It seems that my explanations have gone down well with at least two Boarders, but you haven't replied yet.

Not to sound net, but how did I do? Did I answer your question OK? Or was I completely unintelligible?

OK then. To catch everyone up:

Translatin: tutis illorum vos diligo , proeliator illi quisnam can't pugna pro themselves , angelus ut vigilo super totus.

English (after DawnFire bravely strove to make sense of GTranslate’s translation of the Translatin): protector of those you love, champion/warrior of those who cannot fight for themselves, an angel to watch over everyone.

We’re two parts in, and our running translation so far is defensrix illorum quos diligis, propugnatrix illorum qui pro se non pugnare possunt

One last part to go: angelus ut vigilo super totus.

9) angelus
That’s the word for “angel”. Absolutely no problem here.

10) ut
The word is correct; ut is the word for “to” when it is used to introduce certain types of clauses. (If you know French, think of this ut as akin to the French afin que.) However, any student of Latin knows to be wary when ut rears its head, as it usually requires the upcoming verb to be in the subjunctive mood. Of course, if GTranslate cannot even get the indicative mood right, don’t even put your hopes up for seeing a correctly-conjugated subjunctive.

11) vigilo
Again, lazy translating. Vigilo is the verb for “watch,” but I reiterate that GTranslate didn’t even try to conjugate it: vigilo means "I watch."

Question is: what do we need to conjugate this verb to?

To figure this out, let’s unpack the English a bit. The full sentence reads, in relevant part, “[Y]ou shall be … an angel to watch over everyone.” The sense is “you shall be an angel so that you may watch over everyone.” In other words, vigilo needs to be conjugated to second person singular present subjunctive active. That is vigiles.

12) super
Wrong word. “Super” means “over” in the sense of “on top of.” Of course, this is not what we are looking for here; we want the preposition that is part of the verb phrase “to keep watch over [someone].” Here, I will admit that I do not know for sure, but my best guess is pro. If someone is willing to confirm or correct me, I'd gladly appreciate it.

13) totus
Wrong word. Totus means “all” in the sense of “entirety.” We want “all” in the sense of “everyone.” That is the word omnes. The object of the preposition pro must be in the ablative case, though, so omnes declines to omnibus.

Fit the words in their proper places, and (assuming that I used the proper preposition in this last part) we have all three titles properly translated: defensrix illorum quos diligis, propugnatrix illorum qui pro se non pugnare possunt, angelus ut vigiles pro omnibus.

And with that, class dismissed!

OK then. To catch everyone up:

Translatin: tutis illorum vos diligo , proeliator illi quisnam can't pugna pro themselves , angelus ut vigilo super totus.

English (after DawnFire bravely strove to make sense of GTranslate’s translation of the Translatin): protector of those you love, champion/warrior of those who cannot fight for themselves, an angel to watch over everyone.

We’ve gone through the first part and now know that a more proper translation would be defensrix illorum quos diligis

Are we all caught up? Good. Off to the next part: proeliator illi quisnam can't pugna pro themselves

3) proeliator
Proeliator is an actual word meaning “fighter.” GTranslate got it right. No issues here.
Of course, feel free to look in WORDS if you want another word. Since you think that the English is going for “champion,” I’d prefer propugnatrix (remember that the hearer is female).

4) illi
Declension fail. And you had it right just a few words ago, GTranslate! Illi is the masculine singular dative form of the reflexive pronoun ille. The word needed here is the masculine plural genitive: illorum.

5) quisnam
OrangeYoshi99 hit it right on the head again. This is an interrogative pronoun: “who then?” The correct pronoun is the relative pronoun, which I’ve introduced you to in Part I. Since the relative pronoun is the subject of its clause here, we need the nominative masculine plural: qui

6) can’t
Why didn’t you even try, GTranslate?

There is a word in Latin for “can,” as in “to be able.” It is possum. Conjugate to third person plural present active indicative, and you get possunt.

To negate a verb, just add non before it. So “they cannot” becomes non possunt.

7) pugna
Pugna is the noun for “a fight.” We are looking for the verb “to fight.” And since the word “fight” is following the word “can,” it needs to be in the infinitive mood: pugnare.

8) pro themselves
So close, yet so far, GTranslate! Anyone who’s been in court may already know the term for “for himself”: it’s pro se. That’s what we need here.

Given that Latin has a case system, word order is a lot freer in Latin than in English. But in general, Latin syntax is subject-object-verb. So we need to mess with the syntax a bit to put the words in their proper places: propugnatrix illorum qui pro se non pugnare possunt

So our running translation thus far is: defensrix illorum quos diligis, propugnatrix illorum qui pro se non pugnare possunt

First and foremost, major kudos for wrapping your brain around the task of trying to make sense out of the badfic Translatin.

That aside, let's look at how badly the author/Google Translate botched it up now that I have some English to work off of. I want to make this manageable, so I'll chop this into multiple parts.

I'll warn you right now: there will be a lot of grammar terms bandied about. If you have no idea what a word means, please ask.


*ahem*
*taps ruler onto chalkboard*

First off, let's reiterate what our author supposedly meant to write: "protector of those you love, champion/warrior of those who cannot fight for themselves, an angel to watch over everyone."

