Well, it can be taken as a bleak philosophy, or as down-to-earth realism, depending how you like to look at it.
If the martial arts fan's emphasis is mainly on (physical) pain, I was going to suggest playing safe and keeping the word "dolorem". On the other hand, I do have the feeling that "dolorem" is slightly redundant.
The version without 'dolorem' seems to have a very nice general flavour, I quite like it. Suits all cases, I think, even if it's perhaps a bit too pessimistic :-)
'dolorem passi et dolorem passuri' sounds correct to me. There's ancient evidence of using 'dolorem pati' even in Cicero. But then it should be clear that the meaning is 'to suffer', not 'to get hurt', which are still quite different things.
I'm glad Luis started things off by commenting on the second part of this sentence - otherwise I probably wouldn't have thought about it.
"Passuri" has the advantage of being unambiguously a future participle, "about to suffer".
With "patiendi", I find, there's a certain amount of ambiguity: it means (depending which grammar you look at!) either "about to suffer" (active meaning) or "to be suffered" (passive meaning).
Good point, Dylan. Since this comes from a Martial arts fan, I think that he wants to stress the bit of pain (and enduring pain) being a vital part of the training. So your suggestion with (passi / passuri) goes rather neatly with that idea. I'm just not sure which is better: passuri or patiendi. Is there really such a big difference in meaning between the two?
"Hurt" can mean to inflict injury or to inflict pain. Perhaps there's another direction you can go with this: work around with the idea of suffering pain / blows etc. I'm suggesting this simply because I think "having suffered" and "about to suffer" go rather neatly into Latin: passi - passuri (or perhaps patiendi). You have certainly made us all think!
We have the passive form of ferio "his spectris etiamsi oculi possent feriri", and it was also used in the future ""feriam sidera vertice", and we found even "feriturus".
Ferio is 4th conjugation, so future passive would be ferientur. The thing is that we are losing the sense of "about to", and I am not sure how to render it in this case.
"affliguntur", but really I'm wondering about which verb is best: laedo, ferio ...
As regards "duo", it sounds right to me. Again, this is a point where I don't know the finer detail, because it seems that "dua genera" was sometimes used.
How about the future passive voice? Do you know it?
Could it be something like "affliguntur"?
Without doubt, there is a better verb alternative than "affligo", but I can't think of one...
I think the gerundive can serve as future passive participle: affligendi.
This isn't really one of my language pairs, though I had a fair amount of contact with Latin in the past, so I'm always interested to hear from those who know about the finer points of usage. There may be alternatives to "affligo", for example.
According to my Latin grammar, "duo" is the neutral form - seeing as "genus" is a neutral noun.
"Hominum" instead of "hominorum" - of course, this just proves how rusty I am... ;-)
But what about the "afflicturi"? Another colleague here on ProZ told me it is the active voice, not the passive, so I have really written "about to do some hurting" instead of "about to get hurt".
What do you suggest there?
Is "duo" better here than "dua"? Perhaps someone can comment on that.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
12 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): -1
a quotation
correction
Explanation: It seems correct to me, but for the afflicturi. Its tense is future active, not passive, so it means "those about to hurt", not "those about to get hurt".
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 13 hrs (2009-10-01 08:38:15 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Yes, hominorum is also a mistake, as well as generi
LUIS ANTONIO DE LARRAURI Local time: 01:35 Works in field Native speaker of: Spanish PRO pts in category: 4
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you for your answer.
So what would you suggest instead of "afflicturi"?
Duo sunt genera hominum: qui laeduntur et qui laedantur.
Explanation: One could write 'ei qui' for 'qui', but this isn't necessary nor particularly common. 'Laedere' means 'to hurt, injure' in a physical sense, as well as 'to offend' (e.g., one's feelings).
One could also employ the second periphrastic conjugation (i.e., the finite forms of 'esse' + the gerundive), which construction in late Latin often conveys the force of a future passive participle. But in classical Latin the gerundive generally implies obligation, necessity, and propriety, so that if one were going to write 'qui laeduntur et laedendi', the implication would be 'those who get hurt and must (ought, should) get hurt'. There is no present passive particple in Latin, although the perfect passive particples of a few deponents verbs sometimes convey an active sense, especially in poetry. 'Laesi' would mean 'those who have (already) gotten hurt', not 'those who get hurt', 'those being hurt'.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 6 days (2009-10-07 11:55:17 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
'Laedantur' is a typo, for which I apologise. The future indicative passive form should be 'laedentur'.
The updates to the menu were made to make the site easy and more intuitive for visitors. Obviously, like any change, this may take a few days to get used to.
The dropdown menus have been divided into two-dimensional panels with similar items grouped together under headings. This eliminates scrolling for those with smaller screens, and also improves readability.
Mouseover your name at the top of the screen. Here you will find information about your account, your email settings, and more. The "My ProZ.com" menu was moved up here to simplify the main navigation, and to keep all of this type of information together.
The translation workplace 
Translation industry wiki
peer agreement (net): -1
