Exercise 162, Part II, #2 and #5

[jsc01]

Can someone be so kind as to explain the reason behind the key's translations for #2 and #5?


#2. English: With her weapons she will destroy many wild beasts.

My translation: Multas feras telis suis delebit.

Key's translation: Armis multas feras delebit.

Is the suis in my translation unnecessary? What about the word ordering?


#5. English: Romans, tell the famous story to your children.

My translation: Romani, narrate claram fabulam liberis.

Key's translation: Narrate, Romani, liberis fabulam claram.

Does the word ordering here make a big difference in the meaning (I would guess not too much). Is the key's translation more Latinish (if you know what I mean)?

[Timothy]

Can someone be so kind as to explain the reason behind the key's translations for #2 and #5?

I'll give you what I have. others may have a better analysis.

#2. English: With her weapons she will destroy many wild beasts.

My translation: Multas feras telis suis delebit.

Key's translation: Armis multas feras delebit.

Is the suis in my translation unnecessary? What about the word ordering?

I thought telis was a better word selection too as it relates to offensive weapons. However, they both are "weapons". I do think the suis is unecessary as the emphasis would be on her ownership of the weapons (with her own weapons) as opposed to weapons of another. I think it is implied that they are hers. The word ordering I try to think of in terms of clauses. The result is that the word order empahsises action. I think of the above sentence as "With weapons, many wild beasts, she will destroy." (I sometimes wonder if the Romans lived in a sort of suspence as to the outcome of a sentence until the last word.)

#5. English: Romans, tell the famous story to your children.

My translation: Romani, narrate claram fabulam liberis.

Key's translation: Narrate, Romani, liberis fabulam claram.

Does the word ordering here make a big difference in the meaning (I would guess not too much). Is the key's translation more Latinish (if you know what I mean)?

I think the use of the vocative case of address is regularly subordinate in the sentence and I believe D'Ooge mentions that it is normally the second word of the sentence. The indrect object here is also placed before the direct, so you agin get the "backward" sentence structure, "Tell, Romans, to the children, the story famous." Normally, the verb is at the end but I think when you use the vocative form of address, sort of like a command, then the verb is emphasized and the object ends up last.

- Tim

[jsc01]

Tim,

So in #2, my translation translated back to English would be read, "Many wild beasts, with her own weapons, she will destroy". That does sound a little awkward with unnecessary emphasis on whose weapons we are referring to. However, I do like telis better in this case. I guess I do like the key's word ordering better than mine now.

I will would like to study more examples like #5. For instance, if I wanted to translate "Marcus, hasten to the wall of the town", it would go something like this - Propera, Marce, ad murum oppidani? Whereas "Marcus hastens to the wall of the town" would be - Marcus ad murum oppidani properat? Is this true?

[Timothy]

I will would like to study more examples like #5. For instance, if I wanted to translate "Marcus, hasten to the wall of the town", it would go something like this - Propera, Marce, ad murum oppidani?

Whereas "Marcus hastens to the wall of the town" would be - Marcus ad murum oppidani properat? Is this true?

I think the difference is in whom you are addressing and the manner in which you do so. It makes a difference in how you address people.

1. "You hasten to the town."
2. "Markus, you" (points finger) "hasten to the town."
3. "Markus! You," (points finger, shakes hand) "hasten to the town."
4. "Romans! Hasten to the town!" (We're about to be attacked!)

The first case is more of casual statement. Sort of like saying, "Run over to the town and get some milk." Note, we aren't specifically addressing an individual or group.

ad oppidanum properas.


The second specifies an individual and is more emphatic. The vocative case for Markus, Marke, subordinate in the sentence and second word. In general, a person or group is never used as the first word in the sentence.

properas, Marke, ad oppidanum.

I think the normal order is probably equally emphatic.

ad oppidanum, Marke, properas.


The third case is a direct command to a specific individual.

"You - Markus - do - this - now!"

The vocative case for Markus again but now the imperative mood for action.

Properate, Marke, ad oppidanum.


The fourth case is an address in the Forumn Romanum; You are addressing the gathered crowd and exhorting them to action. So the imperative mood again, and the vocative form of address:

Properate, Romani, ad oppidanum.

