Talk:Et tu, Brute?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Shouldn't this be in Wikiquote?

Contents 1 "And you, Brutus?" 2 Contra me? 3 IPA of whole phrase 4 SNOWCLONE??

[edit] "And you, Brutus?"

Many people seem to feel the need to render this phrase "And you Brutus?" This is presumably because the most common meaning of et is "and," and it is tempting (especially for the sort of people who like Latin) to render everything as literally as possible. But rendering the phrase this way is simply incorrect. Why? Because in English "And you, Brutus?" means something entirely different from "You too, Brutus?" The context of the quote clearly indicates that Caesar is saying "I can't believe you're involved with this too!" not "OK, your turn, what are you going to do, Brutus?" In English "And you" cannot possibly be equivalent to the first sentence. --Iustinus 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read my edit more carefully before you revert it, and note the context before jumping to conclusions: 'In English, it means "You too, Brutus?" or "Even you, Brutus?", but is commonly translated as simply "And you, Brutus?"' Could it be any more obvious, without outright saying "this translation is WRONG" (which is a blatant overstatement and prescriptionist interpretation, and is an absolutist enough statement that it will require a specific and authoritative citation so as not to violate WP:NOR), that my rendition of the intro is not endorsing the literalist translation of et as "And", merely stating that it exists? (In case you didn't notice, I said that the phrase means "eyb" and "y2b", but that it's also translated commonly as "ayb"; a rather eloquent way to distinguish the most accurate translations from the one that's the most embedded in the popular consciousness, without casting explicit judgment on them without the sources to back such judgment up.

I have no problem whatsoever with correcting common misconceptions, mistranslations, and misinterpretations of Latin phrases, as you are trying to do, but this should be done while mentioning what those incorrect renditions are (if they're noteworthy or widespread enough to merit mentioning, as this one must certainly is!)! Covering up the mistranslations as though they'd never even been made will just cause more confusion and ambiguity, and is close to censorship considering how noteworthy the most common translation of one of the most prevalent and influential Latin phrases in the enire English language is! In other words, if you feel so strongly that "And you, Brutus?" is not only technically (i.e. semantically) incorrect, but 100% unacceptable (which I'd be surprised to hear any native English speaker say, since it's very common to use "And X?!" in modern times to denote something at least approximating "X too?!" or "Even X?!", especially in colloquial contexts and with the and strongly emphasized), then you should be making sure that "And you, Brutus?" is mentioned in this article so that our readers can be probably informed on exactly how and why this translation is so deeply and irrevocably, at least in the context of Caesar's assassination, incorrect!

I got 14,600 results for "Even you", Brutus?, 76,000 results for "You too", Brutus?, 457,000 results for "And you", Brutus? on Google. ("Et tu" Brute? got a mere 396,000 results!) Close your eyes to the reality of the English-speaking world if you want, but don't try to force everyone else on Wikipedia to completely ignore one of the most important phrases in the English langugae, mistranslated though it may be from the original Latin, to suit your grammatical crusade to annihilate all mistranslations of et tu Brute from the face of the earth. Wikipedia is not the place. -Silence 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!

I might have been a little les absolutist in my edit if I had noticed that it was you. Even though I tend to disagree with you on issues of translation, I have nothing but respect for your work on the Latin Phrases page(s), so I apologize for offending you.

Your argument is strong, and indeed I have made a very similar case at cogito ergo sum. But I do not think "simply" covers it. I really don't think that "and you" means the same thing as "you too" in English, and I am surprised that you disagree with me on this. To me "And you, Brutus?" means something more like "The ball's in your court." I suppose if I stretch it, I could see Caesar saying "Immortal Gods! I'm being attacked by Casca. And Cassius. And Cinna. And you, Brutus? Then fall Caesar!" But without that sort of context such an interpretations seems very counterintuitive to me. --Iustinus 19:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"I might have been a little les absolutist in my edit if I had noticed that it was you. Even though I tend to disagree with you on issues of translation, I have nothing but respect for your work on the Latin Phrases page(s), so I apologize for offending you." - I'm honored and ashamed simultaneously; sorry if my above comment got a bit too hostile near the end (it's never nice to accuse someone of being on a "crusade" just for reverting a few edits). Also, if there are any translations on the you feel should be changed, I'd be glad to discuss them; I'm sure I've made mistakes on some of them, simply as a matter of odds considering how many phrases are on the list. Also, don't worry, you didn't offend me in the least; I'm a lot more layed-back about most edits and disagreements on Wikipedia than you'd think from reading my lengthy, overzealous rant-responses on these Talk pages. :) It's just hard to convey tones online; this is far from being a big enough deal to upset me.

