Salve Regina

Pelayo

Member

I was reading through my missal, and happened upon the Latin text for the Hail Holy Queen. One question about the second line:

"vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve"

This is usually translated as "Our life, our sweetness, and our hope."

But why attach "our" to all three? Isn't nostra here singular? Wouldn't that be: vita, dulcedo, et spes nostrae?

For example, I have seen text such as: splendidae sunt galea et hasta (see paragraph III here).
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
It very often (though not always) happens in Latin that an adjective that logically applies to more than one noun agrees grammatically only with the closest one.
 

Iacobinus

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Lutetiæ Parisiorum
I wouldn't present it that way. I believe that <nostra> isn't an adjective that would qualify many nouns while only agreeing with the closest (albeit it might look like it would, when one observe the result).

My understanding is that vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra stands for vita [nostra], dulcedo [nostra], et spes nostra, with the ellipsis of nostra in the early items of the list, as it will be employed later in the list. (Ellipses are quite common in the Latin stylistic, it is far from being uncommon to avoid to repeat something or to even simply name it when it appears to be obvious).
So it indeed translates as “our life, our sweetness and our hope”. I would translate, in French, notre vie, notre douceur et notre espoir.

Which can be compared with vita, dulcedo, et spes nostræ which would stand for “our life, sweetness and hope”, I'd say. I would translate, in French, nos vie, douceur et espoir.
 
Last edited:

Iacobinus

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Lutetiæ Parisiorum
I would say "notre".
I've made some researches on Gallica, the website of the French National Library, with two singular words that would easy go together with a possessive:

« mon père et ma mère » : 11,069 online results (repetition, with paternal primacy)
« mes père et mère » : 01,656 online results (agreement, with paternal primacy)
« ma mère et mon père » : 01,209 online results (repetition, with maternal primacy)
« mon père et mère » : 00,101 online results (ellipsis, with paternal primacy)
« ma mère et père » : 00,006 online results (ellipsis, with maternal primacy)
« mes mère et père » : 00,003 online results (agreement, with maternal primacy)
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
For some reason, "nos vie, douceur et espoir" sounds weirder than "mes père et mère".

Maybe "notre vie, douceur et espoir" sounds slightly odd too, but to me, quite a bit less so than "nos vie, douceur et espoir".

Maybe the two phrases aren't really comparable because "père et mère" are people, and are also a common collocation, whereas "vie, douceur et espoir" are abstract things, and not a common collocation.

In any case, I think the most natural, or at least most common, option in both phrases is to repeat the possessive. (A feeling that's been confirmed by your search at least regarding "père et mère".)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
There's also the fact that "vie, douceur et espoir" are embodied in a single individual here. So maybe modifying them with a plural adjective makes them feel too separate and that's part of why it sounds wrong.
 

Iacobinus

Civis

  • Civis

Location:
Lutetiæ Parisiorum
I find on the contrary « notre vie, douceur et espoir » “weirder” -or rather more surprising to read or to hear- than « nos vie, douceur et espoir », albeit I understand that a stylistic ellipsis is made in the first (which is what makes it weird or surprising... intentionally if it is a literary style, or not if it is an oversight), while the second is classically constructed, with the adjective agreeing with the nouns, which is the logical rule.

Grevisse writes “Dans le cas, relativement rare, où un seul déterminant sert pour plusieurs noms, l'accord se fait comme pour l'épithète : le déterminant se met d'ordinaire au pluriel ; le genre est celui des noms, si ceux-ci ont le même genre ; sinon le déterminant est au masculin”. Grevisse gives two examples, among whom our parental one: tes père et mère honoreras (traditional version of the Decalogue).

Grevisse gives also: Les enfants doivent des aliments à leurs père et mère (Code civil, art. 205) ; les gendres et belles-filles doivent également [...] des aliments à leurs beau-père et belle-mère (ib., art. 205).

However, the ellipsis is occasionally used in the literary register and is commonly used in the juridical register. Grevisse gives, as an example: J'ay tiré autrefois usage de nostre esloingnement et commodité (Montaigne, III, 9), with an ellipsis of [de nostre] before the second noun.

The ellipsis also commonly appears in set phrases, especially when the nouns are synonymous. Grevisse reports that aux lieu et place de... and en ses lieu et place are found in Ch. de Gaulle, Mémoires de guerre; J. Delay, Avant mémoire), M. Tournier, Météores, R. Pernoud, Jeanne d'Arc, M. Leiris, Langage tangage, but also gives en son lieu et place (art. 1684 of the Civil code), but en ses lieu et place (art. 385 of that same code).

Another (very common) example of an ellipsis given by Grevisse for quasi-synonymous nouns: En mon âme et conscience.

---
By the way, you are right that the two phrases, vie, douceur et espoir and père et mère are not equivalent, I agree and I was well conscient of that, but it is difficult to make a representative search with things that doesn't commonly come in pairs nor with possessive.

I've just checked, following that comment:
« notre vie, notre douceur et notre espoir » : 14 online results.
« nos vie, douceur et espoir » and « notre vie, douceur et espoir » : no online results.


There's also the fact that "vie, douceur et espoir" are embodied in a single individual here. So maybe modifying them with a plural adjective makes them feel too separate and that's part of why it sounds wrong.
The second example gave by Grevisse is on lui a demandé ses nom, prénoms et qualités, which, here also, are elements embodied in a single individual.

However, there is this element, which is connexe to your message, albeit different (it doesn't apply for vie, douceur et espoir who are clearly distinct concepts): “si les noms désignent un seul être ou objet : [...] mon seigneur et maître”. And indeed, I think that mes seigneur et maître to name one unique man, who is both the lord and the master of the speaker would sounds a bit odd.

Grevisse also gives: En deuil de leur fils et frère bien-aimé, Fernand (Yourcenar, Souvenirs pieux). Fernand being both the son of his parents and the brother of his siblings.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
The second example gave by Grevisse is on lui a demandé ses nom, prénoms et qualités, which, here also, are elements embodied in a single individual.
Not in the same way. In the prayer, Mary is our "vie, douceur et espoir", whereas in the example that you're citing "nom, prenoms et qualités" are merely attributes of the person.
However, there is this element, which is connexe to your message, albeit different (it doesn't apply for vie, douceur et espoir who are clearly distinct concepts): “si les noms désignent un seul être ou objet : [...] mon seigneur et maître”. And indeed, I think that mes seigneur et maître to name one unique man, who is both the lord and the master of the speaker would sounds a bit odd.

Grevisse also gives: En deuil de leur fils et frère bien-aimé, Fernand (Yourcenar, Souvenirs pieux). Fernand being both the son of his parents and the brother of his siblings.
I think that is, in fact, comparable to the Mary example. Mary, a single individual, is our "vie, douceur et espoir".
 
Top