Help with Latin translation of a simple phrase

No this isn’t homework.

Latin is tough, man. It’s been awhile since I took it, and even matching my vague memories to translation bots isn’t helping, but how would one write “You will be destroyed?”

I’ve come up with “Vos eritas delenda” or, possibly, “Vos delenda eritas” but I’m sure neither is really correct.

“Delebimini” in the plural (several people going to be destroyed), “deleberis” in the singular (one person). Both are simple future passive of “delere”.

e.g., a textbook example: “Non bello delebimini, sed amore otii et consiliis hominum malorum.”

Yes, this. I couldn’t have constructed it myself from memory, but, having taken Latin, what jumps out immediately from the OP is that you don’t translate forms of “to be” in that way, and the “you” is also not necessary.

“Deleberis eritas” then?

For it to stand alone, probably Vos delebimini, or Tu deleberis. It doesn’t take a form of “to be.”

That it is addressed to the second person, singular or plural, is also contained in the form of the verb, so you could just say “delebimini” or “deleberis.” But I think when you use it in the way you intend, the pronoun would be included, but someone will correct me if I’m wrong about that.

No. English uses the verb “to be” as an auxiliary to construct the passive voice (“he destroys” vs. “he is destroyed”), but Latin doesn’t.

If the “you” in your sentence refers to just one person then it’s “deliberis”. If you want to stress the “you” (as in “all the others will survive but you will be destroyed”) then “tu deliberis” or “deliberis tu”.

Singular. Thanks!

I wouldn’t even include the “tu” or “vos”. The verb form is, in itself, unambiguous; it doesn’t require the pronoun to indicate which person is being talked about. Putting the pronoun there is optional, but not common unless you really, really want to emphasise this point. So it would be “delebimini” all by itself.

As others have noted, you don’t construct Latin verb forms with auxiliary verbs such as “be” or “have” as you do in English; rather, you have one verb form which combines, in one word, the tense (preent, past, future), the mode (indicative, subjunctive) and the voice (active, passive), plus the person you talk about. You need to look up conjugation tables for that verb (or another verb that has the same conjugation) to find the correct verb form.

@Schnitte is right, except that if it’s singular, then it’s deleberis.

Here’s the full conjugation table.

Same here. I had lots of Latin in high school (nine years), and I still remember the usual verb forms well enough to be able to recite them by heart. But the simple future passive is unusual, so I had to look that up in a conjugation table. Plus, there are many verbs that look alike but still take different conjugations (e.g., the many different verbs ending in -ere, as in this case), so to be on the safe side it’s still better to look up conjugation tables. Luckily, I’m allowed to do that now; I wasn’t back then in exams during high school. Then again, back then I had to translate mostly from Latin into my own language rather than the other way around, so in many cases you could just wing it by saying “Well, it kind of looks like a passive, and from the overall sentence, future would make sense, so that’s probably what it is”.

I only had two years of it in high school, and I did way too much of what you describe…

That’s a lot of Latin. I am dazzled. In my day (1960s), most kids had two years; I had four.

Were you in a seminary? (If that’s too personal a question, just wink at me and I’ll understand.)

No, it was a Gymnasium, which is, in this case, not a place where you exercise but rather a type of high school in Germany. Nine years of that after four years of elementary school. Some German schools of this type, including mine, still adhere to old traditions of classical education, which resulted in me taking Latin throughout those nine years. It wasn’t mandatory, I could have dropped it sooner and replaced it with something else, but didn’t.
(I did avoid the option of also taking up Ancient Greek, though.)

I firm foundation like that is a wonderful thing. I often fall back on my high school Latin to help me understand words and their origins. When I pop up with some obscure bit of knowledge from my school days, I sometimes quip, “The benefit of a classical education.” I’m sure some consider me obnoxious on that score, but they still seek me out when they want to know obscure factoids.


Alright, suppose we make it active voice; “I will destroy you”?

This I can still do without looking it up. It’s “te delebo” in the singular or “vos delebo” in the plural.

I vaguely remember Latin having like 50 words for kill the same as Eskimos and ice.

@RickJay do you have something specific in mind as a means of destruction? Maybe there is a synonym more apt for what you are imagining.

Your vague memory or guess is wrong.

However, Latin has far more words for friendship and social relationships than English. :slightly_smiling_face:

It’s true that Latin has several words for “to kill”, but that’s because Latin has several words for pretty much anything. It’s a result of the fact that you can easily fork compound words in Latin by placing two words, for instance an existing verb and a preposition, together. That’s what happened with trucidare, which is based on caedere. Both mean “to kill”, but trucidare intensifies it by placing a prefix in front of caedere.