"To me "And you, Brutus?" means something more like "The ball's in your court."" - Sure, it can mean that. But I think it's entirely a matter of word emphasis and context. "And you, Brutus?" is likely to mean something like what you suggest, but I'm pretty sure that the emphasis in the minds of most Latin-speakers (as opposed to the peons :3) who translate et as "and" is "And you, Brutus?!" (similarly to when you see that your house has been broken into and your valuables stole, and then you see even the TV gone and remark in anger and exasperation, "And the TV?!"). I certainly prefer (and invariably use) the "You too" translation or similar, but "And you" isn't so blatantly and clearly wrong that it's not even a matter of dispute, unlike many other common Latin-phrase translations. I agree with you, but don't agree that it's so simple a conclusion that we shouldn't explain this translation issue on "Et tu, Brute?", and even if it was that clear and black-and-white, we should still mention any incorrect translations that are common enough to be cultural fixtures in their own right, regardless of the quality of their latinitas.

"But I do not think "simply" covers it." - You're are correct. A more detailed explanation is in order. It certainly couldn't hurt; an article about a single, brief phrase has to struggle a little to escape stubhood anyway. :)

"But without that sort of context such an interpretations seems very counterintuitive to me." - Et mihi. :) -Silence 21:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe something like "The phrase is sometimes translated as 'and you, Brutus?', but this translation is unclear and potantially misleading" ... only less wordy than that, preferably.

As for other disagreements with you, it's not a matter of you making errors, as of you having a different philosophy of translation than I do. As a rule, you prefer to give as litteral a translation as possible, while still being accurate, whereas to my mind, in a page like List of Latin phrases, it would be better to focus on traditional translations (again, while still being accurate). The page, afterall, is about Latin phrases used in English, rather than about Latin itself. But honestly, I don't think it's worth it to discuss this much, because your overhaul of the pages is a fait accompli (a French phrase which someone once tried to add to that list), and even if I could sway you on this point, redoing the whole list would be a ridiculous waste of time at this point.

Bizarrely, in this particular disagreement, our usual roles were reversed, because the more litteral translation is apparently more common (based on your google evidence). As a result, you ended up giving me an argument that I would normally be giving you, namely "tradition over absolute accuracy."

