"Back Off, Man! I'm A Scientist!"-In Latin?

Factual Questions
1

I am working on a Steam Punk Mad Scientist* costume, part of which is a crimson, double-breasted Victorian laboratory smock. I’ve already put the Sons Of Ether symbol on the back **. I had a flash of insight to cover the rest of the garment in symbols, equations and such in the same manner a wizard’s robe is covered in stars, moons, and alchemical symbols and formulae. Amongst other things, I think it would be great to put that Ghostbusters quote, in Latin, as a motto on the back. I don’t trust Google translate to get it right. But I know a few Dopers are fluent in Latin.
Additionally, if after reading the Sons Of Ether link (or if you already know about them) you have additional suggestions as to what to put on the labcoat, I’d like to hear them.

So far I’ve decided on-

A circle around a + on the right wrist.
A circle around a - on the left wrist.
The schematic symbol for an LED over my heart.
The Pythagorean theorem under a right triangle
Pi r squared under a circle
Possibly e=mc2 crossed out many times.

  • Yes, the capitals are needed and significant.

Labcoat 01

Labcoat 02

2

The word, and in some respects the concept, of “scientist” did not exist before the 19th century. (The word “science” is much older, and does indeed go back to the Latin scientia, but its meaning back then was somewhat different from what “science” means now.) Before the mid-nineteenth century, what we now call science was considered a branch of philosophy (the love of wisdom/knowledge), and people who studied what we would now call the sciences, people like Newton, Galileo, Lavoisier, Dalton, etc., considered themselves to be studying natural philosophy, and called themselves philosophers. (Hence, for instance, the title of Newton’s great work Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis, or of Dalton’s New System of Chemical Philosophy, and the first scientific journal, which began publication in 1665, was the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.*) Thus, in Latin, “I am a scientist,” would best be translated as “Philosophus sum.”

I am not sure about “Back off.” (might not “Stand clear,” be better, anyway?)

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
The French near equivalent, the Journal des Sçavans (later renamed Journal des Savants) actually first appeared a couple of months earlier. However, the French journal was never, even from that first issue (which contains an article about church architecture, IIRC) devoted entirely to scientific matters, and it ceased publication in the late 18th century. When the title was revived in the 19th century, it became a literary rather than a scientific journal, and it seems to have ceased publication altogether after 2009. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, by contrast, is still going strong as a very respected scientific journal (actually, now, two journals, as it is now divided into *Philosophical Transactions A, for mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, and *Philosophical Transactions B*, for biological sciences).

3

Thank you! I was aware that the word scientist would be hard to translate exactly. I was thinking “natural philosopher” would work. So “Philosophus Sum” definitely works.

What about “Retreat man!” what would that be in Latin?

4

Wouldn’t it be “Recede homo”?

5

I think the imperative “abi” (“get away”, “be off”) conveys “back off” somewhat better than the more literal “recede”. “Vade retro” (“step back”) has more menacing connotations.

As for the vocative, it seems kind of a pity to stick with the very neutral “homo” (literally “human” or “person”) for “man” when there are so many Latin forms of address that convey familiarity, contempt or disdain! Consider instead “inepte”, “fatue”, “cucule”, “bucco”, “stulte”, or “vetule”.

6

Why do you need a noun there at all, with an imperative verb? It is not there in the English, and I do not think Latin requires it either. Any noun you use is going to significantly affect the meaning.

Following up on my earlier post, philosophus naturalis is a bit closer to the modern meaning of “scientist” than philosophus on its own, but maybe not so pithy.

7

Wouldn’t “back off” be vade retro, as in vade retro satana?

8

Also, most Mad Scientists, especially in Steampunk, are actually Mad Engineers. :wink:

9

So far, I really like “Vade retro! Philsosophus naturalis sum!”

What exactly do “inepte” and the rest translate as? I can guess that inepte means inept. But, it could be a false cognate. I don’t want to put “homo” on the labcoat as it could easily be misread by most people. I don’t really care if folks think I’m gay (being hit on by anybody-regardless of gender- is flattering. And if the man in question likes science fiction, RPGs and such, well then I’ve made a new friend) I’m not really concerned with being attacked by folks who think I’m advertising my homosexuality. They’d likely attack me for the yarmulke and flamboyant coat anyway. I AM concerned with folks seeing the coat and assuming it says something anti gay. That concerns me a great deal.
Thanks again everybody for your help. This is likely the wrong verb but it makes my sentiment clear, Te amo.

