Pensum 382.

[vastor]

Salvete omnes,

I'm not sure if the following translation is correct:

Labôribus cônfectîs, mîlitês â Caesare quaerêbant ut sibi praemia daret.
With the labours completed / When-after(attendant circumstance of time) the labours were completed, the soldiers were seeking from caesar to get prizes/rewards for themselves.

What concerns me is "a Caesare". I would have expected it to accompany a passive verb form as it often denotes the ablative of personal agent. Unless it just means separation/deprivation?

[vastor]

I seem to be having more problems with the same exercise. This time regarding the english to latin translation:
Cæsar, when he heard the rumor (the rumor having been heard), commanded (imperâre) the legions to advance more quickly.

Now, my first thought was the ablative absolute because of the hinting of "(the rumor having been heard)". So I did that:
Fama audita/Rumore audito, Caesar legionibus imperavit ut celerius/brevitius/velocius progrederentur / progressi essent.

Firstly, it didn't quite match the translation in the key (note legio):
Caesar rumore audito imperavit ut legiones celerius (citius) progrederentur.
Ignoring the word order, the case of legiones is odd because I thought impero takes a dative argument? I realise this is probably a substantive clause of purpose, but shouldn't impero be governing the dative of legio?

Additionally, I thought to myself that I could also translate this with a nominative participle:
Caesar famam audiens, legionibus imperavit ut celerius progrederentur.

While semantically indistinguishable, the syntax differs slightly because the english heard can be imperfect or past participle. So my question is, could both translations be reasonably accurate or does the english construction necessitate the use of the ablative absolute?

[modus.irrealis]

What concerns me is "a Caesare". I would have expected it to accompany a passive verb form as it often denotes the ablative of personal agent. Unless it just means separation/deprivation?

Well, one of the construction with "quaero" is with "ab" indicating the person you're asking whatever from. But I think this is just one of the usual meanings of "ab", like "from" in English.

Firstly, it didn't quite match the translation in the key (note legio):
Caesar rumore audito imperavit ut legiones celerius (citius) progrederentur.
Ignoring the word order, the case of legiones is odd because I thought impero takes a dative argument? I realise this is probably a substantive clause of purpose, but shouldn't impero be governing the dative of legio?

"Impero" has different constructions, one like yours with the dative, and the other where the person being ordered is put inside the ut-clause as the subject (so in the nominative). I don't think there's a difference in meaning and I don't think you're translation is incorrect. If you look at the dictionary entry for "impero" there are a number of attested constructions.

While semantically indistinguishable, the syntax differs slightly because the english heard can be imperfect or past participle. So my question is, could both translations be reasonably accurate or does the english construction necessitate the use of the ablative absolute?

This has confused me in the past as well. The thing is that Latin is much stricter about the relative time of the participle compared to the main verb than English. So In English you can say, "Hearing the rumour, he ordered..." to mean "when he heard the rumour, he ordered..." but in Latin the present participle means that it happens at the same time so "rumorem audiens imperavit..." means "while he was hearing the rumour, he ordered..."

[vastor]

the dictionary entry for "impero" there are a number of attested constructions.

I suppose having legio in the nominative makes sense if it's the subject of the substantive clause of purpose. Thanks.

This has confused me in the past as well. The thing is that Latin is much stricter about the relative time of the participle compared to the main verb than English. So In English you can say, "Hearing the rumour, he ordered..." to mean "when he heard the rumour, he ordered..." but in Latin the present participle means that it happens at the same time so "rumorem audiens imperavit..." means "while he was hearing the rumour, he ordered..."

That makes sense now. Like you say, for the participle to be in the present, the two verb actions must run in parallel. Which seems to depart from the english meaning. Although these constructions are readily understood, they seem to be quite tricky when translating.

Gratias tibi modus.irrealis ago.