Fortuna eum

[john abshire]

Fortuna eum stultum facit quem nimium amat.
Fortune makes him foolish which he loves too much.
?
If correct, it seems that the antecedent should be fortuna not stultum?

 

[Pacifica]

The antecedent of quem is eum. The subject of amat is (implicitly) fortuna.

 

[john abshire]

The antecedent of quem is eum. The subject of amat is (implicitly) fortuna.

Fortune loves him who makes foolish too much.
? (best guess)

 

[Clemens]

Quem is accusative, and therefore can't be the subject of any verb. In both the main clause and the subordinate clause, fortūna is the subject, and eum/quem is the object.

 

[Pacifica]

Also, you have somehow inverted the verbs. "Makes foolish" belongs to the first part; "loves too much" is in the relative clause.

 

[john abshire]

Also, you have somehow inverted the verbs. "Makes foolish" belongs to the first part; "loves too much" is in the relative clause.

Fortuna eum stultum facit quem nimium amat.
Fortune makes him foolish who loves (it) too much.
?
I will be driving awhile today in case I am too slow in responding.

 

[Pacifica]

who loves (it) too much

No. As stated above, quem, being accusative, can't be the subject of amat. It is its object.

 

[john abshire]

No. As stated above, quem, being accusative, can't be the subject of amat. It is its object.

Fortune makes him foolish which loves him too much.
?
Edit: It seems the phrase should be;
Which he loves too much.
Edit 2: then, “he loves ‘which’ too much”
Edit 3: but I don’t get that fortune is the subject in the second phrase except; “who fortune loves too much.” Finally
“Fortune makes him foolish who it loves too much.”
?

 

[Pacifica]

No.

It looks like I'll have to find different words to re-explain what we've said (or else just give you the answer).

Hmm...

OK, let's try this:

I said that fortuna was implicitly the subject of amat. That means the subject of amat should be a pronoun representing fortune.

Quem is accusative, so it's the object of amat. That means the clause isn't saying "who loves [insert object]" but "whom [insert subject] loves".

 

[Pacifica]

^ That post was written before I saw the edits.

Finally
“Fortune makes him foolish who it loves too much.”
?

Yes, that's the idea.

 

[john abshire]

No.

It looks like I'll have to find different words to re-explain what we've said (or else just give you the answer).

Hmm...

OK, let's try this:

I said that fortuna was implicitly the subject of amat. That means the subject of amat should be a pronoun representing fortune.

Quem is accusative, so it's the object of amat. That means the clause isn't saying "who loves [insert object]" but "whom [insert subject] loves".

Don’t give me the answer yet;
My last attempt was;
“Fortune makes him foolish whom it loves too much.”
Edit: I did change who to whom in this last one.

 

[john abshire]

^ That post was written before I saw the edits.

Yes, that's the idea.

It seems that the thought should be ; “fortune makes the person foolish who loves the fortune too much.”
But my goal is translating, and eum and quem were related in person and number (and case). I think I need to go back and label the words again.

 

[Pacifica]

“Fortune makes him foolish whom it loves too much.”

That's even better ("whom" being more formally correct than "who" here).

It seems that the thought should be ; “fortune makes the person foolish who loves the fortune too much.”

No, that isn't the idea. The idea is that when Fortune loves someone too much, she makes him stupid. In other words, too much luck makes you stupid.

 

[john abshire]

That's even better ("whom" being more formally correct than "who" here).

No, that isn't the idea. The idea is that when Fortune loves someone too much, she makes him stupid. In other words, too much luck makes you stupid.

Having the wrong idea didn’t help.