Discover Top Posts Tagged with #purpose clauses

Translating purpose clauses like…

Credit for idea to @beyondthesilveringsea

#latin #tagamemnon #latin fandom #purpose clauses #silento #watch me

probably a silly question

Here’s a Latin grammar question I never got around to asking my undergrad professors. One day one of my profs overheard me saying how much I liked to use ‘lest’ in my translations, and I specifically mentioned ne, and he popped in and said:

"Actually you shouldn’t translate ne as ‘lest.’ You should use ‘so that… not.’"

I kind of understand what he was saying. Two points here: 1) There is a subtle difference between ‘lest’ and ‘so that not’ in English, namely that ‘lest’ connotes less direction, perhaps more of a general result or even that the later action is undriven by present action, whereas ‘so that not’ obviously wants to prevent something, implying more of a causative relationship between present and future actions. But more importantly,

2) Conventionally, we use ‘lest’ to translate fear clauses, possibly on precisely the same logic as #1 above. We say “I fear lest…” So my prof didn’t want me to use ‘lest’ in a non-fearing context, because he didn’t want me to confuse/conflate a fear clause with a negative purpose clause.

But here’s the question: the semantic difference between ‘lest’ and ‘so that not’ is small enough that the right context could close that gap. So, is there any more legitimate reason not to translate negative purpose clauses with ‘lest’? Is it actually wrong? (Yes I am looking to validate my preferred use of ‘lest,’ but I also secretly think my prof might have just said that because he was being overly scrupulous so that he wouldn’t have to take off points on a translation exam.)

Or am I missing something? Latinisti?

The Bible does it all the time, but I know that just because the Bible does it, it doesn’t automatically mean I can too.

#lingua latina #classics #purpose clauses #lest