To watch what nuances a betterworld2016.org native has, a list of translations to another language choose English is not rather enough.Examples, descriptions, and also explanations aid get a much better picture.The connect you give is far better than a mere list, yet the entrance in this online variation of the dictionary by Lewis and Short is even better.
You are watching: Translate si vis pacem para bellum
The phrase para bellum can be well translated as "prepare because that war", "prepare war", "provide war", "acquire war", and also perhaps even much more along this lines.It is unclear without context whether one should gain ready for the possibility of war or actively seek war.The distinction cannot it is in made well sufficient with this verb, so both translations you suggest are valid.It is just the juxtaposition to si pacem vis (and perhaps more context) that says one should acquire ready in instance a war breaks out.
boost this prize
answer Jul 3 "20 at 10:22
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
99.6k1616 yellow badges148148 silver badges479479 bronze title
include a comment |
The Romans provided fewer words 보다 ourselves to define the exact same concepts. Therefore, "para bellum" may sound blunt/ terse come us; but, that is precious betterworld2016.org, as Joonas has actually explained. The problem, here, is the the quote is incorrect. The initial version can be uncovered in some of the numerous "betterworld2016.org Quotes/ Phrases/ Cliches"--type sites. The write-up on "Thought Co." is worth a look:
"igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" =
"Therefore, he that desires peace, have to prepare for war."
The second verb, "praeparet" is a present-subjunctive--invoking the unknown article--could/ would/ should/ might/ may; hence: "praeparet bellum" = "should prepare (for) war".
See more: How Long Do Turkeys Sit On Their Eggs, (Here Is What You Need To Know)
The nuanced definition is a clean warning: a country wishing to live in peace, need to develop strong armed-forces come dissuade potentially aggreessive neighbors from invading. Why go post-Communist Poland (and the Baltic States) sirloin to join NATO, while Russia to be still weak? (Why didn"t Ukraine carry out the same?) The "nuclear deterrent" is another example. A sad discuss the human being condition, yet valid nevertheless.