The Latin of video games

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

Alright, I suppose it may have already become obvious to some of you, but I have quite the obsession with ancient languages, and Latin was my very first that I learned. Therefore, I may as well put my knowledge to some form of practice, and thus, I will vaguely relate Latin to video games as an excuse to talk about it in this thread. I will give a lot of explanation so that you will see that I know what I'm talking about; there will be a lot of nerd babble, and you will not understand a lot of this, so I apologize in advance. I hope that this thread comes as some entertainment to someone on this guild.  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

Game number one! Super Smash Brothers Brawl

We all probably know that the intro to Super Smash Bros. Brawl is in Latin, and those of you who own the game probably also know that at the end of the Subspace Emissary, Nintendo has provided for you a translation. Well I'm here to give you the finer details of this translation, as it is indeed very loose. If you thought that Engrish was bad, just wait until you hear some Ratin. So, without further ado, the Latin lyrics to the intro.

Audi famam illius.
Solus in hostes ruit
et patriam servavit.

Audi famam illius.
Cucurrit quæque
tetigit destruens.

Audi famam illius.

Spes omnibus, mihi quoque.
Terror omnibus, mihi quoque.

Ille iuxta me.

Socii sunt mihi
qui olim viri fortes rivalesque erant.

Sæve certando pugnandoque splendor crescit.

Now with that done, Nintendo's translation:

"I've heard legends of that person
How he plunged into enemy territory
How he saved his homeland

I've heard legends of that person
How he traveled the breadth of the land,
reducing all he touched to rubble

I've heard legends of that person

Revered by many -- I, too, revere him
Feared by many -- I, too, fear him

Now, that person stands at my side

Now my friends are with me
Some of them were once heroes, some, my mortal enemies

As we face each other in battle, locked in combat we shine ever brighter."

