1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "He saves me and I save him."

"He saves me and I save him."

Translation:Ille me servat et ego illum servo.

August 28, 2019



I tried "Is me servat et ego eum servo" and it's marked incorrect (30.09.19). Not yet tried to use hic.


Accepted 3/11/2020 (US date format)


that's how I translated it too


Why not "Ille salvat me et ego illum salvo"? Doesn't salvare mean save as well?


Salvare doesn't have the same meaning.

Servare : For humans: to save, to monitor, to pay attention to, to guard.
For things: to keep, to conserve, to store, to preserve, to pay attention to, to study carefully.

Salvare: To heal (to give back health).
Religious use: to be saved, with the eternal salute.


"Salvare" is not permitted in this course, as the course creators have said themselves somewhere in the discussions, because it is a post-classical word. It's not because of its meaning. In post-classical Latin it has basically the same range of meaning as "servare" (to save, to preserve) as well as the Christian sense of giving salvation, as you can see here in the entry from a dictionary of Mediaeval Latin: https://logeion.uchicago.edu/salvare


All right for classical Latin, but aren't "Eboracum Novum", "California" and some others a little bit post-classical?


Thanks for clarifying this. Put the blame on my musical background and plenty of singing in (probably Mediaeval) Latin!


Not sure about salvo-salvare-salvavi-salvatum, but pronoun objects such as me always come before the verb (me salvat). As far as I know, salvo isn't a Classical Latin word, it's a Vulgar Latin word.


That's not true about object pronouns always preceding verbs. A few examples found with a very cursory search: "cum videat me" (Cicero), "movet me" (Justinian), "scribendi amor rapit me" (Servius), "expectat me" (Seneca), "abdicat eum" (Quintilian), "coarguent eum" (Pliny).


I'm going to keep experimenting on other questions but it doesn't seem like it accepts -que as an acceptable translation of and.


I have put in -que quite a lot. You won't find it much for joining clauses. Since we have to put in potential alternative translations by hand, using -que with an additional clause would triple our workload. Try it out when two simple direct objects are joined. It Will probably be accepted


Servo - A Roman shop/store attached to a petrol/gas station in Colonia Australiais. I won't get into the other Latin phrase associated with Australia ...


What about seducere (to save in the sense of to rescue)?


In my dictionary "seducere" means the opposite of "to rescue".

Seduction, in English, came from a substantivation of the French séduire (from suduire).
(duire->duction), on the same pattern than con-duire (conduire), and the first meaning was: to lead away, to lead astray.


Originally "entice (a woman) to a surrender of chastity.
(= to lead away from it)

It hasn't the rescue sense.


It has been used as “to lead out of harm’s way.”

The OLD gives several authors, though I’d have to looks the passages up tomorrow to see full context.

That said, it wouldn’t be my first (or fifth) choice for “to rescue.”


Thank you. It makes sense. But is it a later usage or no?


What is the difference between ille and is? Aren't both nominative?


Why can't I say "Is me servat et se servo"?


“Se” is the third person reflexive pronoun. It can only used when the subject is “he/she/it/they” and it means “himself/herself/itself/themselves.”


If so, why is the translation "he saves me" and not "myself"? Wasn't "me" a reflexive pronoun as well?


"Me" can be reflexive, but it's also just the normal accusative pronoun, translating to English "me." "He saves myself" doesn't make sense, since a reflexive has to be the same person as the subject of the sentence ("I save myself / (Ego) me servo"), so we know the correct translation is "He saves me."


Thank you! Damn hard to keep all those cases in mind.


A very interesting thread. I was surprised at, but humbly accept, servare as to save. I seem to remember ^servus^ as servant or slave. Notice how Latin cunningly frustrates expectations servare and servire! Who'd expect to have an everyday Latin sentence 'he saves his mother' as opposed to serving her. But i love some of the quirky sentences in this course "where are your daughters sleeping?" Made me laugh.


I translated Is me servat et ego ei servo, it was marked as wrong. Is it?


Yes, it's wrong. "Ei" should be the accusative form "eum."


I thought servare would use a dative object.


Can I say "me servat et se servo"? That's why I input


"Se" is a reflexive pronoun ("himself") and doesn't make sense here ("I save himself"?). You need a regular accusative pronoun like "eum servo" or "illum servo."


All clear. Thank you!


Why should I use > ego << servo ?? I thought that the ending -o in servo has the meaning of > I save << . I thought that the word Ego is used for strengthen the ending of the 1st person (-o). (Sorry for my English but I do my very best for to make me understandable...)


Nominative pronouns are grammatically unnecessary, but can be included. The reasoning for such inclusion would be for emphasis usually


It's not necessary to include "ego" (or "is" for that matter). I believe translations like "Me servat et illum/eum servo" are also accepted.


Is ego optional/redundant here?


Since the verb conjugation already indicates the subject, subject pronouns are normally omitted. They can be included sometimes for emphasis ("I'm the one saving him, not someone else"), but otherwise subject pronouns like "ille/is" and "ego" are mostly redundant.

In this particular sentence though, including "ego" and "ille/is" is probably pretty reasonable, to emphasize that reversal of who's saving who. Either translation is fine.

Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.