Cesc

Ok, thx spin. But are you sure that "ego sum qui sum" cannot also be translated as "I am the one, who is" and not just "I am the one, who I am"? I believe it can, but could be mistaken of course.

Ben C Smith

I am the one who is would be ego sum qui est. So, for example, ego sum qui est, qui erat, et qui venturus est means I am the one who is, who was, and who is to come. (Compare Revelation 1.8 in the Vulgate.)

Ben.

spin

Further,
Latin "sum" is the form of the verb to be which reflects the first person singular in the present tense, so even without the pronoun "ego" ("I"), we have "I am who/what am". The pronoun isn't necessary because the verb indicates what the pronoun is. Think: cogito ergo sum. No pronouns but you know it means (I) think therefore (I) am. There's no chance from "ego sum qui sum" to get "I am the one, who is".


spin

Cesc

Ok, but I thought that, since "qui" refers to the fist person "ego", that in Latin the following verb should then follow "qui" as first person and not (like in English) as third person. From context then, either meaning "I am the one, who I am" but also "I am the one, who is" ("qui" translated as "the one, who"). Like "you are the one, who is" could be "tu es, qui es"?

So, "I am the one, who am", in effect, but meaning "I am the one, who is". Or rather "I am I, who am" (with "qui" meaning "I, who")
Where in English, obviously, we would always make the verb third person when following a "the one, who" ("qui").

Ben C Smith

Qui is a relative pronoun introducing a relative clause. The main verb of the sentence and the main verb of the relative clause have no real relationship to one another, and do not have to match in tense or person or anything.

In English, for example, one might say either he knows who I am or I know who she is. In these cases the verbs do not match at all; they do not have to. Or one might say he knows who he is. In this case the verbs do match (third person singular each time), but this is purely coincidental; there is nothing in the grammar to say that they have to do so.

Ben.

spin

I really don't understand this.

ego (= I)
sum (= am)
qui (= who/what)
sum (= am)

That's all that you have to play with. There is nothing else available in the Latin. You can't turn a sum into an est. You can't add unsignaled pronouns, such as, in this case, "the one".

It nice and simply adds up to "I am who/what am" and "am" (like sum) implies a first person singular pronoun. End of story.

Now, why exactly are you trying to reinvent the statement?


spin

Lugubert

What about "I will be (= remain) whom I am"?

spin

The issue is this: because we have tensed languages we need time built into the verb. This is not the case in Hebrew. There are no contextual clues in god's statement in Ex 3:14 to allow us to pick a time, but it is grammatically fine in Hebrew.


spin

Cesc

All I'm trying to do is understand all the possible meanings of the sentence "ego sum qui sum". And I don't feel that I have complete clarity yet translation wise, perhaps I explained a little badly above. Maybe Im just a bit thickheaded!

But please correct me if I'm wrong:

It is I who am the Lord could be translated as ego sum qui sum Dominus

It is I who exist as ego sum qui existo

It is I who am as ego sum qui sum

Or if a woman said it is I who am the mother as ego sum quae sum mater

spin

This "it is I" is idiomatic to English.

My unlearned understanding:

ego sum qui sum Dominus - I am who am the Lord (which we for linguistic reasons have to reconstruct as, "I am he who is the Lord" or "I am the one who is the Lord")

ego sum qui existo - I am who exist (as above, "I am he who exists"...)

ego sum qui sum - I am who I am (by analogy you could translate it idiomatically similarly)

What you can say about the English though doesn't mean that it can be said about the Latin.

So what exactly are you trying to achieve?


spin