Needless to say, this is a very, *very* loose translation. I'll start with the first line. Audire is the infinitive, which means "to hear; to listen". Changing it to "audi" does not make it past tense, like they translate it, but rather, it becomes a command. "Listen (to [this])!" Fama (rumor; reputation) is written as "famam", making it accusative *singular*, not plural. ("Accusative" just means the word is the object of what we're listening to.) Illius is from "ille", which actually means "that"; it's normal for Latin to utilize demonstratives in place of personal pronouns, so it's like saying "that man" or "that one (who is male)" since ille is masculine. Illius is what they call "genitive", meaning it shows possession: "of that man". So more literally, the line means "listen to the rumor of that one".
Next line. "Ruit" is perfect third person singular (super techno-speak for "he/she/it [did verb]") of ruere, which is "to destroy; ruin; overthrow". Euphemistically speaking, that is where they got "he plunged into enemy territory", as it can mean that in that sense. Solus, sole; only (alone). In = in. No surprises or tricks there. Same word in both languages. Hostes is the kicker. Hostis is "enemy". Hostes makes it plural. So "solus in hostes ruit" is more like "(he) charged/rushed into the enemies". Et patriam servavit, eh? Et is and, though I think some of you already knew that if you know what "etc" stands for, or if you've read Shakespeare at all in your life and remember it. ;p Patria is "homeland", and servavit is again perfect third person singular of servare, to watch over; protect; preserve; guard. So the translation is actually pretty close here. "..and he preserved (saved) the homeland".
This next line is the one that confuses most people. Cucurrit is from currere, to run; flow; proceed. "(He ran/proceeded)." Tetigit from tangere, to touch; strike (where we got the English word "tangible"!) Now, the tricky part. "Quæ" is a feminine relative pronoun that roughly translates as "that; which; who". -que on the end of a word means "and" most of the time, but on the end of a relative pronoun, it indicates something along the lines of "each one". The word here is trying to emphasize "tetigit", illustrating that "each (thing) (he) touched/struck". The final kicker, "destruens" is in its "participle" form. This means that it's a verb (destruere, to destroy; demolish; tear down), but written like this, it acts like an adjective. It's present, therefore it translates as "destroying". As a participle, it does not fill in for a predicate verb, but the implied one is esse (to be), in that everything "is destroyed". It's relatively common practice in Latin to leave out the obvious verbs like esse to keep them from being heard too much. So my rough translation would be more like "(he) proceeded (through), destroying each (thing) (he) touched".
This next line sickens me. "Many revere him -- I, too, revere him." This translation puts so many words in there that aren't there that it makes me want to vomit. Spes is "hope". Omnibus may be already obvious; from omnis, "all; every". It can also mean "all men/people", and this is what it is getting at here. As "omnibus", it is "dative" plural. That just means "to all men/people". Spes omnibus, "hope to all men". Mihi is "me" and is also dative, so it means "to me". Quoque means, in this context, "also". Spes omnibus, mihi quoque. Hope to all men, to me also. The same applies to the next line, except "terror" means, yep, you guessed it, "terror". Terror to all men, to me also.
Again, too much inserted that is not there. "Now" (nunc) is not there. "Ille" means "that", if you recall from the first line. Iuxta means "right next to; right near". Me is "me", but a different case from mihi. Again, the implied verb is esse (to be). "That one (male) is right next to me".
This next whole sentence is easier translated all at once. Socii is plural of socius, meaning "associate; companion; ally". Socii is, therefore, "associates; companions; allies". Sunt is third person plural of esse (they are). Mihi is "to me", though I think it should be "me" to imply "with me". Qui is a relative pronoun that means "who", though it is masculine. It's only odd because earlier they used the feminine (quæ) and now they're switching to the masculine for no reason that I see. -shrug- Olim means "formerly". Viri could be several cases, but I assume it's just plural from vir, "man". Fortes, from fortis, is a plural adjective that means "strong". Adjectives have to match the noun they describe in gender, number and case, which it does, so "viri fortes" is "strong men". Rivales is, also, plural for "rivals", and -que on the end means "and". Erant is the imperfect tense of esse, to be. So this is basically saying that those who were strong men and rivals were being so for a long time before hand and never stopped. "Socii sunt mihi qui olim viri fortes rivalesque erant" => "Allies are to (with) me who were formerly strong men and rivals".
I bet you're tired of this already and are glad to be reaching the final line, huh? Sæve (from sævus, "savage; fierce") is an adverb. "Savagely; fiercely". Certando is what they call a gerund. From the verb certare, to contend with; to struggle with. It means you treat the verb like a noun, and it's ablative, so it implies "in contending with; in struggling with". Pugnando is the same tense and is from the verb pugnare, to fight. -que is, again, "and". Therefore, we have so far "In savagely contending and battling..." Here's yet another kicker: "splendor" is not a Latin word. They have just thrown the English word in there without translating it. Take that how you will. Crescit is from crescere, to come forth; to arise; to spring from; to be born. So the whole phrase is "In contending and fighting with (each other), splendor comes forth".

With all that jibber-jabber out of the way, I'll give you my translation that's a little (a lot) more based on Latin's strict grammar.

Listen the rumor of that one.
He charged into enemies
and preserved the homeland.

Listen to the rumor of that one.
He proceeded through
destroying all he touched.

Listen to the rumor of that one.

Hope to all, to me also.
Terror to all, to me also.

That one is next to me.

Allies are to me
who were formerly strong men and rivals.

In savagely contending and fighting splendor comes forth.

And there you have it. There are no real glaring errors, but rather certain expressions that I, myself, would simply choose to express a little different. It's more a matter of preference.  

[Metus Aquinas]

*head explodes*  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

Haha, I expect that to happen a lot. At least I got one comment, though.
What game should I tear into next?  

[Metus Aquinas]

If you wouldn't mind...perhaps a little research into Neverwinter Nights 2? I believe some things are related to Latin in the game such as spell chants and stuff. Just wondering what they all mean and if it actually makes sense.  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

Mission accepted! I've never played this game before, so it may take quite a bit of research before I find anything. If you can provide me with quick access to what you have in mind, that would be great. If not, that's alright as well.  