- Tim

[jsc01]

Indicative mood - a verb is in the indicative mood when it makes a statement or asks a question about something assumed as a fact.

Imperitive mood - expresses a command.

I think you could use the imperitive mood for all 4 of your examples.

1. "You hasten to the town."
2. "Markus, you" (points finger) "hasten to the town."
3. "Markus! You," (points finger, shakes hand) "hasten to the town."
4. "Romans! Hasten to the town!" (We're about to be attacked!)

In each case, depending on the context, I believe these could be taken as commands instead of statements. For instance, I would interprete 1 and 2 to both be commands and therefore use imperitive mood. To make 1 and 2 unambiguously statements and use indicative mood, you would have to say:

1. "You are hastening to the town".
2. "Marcus, you are hastening to the town".

At any rate, I think I understand you point about word order and vocative form. I will have to pay more attention to this in the future. Also, in the 3rd case I disagree with your translation:

Properate, Marke, ad oppidanum

.

Isn't properate plural? Wouldn't the singular form propera be correct?

[Timothy]

Indicative mood - a verb is in the indicative mood when it makes a statement or asks a question about something assumed as a fact.

Imperitive mood - expresses a command.

I think you could use the imperitive mood for all 4 of your examples.

1. "You hasten to the town."
2. "Markus, you" (points finger) "hasten to the town."
3. "Markus! You," (points finger, shakes hand) "hasten to the town."
4. "Romans! Hasten to the town!" (We're about to be attacked!)

In each case, depending on the context, I believe these could be taken as commands instead of statements. For instance, I would interprete 1 and 2 to both be commands and therefore use imperitive mood.

I think you're right. My examples were an attempt to highlight the steps from simple statements to direct address to command to plural address. I tried to mix too many things together; number, word order, vocative, and imperative.

So if these were commands then they would use the imperative form:

ad oppidanum properas. for the indicative

ad oppidanum propera. for the imperative.

So the imperative mood would distinguish between a command and a statement.

To make 1 and 2 unambiguously statements and use indicative mood, you would have to say:

1. "You are hastening to the town".
2. "Marcus, you are hastening to the town".

Good point.

Also, in the 3rd case I disagree with your translation:

Properate, Marke, ad oppidanum

.

Isn't properate plural? Wouldn't the singular form propera be correct?

Right! My mistake.

- Tim

[Episcopus]

oppidanus is a townsman.
oppidum is a town.

[Timothy]

oppidanus is a townsman.
oppidum is a town.

Yeah, but did you see the size of him?

No, seriously, thanks. As I said before. vocab is my weak point right now.

What about the rest? I think we were able to iron out most of the rest OK.

- Tim

[jsc01]

My mistake originally.

For instance, if I wanted to translate "Marcus, hasten to the wall of the town", it would go something like this - Propera, Marce, ad murum oppidani? Whereas "Marcus hastens to the wall of the town" would be - Marcus ad murum oppidani properat?

It should be Propera, Marce, ad murum oppidi.

and

Marcus ad murum oppidi properat.

[ingrid70]

(I sometimes wonder if the Romans lived in a sort of suspence as to the outcome of a sentence until the last word.)

I guess not. In Dutch (my native language), the main verb goes to the end of the sentence when there is an auxiliary verb. Usually, you get to the end of the sentence before you start wondering what will happen to the subject. I also don't think that the people of the street spoke the prose of Cicero .

Ingrid

[Timothy]

I guess not. In Dutch (my native language), the main verb goes to the end of the sentence when there is an auxiliary verb. Usually, you get to the end of the sentence before you start wondering what will happen to the subject.

I don't have a gift for language like others here do, so I can't judge, but it just strikes me that there is a lot of suspense involved. As you listen to the sentence I guess you have a clear expectation for the main verb. It just seems to me that many of the sentences can be altered dramatilly at the last moment.

"He rushed to Caesar and with great force and emotion..."
A. embraced him.
B. stabbed him.

As I write this I see that a similar structure can be employed in another language. OK, never mind.

I also don't think that the people of the street spoke the prose of Cicero .

Good point. When I get my bearing I hope that Plautus will give me a better feeling for idioms and venacular.

- Tim