Talk:De oppresso liber

Umm...

Umm...that's not what De Oppresso Liber means. Have a look at List of Latin phrases Xyzzyva 03:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The dog Latin phrase is more accurately "Free from oppression".

I found a reference to the grammar in the phrase, which is essentially non "proper" Latin.[1] I know someone who's a Latin scholar and I will ask him to provide input. Alcarillo 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Noun

I'm taking out the section regarding Liber as a noun, in those instances it means book, not free or any derivative thereof. Sovereignlance (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Context

Sounds to me like a variant of De oppressu liber, "free from oppression", or "free from a surprise attack". Rwflammang 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, free from oppression would be ab oppressu liber. What this quote needs in order to be understood is context. What is the substantive of oppresso? If the phrase is short for de oppresso homine liber, then it means "a free man [made] from [or out of] an oppressed man". If it is short for de oppresso tempore liber, then it means "free after a time of oppression".

Since the article cites no source for the context, it is impossible to say what the phrase does not mean, and it is certainly not possible to say it is Dog Latin. Rwflammang 05:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Vindico gravatus?

Vindico gravatus means "I vindicate while I am weighed down". It's pretty obvious to me that most of this article is original research by people who don't know Latin. This cryptic Latin saying could mean any number of things, depending on context. Rwflammang (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An expert actually thinks it means "free from having been oppressed". [2] Rwflammang (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's probable, but in actuality it doesn't really seem to make any sense. The whole article needs an overhaul which should emphasize its vagueness (typical of western Latin motto's) Sovereignlance (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what?

"Members of this Elite Fighting Unit and more broadly, know this to mean: “The Oppressed Freed”, or, “The Oppressed Liberated” and as such, so also is their training and mission, straightforward and distinct. Grammatically, Etiologically diagrammed, this phrase becomes "Just That"..., adulterated, interpreted more than transliterated, lesser actualized; intangible, convoluted, almost ethereal but nevertheless, important for historical purposes, applications and usages." This may have been written with good intentions, but the phrasing is god-awfully complicated; especially for non-English speakers. Some dumbing down maybe? Cheers, Marvin Cannonballbaker (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevancy of the last part

In References, there is a part which seems to make no sense at all. A seemingly military document is put in there and...you can read the rest. It was put in by an IP user so.... It does look like it should be removed! Kingsocarso (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

oppressed, liberated...

Hi Thewolfchild, thank you for spotting my error, which I think I've fixed now. Can you find a source for your edit, especially the edit summary? Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gnom, first, I've moved your comment here. If you wish to discuss an article, the appropriate place is the article's talk page, not a user talk page. That said, I can't say that I'm entirely clear on how you consider your edit a "fix", but I have edited that sentence again, and provided a source. Thanks. - thewolfchild 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi thewolfchild, thank you for your message. I posted my comment on your talk page since I wanted to discuss two articles at once, but let's start with this one. The sentence you're citing goes, "The encircling scroll which arches at the base bears the Special Forces motto "DE OPPRESSO LIBER" which is translated from Latin as "To Free the Oppressed."" If we were extra strict, this sentence, in my opinion, could not be used for the claim of any "United States Army tradition", but I am not challenging that. However, could you give a source for your claim, "The army considers this a transliteration, and while it is not a direct translation, it could be considered a loose translation, or an idiom."? This sentence currently lacks a source, and I think the term transliteration is used incorrectly, as might be the term idiom. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources used to say it was a "transliteration". That's the only reason I added it (otherwise, I wouldn't have used that word). It appears the source has been changed. There's a different picture on that page from what I remember as well. I edited the problematic sentence accordingly. If you don't find it satisfactory, feel free to fix it up, whichever you see fit. But the article should retain that cite, and the fact that the army uses that particular translation. Feel to look around for more sources, if you like as well, that could help.

As for the "other article", just post whatever your issue is on that article's talk page and ping me. I'll come by. - thewolfchild 09:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that sources are incredibly scarce. And I think the reason for this is that it is somewhat embarrassing for a military unit to have a motto that is gibberish. ;-) Please take a look at my most recent edit. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

as a former latin student

De Oppresso Liber from my 2.5 years of latin in high school, before i got expelled and went to a school that indeed did not offer latin: the greater sense of this phrase seems more like a lofty abstract motto more like "Out of Oppression, Freedom." Derrickgl 3:00p, 4 August 2020 (UTC)