[Metus Aquinas]

I'm mostly interested in the spell chants and such. It would be funny if it turns out that the mages just chant some random words to cast a spell, lol.  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

I've only managed to find one viable source in which I can clearly hear what they're saying (for the most part).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg8238Rv1MM
However, I don't understand anything they're saying. If I were to take a stab at it going on just how the accent sounds, I would say that it almost sounds more like Greek than Latin. Despite that, I understand Hellenistic Greek, which this is not particularly so. It may be another dialect of Greek I don't know, as there were quite a few in classical Greece. On that note, a few of the other spells sound almost Germanic. In that light, perhaps they kind of pull from all three sources to create the incantations for these spells.
However, I've listened to this over and over, and I can't pick out much other than single words that, by themselves, don't really make much sense, as I can't pin it together with anything else. If there are other sources you can find to give me, by all means.  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

Game number three! Final Fantasy VII

Ah, yes, the outrageously popular collection of Final Fantasy VII. While the game is undoubtedly quite popular in comparison to many of the other games, it saddens me (not really) to say that the Latin used in many of the games or the movie is rather... convoluted. Some of it can be taken as ecclesiastical Latin, which is sort of its own version of Latin complete with weird, illogical changes to the grammar, but some of it is just downright awkward and nonsensical in its own right.

I'll cover the two versions of One Winged Angel and (even though never featured in any of the games) the song Yakusoku no Chi, just out of association. They'll each have their own posts so this one doesn't get too gigantic.  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

One Winged Angel (Original)

Oh boy, here we go. I'll start with the original chorus. I took this particular set of lyrics and its translation from animelyrics.com, with a few minor alterations: I will not randomly capitalize words when they are part of the previous line, nor will I write the lines that are repeated one right after the other twice. If they can relate video games to anime, then I can relate the movie to the game it was based on, nyah. Anyway.

Estuans interius ira vehementi.
Sephiroth!

Sors - immanis
et innanis.

[Repeat]

Veni, veni, venias.
Ne me mori facias.

[Repeat again]

Veni, veni, venias. (Gloriosa)
Ne me mori facias. (Generosa)

Sephiroth!

And here is the translation given by this site (and almost every other site, which is identical usually down to the letter).

Burning inside with violent anger.
Sephiroth!

Fate - monstrous
and empty.

Come, come, O come.
Do not let me die.

Come, come, O come. (Glorious)
Do not let me die. (Noble)

Sephiroth!

