[globnomulous]

This is horrible, horrible spaghetti Latin.

"Tueor" in this context sounds very weird to me -- more "oversee" or "watch" than "protect." 'custos' is, to my ear, the idiomatic noun for "protector," and that noun sounds appropriate in this context. "defendo" (a verb meaning 'defend') would probably be more appropriate if we want to insist on using a verb.

"Usor" is nonsense -- literal, actual nonsense. It isn't Latin. To my ear it sounds like a misspelling/solecism for "uxor," which means "wife." It sounds kind of like an Aristophanic immigrant/hick character's mangled Greek translated into mispronounced Latin.

"Data" means "gifts," literally "things given." It has no connection whatsoever to 'data' in our sense.

"Veritatem" sounds almost liturgical (or Neo-Latin?), completely out of place, given the intended sense. That is, it sounds like a metaphysical or religious concept -- not something "factual" or "correct," as seems to be the intended sense, but rather "the goddess truth." One does not protect (or keep watch over) a goddess. Or one does at one's great peril (in myth at least), unless one is an actual religious functionary, a priest or priestess, in which case you probably do watch over the god, just because in temples the divine objects associated with a god/goddess and venerated were often themselves called "the god/goddess."

[globnomulous]

Correction:

> It has no connection whatsoever to 'data' in our sense.

This is wrong. There is an etymological connection, which means that 'data' in our sense is derived from the sense 'that which is given.' My point, badly stated, was that the word in this sense is no longer Latin. It doesn't translate directly back into Latin. You'd need to use a different work in order to capture the sense that the word takes in English.

[qsort]

Veritas used to represent abstract truth is not out of place. Obviously it assumes a different connotation in a Christian context ("Veritas vos liberabit" from the gospel of John being the obvious example), but it's not the only usage. See examples here: https://latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=lsn50557

Data is the past participle of the verb "do". It doesn't necessarily imply that usage.

I do agree that the construction is weird though, in particular the infinitive.

[globnomulous]

I think we're saying the same thing about "veritas." I'm saying, in essence, that if I ran into this absolutely bizarre expression in a manuscript or papyrus, and I wanted to publish an edition of the text, I might capitalize the "v."

(Edit: I just realized why. It's because the action "tueor" describes has a strongly physical connotation. It's as though the author wrote "clean/wash the truth." You don't watch (in tueor's sense) an abstract concept; you 'watch' (tueris) something physically manifest. Using tueor this way is how you'd talk or write about a god, not a concept.)

"Tuere" isn't an infinitive. It's the second person singular present imperative active of the deponent 'tueor.' As a deponent, it has only passive-voice forms, which have active-voice sense, so (edit: infinitival) 'tuere' isn't a valid form, because it's the present infinite active, a form that a deponent verb by definition can't have.

Edit: "data" in this usage would mean "gifts." That is the idiomatic meaning of the fourth principal part of the verb when it's used in the neuter plural. This isn't debatable. It's Latin 101 basics, almost certain to appear in the very first set of exercises and vocab lists that any beginning Latin student will encounter (and it's certain to be the answer to a question on your first vocab quiz). See here[0], esp: 'Part. perf. sometimes (mostly in poets) subst.: dăta , ōrum, n., gifts, presents.'

[0] https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...

[IAmBroom]

So you are suggesting the motto actually should translate, "Protect the user, did, and the truth"?

[1718627440]

Watch over the user, the given and the truth.

[globnomulous]

But I prefer your version of the motto.

[globnomulous]

"do," pronounced with a long o, means "I give" in Latin. 'data' is the perfect-tense, passive participle -- "given" -- in the neuter gender, with plural number: literally "things given," but idiomatically "gifts."

[phtrivier]

What would be the proper translation of the moto, then ?

[globnomulous]

Beats me.

The very idea of a "user" is, in every phase of Latin that I know, gobbledygook. There's no translation for it. It makes as much sense as "haver" would make to us ("haver of what?"). Maybe "emptores" (buyers)? Sort of?

"Data," in our sense, too, sounds wrong to me as a concept in Classical Latin -- too disembodied for effective, accurate translation. Maybe 'cognoscenda,' "that which is to be known/understood," would come close to the intended sense and still be somewhat idiomatic.

"Vera" or "verita" sounds, to me, like the right language for the idea of "something true."

And like I said, "defendo" sounds like the right verb.

The omission of conjunctions sounds as abrupt, curt, and pompous in Latin as it does in English: "guard the user, the data, the truth." Only Sallust and Tacitus get to write this way.

So maybe we could correct it to something like "defende emptoresque cognoscendaque veraque?" No, actually, I take it back. That sounds deranged and wrong, kind of like the raving you might hear from one of the street-corner prophets in Life of Brian. Protecting those things makes no sense, and even the grouping of those three concepts in a single list makes no sense. It sounds like the product of a disordered, unhealthy mind.

[1718627440]

Do you use -que like that? I thought you add it only to the last item of an enumeration?

[globnomulous]

Yep! See entry II of Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary for the word:[0]

> II. Repeated, que . . . que.

> A. Both ... and (not in Cæs., once in Cic.; v. Zumpt, Gram. § 338), co-ordinating,

To my ear it sounds more emphatic, formal, and annunciatory than singular -que, so it feel appropriate in the context of a guiding dictum/apophthegm.

[0] https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...

[globnomulous]

On the other hand, maybe the original motto really is a perfect motto for programmers. It nicely exemplifies the inadvertantly silly results of the DIY, libertarian, anti-establishment spirit of so many programmers (Who needs experts, knowledge of history, or formal training when you have the internet??) who inexplicably start blogs in the apparent, equally inexplicable belief that the world needs to hear their thoughts on things they know nothing about.

[jraph]

That's quite the uncharitable view.

They explicitly put a humble disclaimer that they don't actually understand Latin.

What you see as "belief that the world needs to hear their thoughts" might be "willingness to share".

It's nice that people engage with the unknown (here, Latin). That's how one learns. There's also nothing wrong with sharing this process. The result is obviously wrong here, and I would have been too shy to put it in the title of a blog post, but this doesn't have dramatic consequences.

We are far from tech bros arrogantly imposing their shit tech to the world here.

[globnomulous]

It's entirely uncharitable. I don't care about the author's humility. I will spare not one iota of sympathy or empathy for spreaders of AI slop or for the embarrassing naivete of writing a motto in a language one doesn't know and sharing it publicly with the expectation that it's an idea/expression worth discussing. Both deserve to be labeled and treated uncharitably.

I wish Hacker News had policies that squash this kind of post before it can reach the front page. Nobody needs to read some guy's clueless thought diary, and the oxygen these submissions consume on HN are stolen from better pieces of writing that actually deserve attention.

[jraph]

I won't completely blame you, I guess the AI hype needs some deserved hard push back. If that's what will make people realize it's not actually cool.