Oaths of Strasbourg Translation To A Lower Register of Latin

[Charles II of Spain]

So I've been trying to translate the Gallo-Romance parts of the Oaths of Strasbourg into Latin, but when I say Latin I'm not referring to pure Classical, 1st century BC, Ciceronian style of Latin. A lower register of written Latin I guess you could say. One that is very vernacular influenced. I've got the translation partially done, but mostly to the second part of it. I also want to keep it as close as possible to the original as I can:

*“Si Lodhuuigs sagrament quæ son fradre Karlo iurat, conseruat, et Carlus meos sendra, de suo part, non lostanit, si io returnar non l'int pois, ne io, ne neuls cui eo returnar int pois, in nulla aiudha contra Lodhuuuig nun li iu er.”*

In English: *“If Louis keeps the oath that he has sworn to his brother Charles, and Charles, my lord, on the other hand breaks it, and if I cannot dissuade him from it — neither I nor anyone that I can dissuade from it — then I shall not help him in any way against Louis.”*

There are a few parts I'm not quite sure about so here is what I got so far: *"Si Ludovicus sacramentum quod suo fratri Carolo iurat, conservat, et Carolus meus senior, de sua parte, non illud tenet...

I'll be back tomorrow to discuss the rest, the stuff I'm confused on, and the first part of the Oaths.

 

[Charles II of Spain]

"int pois" would correspond to inde and possum I think. Not really sure what "iu er" means.

 

[Bitmap]

"int pois" would correspond to inde and possum I think.

That makes a lot of sense.

Not really sure what "iu er" means.

I have no idea ... my Ancient French is a bit rusty ... my best guess is "ego ero" with a double negation in that sentence ... sth. like "in nullo adiutu/adiutorio contra Ludovicum non illi ego ero".

 

[Clemens]

I have no idea ... my Ancient French is a bit rusty ... my best guess is "ego ero" with a double negation in that sentence ... sth. like "in nullo adiutu/adiutorio contra Ludovicum non illi ego ero".

I believe you are correct because the modern French literal translation is "je ne lui serai."

 

[Theodiskaz]

So I've been trying to translate the Gallo-Romance parts of the Oaths of Strasbourg into Latin, but when I say Latin I'm not referring to pure Classical, 1st century BC, Ciceronian style of Latin. A lower register of written Latin I guess you could say. One that is very vernacular influenced. I've got the translation partially done, but mostly to the second part of it. I also want to keep it as close as possible to the original as I can:

*“Si Lodhuuigs sagrament quæ son fradre Karlo iurat, conseruat, et Carlus meos sendra, de suo part, non lostanit, si io returnar non l'int pois, ne io, ne neuls cui eo returnar int pois, in nulla aiudha contra Lodhuuuig nun li iu er.”*

In English: *“If Louis keeps the oath that he has sworn to his brother Charles, and Charles, my lord, on the other hand breaks it, and if I cannot dissuade him from it — neither I nor anyone that I can dissuade from it — then I shall not help him in any way against Louis.”*

There are a few parts I'm not quite sure about so here is what I got so far: *"Si Ludovicus sacramentum quod suo fratri Carolo iurat, conservat, et Carolus meus senior, de sua parte, non illud tenet...

I'll be back tomorrow to discuss the rest, the stuff I'm confused on, and the first part of the Oaths.

I'm very happy to encourage you in your efforts I'll be back in a bit and see if I have anything more concrete to offer you.

 

[Imperfacundus]

The remainder would be: si ego retornare non illum inde possum, nec ego nec nullus quem ego retornare inde possum, in nullo adjuto contra Ludovicum non illi ibi ero.

I would caution against seeing this as a Latin translation, so much as a re-spelling of the text.

 

[Clemens]

That makes a lot of sense.



I have no idea ... my Ancient French is a bit rusty ... my best guess is "ego ero" with a double negation in that sentence ... sth. like "in nullo adiutu/adiutorio contra Ludovicum non illi ego ero".

That's exactly what it is. In modern French it would be something like en nulle aide contre Louis je ne lui serai.

 

[Charles II of Spain]

The remainder would be: si ego retornare non illum inde possum, nec ego nec nullus quem ego retornare inde possum, in nullo adjuto contra Ludovicum non illi ibi ero.

I would caution against seeing this as a Latin translation, so much as a re-spelling of the text.

Why not? It certainly isn't Classical Latin. I see it could be a form of Medieval Latin. Classical Latin purism is kind of annoying to me.