/lit/ - Literature

I honestly have no clue with this, everytime I try to translate it with my limited Latin i'm just stumped. My thoughts:

Et...et suggests a "both...and" construction.
Signum is the nominative or the accusative case. I assume nominative, since the "est" denotes an "equal sign" of sorts.
Dies is ignored entirely in the translation. Again, nominative and accusative, but it comes before the second "et"?
Datus is a participle, making it a verbal adjective. The *blank* having been given.
Et tenebris... "and darkness."

Can anyone figure this out, or is this just bad Latin?

>Et est signum dies datus et tenebris. Mea culpa, acta est fabula pereo

NONLITERAL "TRANSLATION":

IT IS A SIGN OF DARK DAYS. MY FAULT, THE FACADE (ACTA EST FABULA) IS OVER.

Second line is just as confusing.
Mea culpa is a common phrase: "my bad."
Acta, from it's position, would suggest it is the subject. However, as a noun, it means journal or beach, depending on its macron. However, it can also be the form of the participial actus meaning having been done.
Fabula means story, nominative or ablative.
Pereo means "I disappear."

>>2697664
Ah, didn't account for an idiom. Is the nonliteral translation for lyrical purpose, or because of poor Latin?

>>2697671
>Is the nonliteral translation for lyrical purpose, or because of poor Latin?

NO.

IF I HAD TYPED IT NONLITERALLY, IT WOULD NOT "MAKE SENSE" SYNTACTICALLY, BECAUSE LATIN HAS NO DEFINED GRAMMATICAL RULES (e.g. PUNCTUATION, POSITION OF NOUNS, VERBS, ETCETERA).

TECHNICALLY, THERE IS NO "POOR LATIN".

>>2697680
There can certainly be nonsensical Latin, where nothing agrees and with outlying words that cannot fit in a sentence. That is what I mean by poor Latin.

>>2697668
>>2697650
Anything incorrect about my assessment, besides not recognizing the idiom?

>>2697720
Anyone?

This just has to be bad Latin. Though you should never say that without being 100% sure, because then it'll be fuckin' Cicero or something. Maybe it's just formatted oddly?

The second sentence at the very least is fucked in terms of sentence structure.
>My fault (probably ablative of means, eg. "by my fault", "through my fault")
>the play/act/story has been finished (in the sense of agency, being finished by something/someone, made complete)
>I vanish/die/perish.

The first one is hurting my brain. I agree it could be a 'both.. and" structure, but if it IS shitty google translate latin, it's more likely to just be an attempt at several "and" statements.

I just can't fit any of these words together into something sensible. tenebris obviously can't be an ablative absolute, but it can't be an ablative of means or a dative indirect object either because then the "et.. et" structure makes no sense. Either signum or dies could be nominative, but only dies fits with datus to complete est, but then what do you do with signum? Why the et's?

>>2697680

twat

>>2698646
Especially if the English is the intended Latin, which has no "and" at all, nor "day" in it.

>>2698691
twat indeed

I think I should be content knowing that this is just someone who doesn't know Latin trying to make a sentence, which (as Life of Brian will tell you) is not easy.

"mea culpa, acta est fabula pereo" is very strange to me, since it seems to reference the famous last words of Augustus ("acta est fabula, plaudite" - the play is over, applaud) which makes me suspect, as others have said, that this is more or less doggerel composed by someone who doesn't really know latin.

The second sentence I would give, roughly, as "It is my fault, the play is over, I perish." The first part is more difficult. One possibility might be "And it is a sign given to the day and in darkness." Another might be "It is a sign given both to the day and in darkness." It's very tricky, I think because, again, it's just shitty Latin. I wouldn't count on getting one definitive meaning for it.