer or make a sacrifice
When I search for the definition for "pius" in the Latin dictionary, it says:
1/ Who recognizes and fulfills his duties towards the gods, the parents, the fatherland.
fullfilling duties toward the nation, e.g a soldier, an elector, someone who do his military service, a politician, someone who writes patriotic songs, someone paying his taxes, etc, depending of the speaker's intention.)
2/ Right, righteous, in accordance with piety. (= pious)
3/ Tender, caring.
Tender, caring, seems to be the meaning here. Someone who fulfill his duties toward his family.
So both, pious, and dutiful, are possible, depending on the context.
(Dutiful is better when the context is not known, because imagine that's not a religious context... Dutiful is broader.)
"Vir pius" is in the nominative, so the dutiful man is the part of the sentence that is doing something.
I think your sentence would be "Virum pium sacrificat" since I believe it requires the accusative (the "he" can be left out as usual since it's already implied in the conjugation of the verb).
I wrote " dutiful man sacrifices " and was marked wrong.
Yes. That is not correct English.
"man" is a countable noun (you can have "one man, two men").
Countable nouns almost always need a determiner before them in the singular in English -- "a man, the man, this man, our man, ...".
So vir pius has to be translated as "a dutiful man" or as "the dutiful man"; just writing "dutiful man" is not appropriate here.
It is hard to prove because of lacking Roman audio data, but some hints: The w (like in English you say double-u and not double-v) was invented later to simulate the w sound you have in English today (like in water, what, a form of ủa - sound unlike German or Polish). So in the medieval age you find words like Dauuid. The Latin may have tended to spell v like in English today, so uu(w) was the substitution to the old v sound. However there is also a good reason why the Latin v could rather be like today's English v: V and B was micxed up pretty early in many regions, like you can find it in Spain today. Funnily on a grave in Hispania you can find the word "bibat" (you shall drink) instead of "vivat" (you shall life). The pronounciation already was very similar in early times. That is also the reason why Kyrillic already used B for thr v-Sound (and had to invent Б), like in Greek too. So but the mix of b and v could only happen because v was rather spoken like today in English. B and v are relative letters, but not b and u. You can feel free to pronounce the Latin v like in English. But this is a development we maybe had after Koine-Greek and later Latin time, lets say around 3-5 century.
To pronounce v rather like u can be affirmed because the Latin alphabet did not differ between u and v but certainly needed a vocalic sound for the words (VBI VIVIT VALERIVS, you cannot pronounce VBI like vbi here). So the claim for a v was rather new - for the Roman speaker nothing was lacking because it was all u the same.
Btw medieval age manuscripts, incunables and early prints did not differ either and favour the u-sound. But as mentioned, historically you can have good reasons for both pronounciations according to the style you prefer.
Sacrifice doesn't only imply killing something. For instance, I sacrifice for my kids, by not buying certain things I want that would only serve to deprive them of something. That is, sacrificial self-denial. I think perhaps this is ultimately a Christian concept of sacrifice.