Now, I shall proceed to tear this apart, because some of this is just nonsense. Estuans, according to this dictionary, means (and it literally displays the entry as such) "passionate?" as though it doesn't really know. So I will take its word for it. The point is that this is an adjective, not a verb. It's all genders; it can be masculine, feminine or neuter without changing its form. But it doesn't matter because it's not really describing any nouns. Interius is a little bit difficult to sort of pin down. It could come from the adjetive "interior, interius" or from the adverb "intra, interius, intime", though I will say that it's probably from "intra, interius, intime" because that literally means "within" as opposed to the first, which describes more of a central location. Middle; inner, etc. Either way, it's comparative, meaning that it is translated as "more _____" or "too ______", and it is definitely neuter. Now, the final stake in the heart of this first line of madness, vehementi. From vehemens, being "violent; severe; vehement", it is, I'm going to say, ablative ("with ______"). It could be dative, but that wouldn't make any sense. It does, at least, match up with its noun in that it's all encompassing gender as well, so "ira vehementi" does mean "with vehement anger". However, in tandem with the first two nounless adjectives, it just doesn't quite click. It's more closely translated as "passionate more inside with violent anger", as though the implied part is "I am", despite that neither such subject or verb are given.
Next line! Sors does mean fate, and immanis does match the gender and case. It also does mean "huge; vast; immense" etc, and so "monstrous" is not really a bad translation. Inanis, also, matches the gender and case, and also does mean "empty", but in the sense of being "void" or "hollow". "Fate - immense and hollow". This isn't really wrong or a bad translation given here on the site.
Now this is the part that kind of baffled me. Venire is to come. Veni makes it a command. Like audi, if you recall the Brawl post. (Both audire and venire are the same verb class as purple verbs [I'm weird and like to color-code things], so it should be pretty easy to see the consistency.) Venias, however, dives into the somewhat complex idea of the Latin subjunctive. The subjunctive doesn't exist in English anymore, so this may take quite a lot of explanation. In this situation, it's being used to say that one should, must or ought to complete the action of the verb. Like the subject has an obligation, per se. They translated it as "O come", which, I don't know why. I would venture a guess that they couldn't wrap their brains around the subjunctive tense and thus just threw that on there. It would be more like "you must/should/ought to come". The next line is the really baffling part. If you understand French even to a small degree, this phenomenon might make sense to you. When you negate a French verb, you place "ne" and "pas" around the verb. "Ne [verb] pas" to say "does not do [verb]". This descended from Latin right here. Ne me mori facias. Me is "me", no tricks or deception there. Mori is the present infinitive of "to die", and facias is the subjunctive again, from "facere", to do or make. Now, the "ne" at the beginning is the way you negate a subjunctive expression, such as this. With the subjunctive together with "ne" and "mori", this is how it is translated to say that the subject has an obligation not to let the object "become dead", thus "do not let me die". It's an accurate translation, and the baffling part is that, as you can see, the Latin subjunctive is pretty complex grammar. So how is it that they nail this part right on the head but goof up some of the easy stuff in the beginning?
Anyway, the rest in the parenthesis ("glorious" and "noble") are both accurate as well. The only inconsistency I notice is that, in tandem with the first line, "interius" was neuter, kind of implying an ambiguous subject, but these two are feminine, identifying an obvious feminine subject. Otherwise, nothing really stands out.

And there you have it. If your brain is still functional, let's move on to the Advent Children remix of the same song!  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

devouri2

idk if it has any foreign laguages but do devil may cry i just recently beat it and was wondering

From what I recall, the only Latin utilized in the first game is a name. Devil Emperor Mundus; the word "mundus" is masculine and means "world" in Latin. Other than that, I don't think there is much else that sticks out.  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

One Winged Angel (Advent Children remix)

Same deal as last time. I've taken the lyrics and translation from animelyrics.com. Not that it really matters; I've noticed that any other site that posts the lyrics and translation are the same as the one on this site, word for word. Everyone always has to copy/paste the same lyrics and send them in. It's like no one has any originality or something. Weird. Anyway, the lyrics.

Noli manere, manare in memoria.
Sephiroth!
Sævam iram, iram et dolorem.
Sephiroth!

Ferum, terribile, ferum fatum.

[Repeat first verse]

Veni, mi fili. Veni, mi fili.
Hic veni, da mihi mortem iterum.
Veni, mi fili. Veni, mi fili.
Hic veni, da mihi...

Noli manere in memoria.
Sævam iram et dolorem.
Ferum terribile fatum.
Ille iterum veniet.

Mi fili, veni,
veni, veni, mi fili.
(Qui mortem invitavis.)
(Pœna funesta natus.)
(Noli nomen vocare.)
(Ille iterum veniet.)

Sephiroth!

I know everyone loves this version because it's all heavy on the guitars. I must say that the grammar in this one is better in some parts, but has a few oopsies in it. So I suppose it's on par with the first one. The translation given by the site:

Don't remain, remain in memory.
Sephiroth!
Fierce rage, rage and sorrow.
Sephiroth!

Wild, terrifying, terrifying fate.

Come, my son. Come, my son.
Come here, give me death again.
Come, my son. Come, my son.
Come here, give me...

Don't remain in memory.
Fierce rage and sorrow.
Wild terrifying fate.
That man will come once again.

My son, come,
come, come, my son.
(You who invites death.)
(Fatal punishment born.)
(Do not call the name.)
(That man will come again.)

