Help with correct translation

[Toxickitty]

Hello, I will be getting a tattoo in the morning and I am looking for the correct translation from English to Finnish. I need to translate "I will always love you." I have found 2 different translations: "Rakastan aina sinua" which translate more to "I love you always" and "Olen aina rakastamaan sinua." The second translation does not seem correct. The tattoo is to honor my mother who recently passed away so I need the correct translation with the correct meaning associated. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Kelly

[sammy]

Rakastan sinua aina

would perhaps be the best one. The future is sort of implied in "aina". (Rakastan aina sinua is understandable, but the word order seems awkward in this context).

Tulen aina rakastamaan sinua

...is literally closer to "I will always love you", but in Finnish it's almost too literal, while it's "correct" it's so wooden it's pure mahogany.

Besides it takes more ink to say that...

(olen aina rakastamaan sinua is incorrect.)

[Pursuivant]

I'd suggest
Olen niin tyhmä, että otin tatuoinnin kielellä, jota en ymmärrä.

[Jukka Aho]

(olen aina rakastamaan sinua is incorrect.)

Olen aina rakastava sinua for that old-fashioned Victorian-times poetic/romantic touch.

[Pursuivant]

Olen aina rakasteleva sinua, would be gothically necrophilic oedipalcomplicit tho...

[sammy]

I'd suggest
Olen niin tyhmä, että otin tatuoinnin kielellä, jota en ymmärrä.

The one by that whatever-her-name-was airhead springs to mind...

"There were is will there is a road"

You man go and we go room...

[Upphew]

"There were is will there is a road"

[laa]

Tulen aina rakastamaan sinua

...is literally closer to "I will always love you", but in Finnish it's almost too literal, while it's "correct" it's so wooden it's pure mahogany.

It's a Swedishism.

[Toxickitty]

Thanks for all the help. I think I'll go with "Olen niin tyhmä" as it will look the mostest prettiest. Haha

[Pursuivant]

I think you better go with Jukka's Olen aina rakastava sinua, poetry is better for tattoos.

[sister Yasmeen]

"Rakastan sinua ikuisesti"

Better not mention name at tattoo... at one day you might love some other "ikuisesti".

[Pursuivant]

"Rakastan sinua ikuisesti"
Better not mention name at tattoo...

Or then you need to get a bigger tattoo... but then again if its for "mom" ... Wallu Valpio doesn't need to redo his.

[muhaha]

Tulen aina rakastamaan sinua

...is literally closer to "I will always love you", but in Finnish it's almost too literal, while it's "correct" it's so wooden it's pure mahogany.

It's a Swedishism.

What's so bad with sveticisms? Remember that the perfect tenses, consonant gradation and adjective agreement are Germanic influence too.

Purism does not make any sense, because you can't know what is loan and what is not. Something can be borrowings from dead, completely unrecorded languages.

Let's have an example in English. The verb "have" is an areal feature in central Europe. Languages have loan-translated the "have" structure from each other. It is clearly not an Indo-European feature, as the "have" verbs in different Indo-European branches are not etymologically related. The original structure is found in Latin: "mihi est" (to me is = I have) and in other older Indo-European languages like Greek and Sanskrit (which totally lacks "have").

[Rob A.]

Purism does not make any sense, because you can't know what is loan and what is not. Something can be borrowings from dead, completely unrecorded languages.

Yes..."purism" in languages...at least in terms of vocabulary is a virtual impossibility....all languages borrow to one degree or another...and it seems obvious that the more "dynamic" the language is, the more the "borrowings"...why invent a new word when one already exists...

Of course, the debate can't end there...for example, calques, are they borrowings or native words? I would take the former view.... More modern borrowed words are often obvious, retaining enough of their original "shape", or not following the normal rules of grammar, but "old" words, too, may have unusual aspects to them....A classic example in Finnish is äiti, apparently from the now extinct Germanic language...Gothic. This word almost follows typical Finnish rules of grammar, but not quite...but then maybe it isn't a "borrowed" word at all, but rather a word retained by ancient Finns when they migrated into Suomi.... More questions raised than answers given as usual...

Let's have an example in English. The verb "have" is an areal feature in central Europe. Languages have loan-translated the "have" structure from each other. It is clearly not an Indo-European feature, as the "have" verbs in different Indo-European branches are not etymologically related. The original structure is found in Latin: "mihi est" (to me is = I have) and in other older Indo-European languages like Greek and Sanskrit (which totally lacks "have").

I find this really interesting ...I wasn't aware that the verb "to have" was a later development....not part of PIE.... I hadn't much thought about this until I started studying Finnish... after a while I realized "have" was a verb that really is not all that critical to a language...unlike, say, the verb, "to be". Other grammatical constructions can easily replace it....

Do you have any links to any papers by linguists on this topic?

Thanks for posting...

[muhaha]

Here's something:

http://books.google.fi/books?id=XlJrPvr ... 22&f=false