2

In the film, "The Terminator" (1984), the cyborg's chilling declaration-of-intent: "I'll be back!", has become something of an international catchphrase. It's easy to translate it into Latin:

"ego revenio!" = "I am coming back!".

Alternatively, must it be the future tense:

"ego reveniam!" = "I will come back!"?

Sadly, translations of English cliches, into Latin, often kills the rhetorical force e.g. A variation on Caesar (Veni Vidi Vici), and "Friends, Romans, Countrymen...": A Translation Problem from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", because the Latin words do not rhyme; lack an alliteration pattern; simply do not flow together. Here, "ego", is added to provide the required emphasis (not normally necessary with a first-person singular verb) and, it rhymes with "revenio".

My English-to-Latin translations are not always successful. How about this one?

Is there a better way to translate, "I'll be back!"?

tony
  • 8,640
  • 3
  • 15
  • 37
  • 2
    Yes, it must be the future tense. English often uses the present continuous tense for future plans (and English isn't the worst offender in this regard – in colloquial German the future tense is downright rare), but Latin generally insists on the future. – Sebastian Koppehel Mar 29 '23 at 20:57
  • @Sebastian Koppehel: What does "generally" mean, here? Allen & Greenough section 468: "The Present, especially in colloquial language and poetry is often used for the Future e.g. "imusne sessum" (De Or. 3.17) = "Shall we take a seat?" = "Are we going to sit?". A catchphrase could be construed as a colloquialism--why not? Therefore, "ego revenio" = "I am coming back" = "I'll be back!". (I need the present tense to achieve the rhyming rhetorical force.). – tony Mar 30 '23 at 08:31
  • 1
    I was not aware that this is "often" the case, and some of A&G's examples seem somewhat "special" to me (e.g. a sentence that literally begins with hodie). But okay. Still, the Terminator's vow to return seems not particularly colloquial to me. Personally, I would stick to the future tense. – Sebastian Koppehel Mar 30 '23 at 11:46
  • 1
    I agree with @SebastianKoppehel. I believe the immediate future can be replaced by a present, but when it's about a future promise, I don't think I've ever seen it in the present. – cmw Mar 30 '23 at 17:51
  • @cmw: A & G: "hodie uxorem ducis?" (Ter. And. 321) = "Are you to be married today?". The wedding, presumably, in two- or three-hours time. The Terminator returned to the police-house, as promised, within a minute-or-so--therefore, "I am coming back!"? – tony Mar 31 '23 at 01:06
  • @tony You have the same thing in English. "Is the wedding today/Are you to be married today?" If the Terminator had left and said "I am returning today", a present tense could be acceptable (although it's iffy to extrapolate anything from the comic playwrights---just like we don't think Shakespeare wrote in a normal speaking voice). But "I'll be back" doesn't specify hodie, and leaves the timeframe open. That's what necessitates a future, I feel. – cmw Mar 31 '23 at 01:29
  • 1
    given the English's use of a contraction (albeit one that is almost required to avoid emphasis), and Latin's general pro-drop tendencies, I'd definitely drop the "ego" and just leave the verb on its own – Tristan Mar 31 '23 at 14:05

0 Answers0