Now to explain the boo-boos. The first and most glaring problem is that manere is written with an A as its thematic vowel in the second clause of the first line. (The "thematic vowel" is the vowel that stands before the -re in a Latin verb. In this case, a green verb's thematic vowel is the first -e- in the -ere ending, as we see in manEre [to remain]. A purple verb's thematic vowel is -i-, as in "audIre" or "venIre", if you recall those. A blue one's thematic vowel is -a-, such as concelAre [to conceal] or amAre [to love].) "Manere" is a green verb, in which the infinitive *always* has an -e- and *never* contains an -a- there in any situation. With the -a- there, it becomes a blue verb, with a completely different meaning. ManEre is "to remain", and manAre is "to flow". Not that that doesn't work in the context; they've either mis-transcribed or mistranslated the lyrics here. Noli is the imperative from nolle, which means to be unwilling. This is basically how you make negative commands in Latin, by saying "be unwilling to do [verb]", which is why "manere" is infinitive. "Be unwilling to remain", or "don't remain".
**I've only just noticed, but in the repeat of the first verse that I didn't write out, they've written the thematic vowels backwards. "Noli manAre, manEre in memoria", completely contradicting the first line. -facepalm-
Okay, if we keep to using "remain", then it should be "noli manere, manere in memoria". Now, the second infinitive there would be a passive command, so the line should be more closely translated as "do not remain, be remaining in memory". If we use "flow" and the line is "noli manere, manare in memoria", then it would be "do not remain, be flowing in memory". Both kind of work, even if a bit abstractly so. It's hard to tell which they go for in the song, so you can really take it either way.
There is something about this line that I don't quite understand, but that's really just me, I'm sure. Sævam iram is "fierce rage", but it is taking on the case of the direct object of the verb that is not there. "Dolorem (pain [but can describe sorrow])" is following the same suit. This imaginary verb, of course, is implied, so it can be any verb you want to fill in. It's probably meant to be the object of the first line, what we want to remain in memory. This idea is probably going right over your head because this concept of "cases" doesn't exist in English, so you're probably thinking "what'chu talkin' about?" If you want me to try and explain it, by all means, let me know. For now, I'll just try to keep your brain in a solid state of matter by leaving this part out so you can make it to the end of this post without it melting.
Another slip, but on the part of whoever transcribed these lyrics. It should be "ferum terribile, terribile fatum". Yes, I see that it does not match up with the lyrics provided. That's because in the song they clearly do not say ferum twice. It is also translated just about accurately, but if you want me to be all strict, terribile is more like, yup, you guessed, "terrible". Using "terrifying" isn't necessarily wrong, but eh. It's just a matter of how strict you want to be, and in this case, they got the idea across well enough, so it is of no negative consequence to me.
This next part is all correct, except I have never seen the use of "mi" like that before. It's not really wrong, it just seems a bit uncommon. I suppose it doesn't matter that much, as the words fit into the rhythm of the song that way, so. The thing is, since they're using the vocative of "filius" [son], then the word for "my" [meus] would have to become vocative too. It would change to "mee" (pronounced "mei-eh"), and that's obviously too many syllables to fit in there. Using "mi" works just the same, as it's also vocative, just a little bit slang-ese-ish. If anything, the word order is a bit too much like English there. "Da mihi mortem iterum." Literally "give to me death again" in that order exactly. Again, not really wrong, just a bit awkward to me, at least.
Before, we wanted this fierce rage and pain to remain in memory, but this next line, "noli manere in memoria", is saying that it shouldn't. "Don't remain in memory." Weird. Sævam iram et dolorem, "fierce rage and pain (/sorrow)", ferum terribile fatum, still "wild terrible (/terrifying) fate", ille iterum veniet is the only new line. If you recall from the Brawl post, "ille" is that (man), so the line is pretty accurately translated. "That man will come again."
This first part in the parenthesis, "qui mortem invitavis", is spelled wrong. It should be "invitavit". The word "you" is not written; it's meant to be tacked onto the end of the repetative parts. "Come, my son, come, come, come, my son (who has invited death)". By the way, invitavit is past tense. "Pœna funesta natus" is has within it another simple grammar concept that they've goofed up, like before. Pœna funesta is "fatal punishment", but "natus" is a verb participle: from "nasci", to be born. Using it here would sort of make it act like an adjective, but it's past tense. The translation given is correct, it just doesn't show this concept well because "born" in the present tense is the same as the past tense. If we pretend the verb was "give", it would be "given fatal punishment" or "fatal punishment given". The expression would be "fatal punishment that was born", better articulated. But here's the oopsie! Both pœna and funesta are feminine, but natus is masculine. Yes, even as a participle, verbs must also match the gender of the nouns they're attached to if they're describing them. Latin is crazy, isn't it? "Pœna funesta nata" would be the correct grammatical way to write that. "Noli nomen vocare" is correct in both the grammar and the translation, and "ille iterum veniet" we've already covered. Therefore, I think we're finished. I hope you haven't died or exploded or something. Let's translate the lyrics with a slightly more strict translation.