10

Even not in Steampunk, most engineers I’ve met have been a trifle odd…

11

What are you talking about? The clause we’re trying to translate here is “Back off, man”, i.e., an imperative second-person singular verb phrase with a noun in the vocative case addressed to the subject of the verb: “[you] back off, [you] man”.

So yes, a Latin translation of this phrase ought to have a vocative noun expressing somewhat disrespectful familiarity, as we use “man”, “guy”, “buddy”, “pal” for more or less discourteous remarks to strange men.

See the post two posts above yours.

Great! (of course you’ll fix the typo in “philosophus” ;))

[QUOTE=DocCathode]

What exactly do “inepte” and the rest translate as?

[/QUOTE]

Whitaker’s Words sez:

12

So I have

Vade Retro, Bucco! Philosophus Naturalis Sum!

One last question- how exactly do I pronounce all this? I’m assuming

Vah day ret (rhymes with get) roe book koe phil (rhymes with pill) ahs oe fuss nat (rhymes with hat) churr al (like the name Al) iss sum (rhymes with thumb)

13

The pronunciation is close, but Latin “V” is pronounced like English “W”, and the “u” in “bucco” and “sum” should be like the vowel sound in “soon”. Also, if you want to get classical about it, the “ph” should be pronounced literally, like a P sound with a breath attached to it, not like an F like in modern languages (I’m not sure if you were aware of that or not).

There’s also the issue of where to put the accented syllables, but I’ll let someone who remembers better than I address that.

14

I would pronounce the second A in naturalis long, rhyming with Karl, and the U in sum more like the vowel in book. But that is from my distant memories of high school Latin, and who really knows? Nobody has heard an ancient Roman speak for a very long time.

The Victorians, if that is what you are going for, actually had a whole different way of pronouncing* Latin from the one I learned (and that most Latinists use today, I think). The “new” way is supposed to be more genuinely Roman (based, I believe, on how studies of how Roman poetry would sound best, what would rhyme or fit the metre, etc.). The Victorian way may, I think, have descended from medieval or Renaissance Latin.

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
*Some spellings were different too, but that is probably not an issue in this case.

15

V pronounced as a “w”. Also I don’t think the last bit is pronounced like day more like “eh”. So wah-deh. The R’s in classical Latin are rolled too.

16

Blast! Despite years of trying, I cannot roll my R’s. I think this is one reason Sylvester McCoy is my favorite Doctor.

17

I think “vade retro satana” is a biblical passage, and in English, it is usually rendered “Get behind me, Satan.”* Just in case you don’t want that connotation. And it could be understood as “go behind,” rather than “go back.”

“Mitto vos” means “I dismiss you-[pl].” Is that sort of what you are going for? I know I’m late to the game, and you are already pretty much settled, but I thought I’d add my 2 cents anyway.
*When I was a sign language interpreter, I did a 4-hr musical based on the Book of Acts, and there was a song (loooooong song) where the chorus began “Get behind me, Satan!” Unpleasant memory.

18

In the excellent sf story The Quest For Saint Aquin, the priest says “Retro me, Satanas”. He then realizes the other party doesn’t speak Latin and adds “Get thee behind me, Satan!”

So, I think I’m good with Vade Retro.

ETA

Just saw the Wikipedia link. Waiting for it to load. More to follow

19

To be precise, the Latin version of Mark 8:33 is Vade retro me, Satana: the “me” is explicitly stated.

Vade retro, Satana is translated “Step back, Satan” or “Go back, Satan”. To render it “Get behind me, Satan” is either a mistake or a deliberate allusion to the similar Vade retro me phrase.

So I think Vade retro is exactly what the OP wants: it means literally “Back away” or “Go back”, but it has connotations of sinister forces and Big Things At Stake that suit his original text. :slight_smile:

20

Schooled.