--Iustinus 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• "As a rule, you prefer to give as litteral a translation as possible, while still being accurate, whereas to my mind, in a page like List of Latin phrases, it would be better to focus on traditional translations (again, while still being accurate)." - Actually, for many phrases on the List, I give the literal translation and a couple of traditional (or at least variant) ones. I feel that it's best to give both the most technically correct translation(s) and the most common translations for any phrase where interpretation or emphasis differs significantly (i.e. only rarely, but not never, for word order issues). This will not only give our readers more information on the topic and give them the discretion to choose whichever translation they prefer, but also prevents future edit-wars over which translation is "the best translation" out of a number of valid and good possibilities. The main issue I think you're objecting to, unless I'm mistaken, is that I use the literal translation for the "Translation" box and the other translations (or common mistranslations) for the general-info box. This is for four reasons:
  • (1) If I instead put the most common translation in the "Translation" box, issues would very frequently arise over which of a number of common translations is the most common. In many cases, it's very difficult to say, especially for the more complex Latin! This could lead to not only a lot of edit wars, but also a relatively arbitrary and disorganized way of presenting the phrases. Even worse, we would have to be careful to measure the "rightness" of a phrase versus the "commonality" of a phrase, which can lead to some very tough (and disputable) decisions and complex formulations. For example, we'd have to weigh the "rightness" (or accuracy) of 'And you, Brutus?' vs. its commonality; if it's common enough, we may have to use it even if it's not quite accurate, but how common is "common enough" when there's an issue (albeit not a life-alteringly bad translation flaw) with this specific translation? So in the end, using the more literal one (though I almost always try to pick literal translations that convey the meaning well too, and I'm almost never 100% literal, since that would just be meaningless ot English-speakers: for example, I do translate ab imo pectore as "from the depths of my heart", not as "from the deepest chest") is not only more consistent, but also helps prevent countless potential edit disputes by making literal accuracy a bigger issue than how common each translation is (a very, very, very difficult thing to accurately measure, Google be damned) for the chief definition.
  • (2) The literal translation is usually quite straightforward in its source: it's simply a rendering of the Latin. On the other hand, many of the more "common" translations have a history, or a specific style or source, which necessitates an introductory description when the phrase is mentioned. For example, I often have to give disclaimers like "Idiomatically/Metaphorically rendered as" or "Commonly mistranslated as" or "Sometimes simplified/summarized to" or what-have-you for the common translations of a Latin phrase, and if that phrase was the first one we mentioned and was in its own box separate from the rest, it would be very, very difficult and awkward to explain that translation. It might even require resorting to (shudder) parentheses!
  • (3) The other option would be to have more than one translation in the "translation" box, rather than picking one (sometimes almost arbitrarily, it may seem) and relegating the rest to the general-information box. I have considered this possibility in the past. But in the end, it would cause far, far too many organizational problems and would inconvenience the reader more than aiding him, as well as causing a lot more table-space waste and clutter than there is currently. Simpler is usually better, and the current style is, though not perfect, at least fairly simple and user-accessible.
  • (4) The most literal translation can in many cases be considered the most "basic" one, from which all other translations are assorted interpretations and slants on the literal rendering. From this perspective, it makes sense to start from the more literal and work outwards to the more figurative or interpretative, both aesthetically and logically. It just seems like a more natural way of thinking and learning about these Latin phrases, and thus what will give our readers the maximum benefit and the "smoothest ride" through the list.
• However, I am willing to discuss the future possibility of switching to reliance on "common" and "established" translations, as I'm sure there are at least a few very solid arguments for doing so instead of the current system. I currently greatly prefer this style of presenting the translations to our readers, but certainly not to the extent that my mind is closed to other possibilities.
• "The page, afterall, is about Latin phrases used in English, rather than about Latin itself." - ... Hm. After rethinking that line a few times, I'm not sure I agree. The page is called "List of Latin phrases", not "List of Latin phrases used in English"; the only reason English translations are even provided is because this is the English Wikipedia, not because there's any special connection between Latin or English that's worth analyzing more than other languages. As an example, if there was a Latin phrase that was incredibly common in Japan and was used in Japanese all the time, but had almost never been used in English, we'd be justified in including it here and giving an English translation. We're only biased towards English inasmuch as we expect our readers to know English: we're not biased towards English to the exclusion of Latin phrases that are noteworthy in other languages. By the same logic, a few really widespread/noteworthy Latin phrases from ancient Rome that didn't survive into the Middle Ages and etc. to be picked up by later authors might actually merit inclusion, though that's much more disputable (Wikipedia tolerates a temporal bias much more than a cultural one—probably because there are fewer people to offend, most people from ancient Rome being fairly dead).
• "and even if I could sway you on this point, redoing the whole list would be a ridiculous waste of time at this point." - Ridiculous wastes of time are my favorite game. ;) If you're comfortable with the current list (even though you don't find it ideal), then that's fine; if you ever do decide that a change might be worth the time and trouble, though, I'll gladly discuss the possibility. On Wikipedia more than anywhere else, nothing is truly a fait accompli. :)
• "As a result, you ended up giving me an argument that I would normally be giving you, namely "tradition over absolute accuracy."" - Not tradition over absolute accuracy: tradition along with absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is not paper; we have plenty of room to give our readers both the best translations and the most common ones. In fact, my philosophy on the Et tu, Brute? page mirrors my philosophy on the List of Latin phrases pages: start off by giving the most meaningful, accurate, or literal translations of the phrase ("You too, Brutus?", "Even you, Brutus?", etc.), then bring up and explain common mistranslations or alternative interpretations of the Latin. -Silence 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The only point I really want to answer at the moment is "After rethinking that line a few times, I'm not sure I agree. The page is called 'List of Latin phrases', not 'List of Latin phrases used in English'." OK, fair enough. If you know any Latin phrases that are more common in Japan than in the Anglo-sphere, please let me know ;) But certainly there are Latin phrases that are common in, say, Italian or German that aren't in English. But I guess what I mean is that most of the readers are more interested in the phrases themselves than in how the Latin works.

In any case, for the most part I'm willing to let the list stand as is.

As for this article, how about "...frequently, but possibly misleadingly rendered 'And you Brutus?'"

--Iustinus 17:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not his "last words". After that he says "Then fall, Caesar. Someone wasn't paying attention when they wrote this

Well, he does in Shakespeare, at least. --Iustinus 06:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contra me?

I've seen a longer version of this quotation--"Et tu, Brute, contra me?". I don't have the play handy, so can anyone confirm if that is how it appears in the text? If not, then where did this version come from? Appleseed (Talk) 03:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea. HOnestly I have no idea where Shakespeare got the phrase, and I doubt he made it up himself. If anyone can enlighten us about the history of this phrase (beyond what is already listed in the article), I woudl be very grateful. --Iustinus 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All I can think of is that a version is sometimes seen: tu quoque, fili mii? Slac speak up! 12:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA of whole phrase

An IPA transcription of the whole phrase, instead of just the "Brute" part, would be nice

[edit] SNOWCLONE??

A several millennia old phrase and we're throwing in a word coined in 2004 that's not in any dictionary?

I really don't see why people have such a problem with the word "snowclone." --Iustinus 06:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)