Do not remain. Be remaining in memory. (/Be flowing in memory.)
Fierce rage, rage and pain.

Wild, terrible, terrible fate.

Come, my son. Come, my son.
Come here, give to me death again.
Come, my son. Come, my son.
Come here, give to me...

Do not remain in memory.
Fierce rage and pain.
Wild terrible fate.
That man will come again.

My son, come,
come, come, my son.
(Who has invited death.)
(Fatal punishment born.)
(Do not call the name.)
(That man will come again.)  

[Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph]

約束の地:Yakusoku no Chi (Promised Land)

Everyone praises this song for its beautiful and pure choral voices, however, a lot of people tend to taint it with their awkward or incorrect translations. Haha. No, I exaggerate. They're not that bad, but really, whoever did the original translation didn't seem to know as much as they should about Latin beforehand. So without futher ado, the lyrics.

Cur in gremio hæremus?
Cur pœnam cordi parvo damus?

Stella nobis non concessit, non concessit.

Venarum pulsus in terram fluens.
Parvus, parvus pulsus...
Cor mortem ducens.

Vita mollis in stellam redeunt.
Animam sacrificare necesse est?

Cur in gremio hæremus?
Cur veniam petimus in terram fatali?

I googled this translation, though it hardly matters; every other site has the same identical translation, so here we go.

Why do we stay in the cradle?
Why do we provide suffering to our little heart?

Our star did not leave us, did not leave us

The pulse of veins flowing in the earth
Faint, faint pulse
Heart leading to death

And the weak life return to the planet
Is it necessary to sacrifice the soul?

Why do we stay in the cradle?
Why do we beg for mercy in the fatal earth?