Now for the Translatin: "tutis illorum vos diligo, proeliator illi quisnam can't pugna pro themselves, angelus ut vigilo super totus."


Before I go on, I must thank Matt Cipher: I had no idea about the term "negative transfer." There's quite a bit of it here, and that term will be quite useful.

Off we go:

1) tutis
First off, I have little idea where GTranslate got tutis. Most likely is that GTranslate tried to use the verb tueor (to protect) or the adjective tutus (safe, protected). However, tutis is nowhere close to meaning "protector." I won't bother you with the possible parsings: suffice it to say that you can conjugate tueor to get tutis, and you can also decline tutus to get tutis as well.

But how to say "protector"? Well, if we want to work off of the verb tueor, the word for protector is tutor.
However, that might throw an Anglophone off, so what other words can we use for "protector"?
A look in any good dictionary (BTW, I highly recommend Whitaker's WORDS; it's the program I use) will give quite a few options. One that would resonate more with English speakers would be defensor. So let's go with that.

2) illorum vos diligo
And we see negative transfer at work: illorum for “of those” (nice job actually declining for once, GTranslate!); vos for “you”, and diligo for “love”.

Illorum for "of those" is actually correct.
Ille is the demonstrative pronoun "that." "Of those [people]" requires ille to be declined to genitive masculine plural. (Just like French, a group of people is referred to by the masculine plural unless the group is composed totally of females.) And the genitive masculine plural of ille is, indeed, illorum.

But that's where GTranslate begins and ends being correct in this clause.

Just like Spanish, personal pronouns are optional for conjugating verbs. And since the speaker is talking to one person, the pronoun used here is wrong. OrangeYoshi picked up on that: vos is plural. The correct pronoun here is tu. But as I said, it is optional; Latin mainly uses the pronoun for emphasis, and we don't need it here.

As for diligo, it seems that this is more fodder for the belief that GTranslate utterly fails at conjugating Latin verbs. Sometimes it tries (and fails), and other times it doesn't even try. This time, it didn't even try.
Go to any Latin dictionary and look up a verb, and you'll find that the entries look something like this: “natō, natāre, natāvī, natatus: swim” The parts that I put in italics are the principal parts of the verb. (Akin to “swim, swam, swum.” in Englishj)
However, unlike other languages' dictionaries, Latin dictionaries' verb entries start with the first person singular present indicative active, as opposed to the present active infinitive.

Why did I say all that? To underscore how wrong GTranslate got it when it simply plugged in diligo for “love.” It would be akin to it plugging in aimer in a French translation. It’s even worse since diligo is a finite verb: it means “I love”! So GTranslate gave “to those protected of those ye I love”—utter nonsense. (Since we’re dealing with a language that distinguishes between singular and plural “you,” I’ll use “thou” and “ye” to distinguish in the English translations.)

So, how to fix it?

First off, we need to expose a word that GTranslate missed because it was hiding in the English. The English is “protector of those you love.” More properly, it’s “protector of those whom you love.” GTranslate missed the “whom.” The relative pronoun in Latin is qui. Here, we need it to be accusative masculine plural: quos.

Next: “you love.” As I said, the pronoun is unneeded. Using diligo for “love”, second person singular present indicative active gives diligis.

OK, I said a lot, so let’s summarize what I’ve said so far.

The English: “protector of those you love.”
The Translatin: tutis illorum vos diligo
The problems:
* tutis is the wrong word, no matter how you slice it
* GTranslate, being not human, did not detect the hidden relative pronoun
* vos is the wrong number
* diligo is conjugated wrong
A correctly-done Latin translation: defensor illorum quos diligis


I won’t add the summary to the later parts, but I will keep a running translation as we go through the sentence.

It looks like a few Latin-student PPCers have joined since I last looked for fellow Latin learners, and the bits of advice you're getting are, for the most part, right.

But unless I'm mistaken, you want to get into the nitty-gritty of the depth of GTranslate fail here. I'm working on that as we speak, and will actually have a real translation at the end, but as it will be quite a long post, expect it to be a few hours before I'm done.

What happened, it looks like, is they ran the sentence through a translator program, thus can't and themselves are in English; presumably, it couldn't handle contractions or reflexive pronouns. Not only did they just Google Translate a phrase into a language they don't speak, they didn't bother to read through the results and realize it didn't all translate.

...safe of those you (more than one "you" to be exact, Latin makes that distinction, English does not) love, warrior of that who (note that this "who" is used only in questions, and this is definitely a statement) can't fight in front of themselves, angel so that I watch on the whole. (you can put man here if you want.)

So in other words, it makes no sense at all.

This expression is a classical example of a negative transfer, where the rules and the principles of your native language (L1) influence your translation of the foreign language (L2).

Yes, carus unus does literally mean 'dear one', but it has several mistakes:

Carus is a masculine nominative meaning (who?) 'beloved'. It is used only to men. Calling a woman your beloved would be cara.

Another thing - unus does mean 'one', but as a numeral (one, two, three - unus, duo, tres), not as a pronoun (the big one; the green one; etc.)

So, yeah, in conclusion - this is a failed attempt. The author could've used so many actual expressions: carissime, dilecti, etc.
======================

Well, what do you know - it was worth studying linguistics. Gimme a moment, I may be able to analyze the longer problem.