Okay, I think this will be the longest of them all, because there are a few slipups in both the grammar and the translation. Cur means why. "Gremium" is literally "lap; bosom" but can be used as a euphamism for the womb. I guess that's how they sort of derived "cradle" from it, but that's a pretty loose translation in my eyes. Hærere means "to stick; adhere; cling". Written as "hæremus" means "we stick; we cling; we adhere". The line is more closely translated as "why do we adhere (or perhaps "stick [together]) in the womb?"
Pœna, if you recall from the last song, means "punishment". Parvus is "small", and cor means "heart". They're dative case ("to small heart"), thus we have cordi parvo. Dare is to give. "Why do we give punishment to (our) small heart?" The only thing is you would think that "cor" (heart) would be plural, so it would say "why do we give punishment to our little hearts?", but it's not, and it still can work as a singular noun, so I don't suppose that really matters. "Cordibus parvis" (to small hearts) is an extra syllable and consonant anyway, so it probably wouldn't fit well in the chorus. I'm imagining trying to hear "Cur pœnam cordibus parvis damus?" in my head and it sounds awkward.
I think this line is translated into Latin a bit weird because of the Japanese influence here. Ratin, yay! First of all, stella means "star", but can also mean "planet". Considering that it's singular, it's probably meant to be "planet", since that fits better in the context. Anyway, they wrote "nobis" in the dative case, and it's probably because they meant for "concedere" to mean "to give up (on)" or "pardon; submit". While this does indeed make sense in Japanese to work it out like that, concedere takes an accusative object, even though it makes sense to take on a dative object. Oops. It probably should be "stella nos non concessit" and should mean "(our) planet has not given up on us" unless they meant for "nos" to describe who the planet belongs to, in which case the unchanged original sentence would look more like "we did not give up on our planet", which in context of the game and the movie seems to be a slightly backwards assumption. Likewise, nos/nobis means "we" or "us"; noster/nostra/nostrum means "our" and this is obviously absent, so I can only conclude that they've either used the wrong pronoun or written it in the wrong case.
Here, we have our first participle. "Fluens" from "fluere", to flow. Pulsus is a pulse, and vena is a vein or blood vessel. Venarum makes it genitive plural (of veins), and in terram means "into (the) earth". "(The) Pulse of veins are flowing into the earth".
I've already given all the vocabulary that shows up here, so I wouldn't be surprised if you could already translate this part without my help. Parvus is small and pulsus is pulse. "Small, small pulse."
Another translation goof. We love our participles, don't we. Ducens, from ducere (to lead; command) would be treated as "leading", which is correct. However, mortem is not the dative case, which would be where they got "to death". Rather, it's accusative, the object. So it would be translated as "heart leading death", where death is what is being led. Whether or not the writer intended that or flubbed the grammar again is beyond me.
Two mistakes here. One, the translator put in "and", despite that it's not present. The writer, however, flubbed another simple grammar concept. The idea is subject-verb agreement. I'm sure you know what that is, as we learned it quite early on in school. Vita, "life", is singular. The verb, however, is plural; redeunt is "(they) return". Oh dear. So, the basic sentence written in the song (vita redeunt) is "life return" when it should either be "lives return" (vitæ redeunt) or "life returns" (vita redit). Mollis means "soft; flexible; malleable" but is often used as a colloquial expression of weakness or a sort of "pushover" sense. If you remember stella from before, I would again assume it's meant to be planet, considering the context. With the use of the accusative (written as "stellam") in tandem with "in", it means "into the planet", describing a flowing motion. "Weak life return(s) into the planet."
This next line is correct in all aspects. Surprise!
Easy come, easy go. This line shares the same story as the first, so I'll save the explanation. The last line has yet another simple grammar flub and one less simple but still rather basic idea that isn't necessarily an error, but just an awkward rendition. Cur is, again, "why". Venia is "favor; pardoning; permission". It's the object (as veniam). Petimus, from petere, means "to aim for; desire; beg; entreat; ask for" (where we got the word "petition"), and as "petimus" it means "we ask for; entreat; desire". Cur veniam petimus... "Why do we ask for pardoning..." Now here's where the writer goofed, and this is going to take a lot of explanation, I'm sorry. Using the preposition "in" can mean one of two things. Either simply "in" or "on", describing a static state of being, or "into", as I mentioned before, describing a flowing motion. How do we decide on one or the other? With the ablative case for the first (in/on) and the accusative case for the second (into). Now, "terram" is accusative. Therefore, "in terram" = "into (the) earth". Fatali (fated), on the other hand, is ablative. What's wrong with this picture? Latin adjectives *must* match the nouns they describe in number, gender -and- case. Considering that we're probably aiming to say "why do we ask for pardoning in the fated earth" and not something silly like "why do we ask for pardoning into the fated earth", then "terram" should be ablative too. Thus, the line should be "cur veniam petimus in terra fatali?"

**Random etymology lesson: The Latin preposition/prefix "ad-" means "to; toward". You can tack it on the front of many verbs to alter their meaning just a bit, and in context of the song we just went over, you can stick it before hærere [to stick] to get "adhærere", literally meaning "to stick to". This is, yes, where we have gotten the word "adhere". On that same note, "con-" means "together", and with venire [to come] you get "convenire", or "to come together", which is where we get words like "convenient" or "conventional". Likewise, sometimes that final -n on "con" will disappear when there is a vowel there, so adding it to hærere will get you "cohærere", to stick together. Yes, that's right: we have the English derivative "cohere" from this word.