Page 1 of 1

BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:59 am
by mariek
Passage from Ex107 PtI Pg45:<br />Romani, clarus, Italiae populus, bellum parant. Ex agris suis, vicis, oppidisque magno studio viri validi ad arma properant. Iam legati cum legionariis ex Italia ad Rhenum, fluvium Germaniae altum et latum, properant, et servi equis et carris cibum frumentumque ad castra Romana portant. Inopia bonorum telorum infirmi sunt Germani, sed Romani armati galeis, loricis, scutis, gladiis, pilisque sunt validi.<br /><br />I'm having trouble with the two sentences in red.<br /><br />My translation of the first sentence in red:<br /> Strong men to arms hasten out of their fields, villages and towns with great zeal.<br /><br />My question:<br /> Did I correctly translate "ad arma"? I wasn't sure about this.<br /> Also, I noticed that they used -que to link 3 nouns (viz. agris, vicis, oppidis). I thought -que could only be used for 2 nouns?<br /><br /><br />My translation of the second sentence in red:<br /> Iam of the lieutenants, hastens with the legionary soldiers out of Italy to the Rhine, the deep and wide German river, and servants carry food and wheat with horses and carts to Roman camps.<br /><br />My question:<br /> I didn't understand the beginning of the sentence "Iam legati". I wasn't sure what "Iam" was, so I assumed it to be a man's name. By doing this, I wasn't sure how "legati" fit in as this seemed to be either a NOM PL or a GEN S.<br />

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:43 am
by Ptolemaios
Only an answer to your second question: iam is an adverb, meaning 'already'. Legati is Nom. Pl.<br /><br />Vale.<br /><br />Ptolemaios

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:51 am
by Skylax
mariek wrote:<br /><br />My translation of the first sentence in red:<br /> Strong men to arms hasten out of their fields, villages and towns with great zeal.<br /><br />My question:<br /> Did I correctly translate "ad arma"? I wasn't sure about this.<br /> Also, I noticed that they used -que to link 3 nouns (viz. agris, vicis, oppidis). I thought -que could only be used for 2 nouns?<br />
<br /><br />- Yes you did correctly translate "ad arma" , if you mean that the men, coming out their fields etc., are hurriedly arming. (A reponse to the order : "to arms !" )<br /><br />- You are right : the -que links only vicis and oppidis, this group, denoting built areas, being juxtaposed (Asyndeton, no copulative conjunction) to "agris" denoting open areas. The form of this phrase is thus: a + (b + c).<br />

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:51 pm
by mariek
Thanks, Ptlolemaios. I couldn't find iam in my dictionary, it must be listed under some other variation?<br /><br />I see what my problem was. The vocab list for this exercise was on Pg286. I looked at Pg286, but didn't look at the continuation on Pg287. Oops!<br />

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:57 pm
by mariek
Skylax wrote:<br />- You are right : the -que links only vicis and oppidis, this group, denoting built areas, being juxtaposed (Asyndeton, no copulative conjunction) to "agris" denoting open areas. The form of this phrase is thus: a + (b + c).
<br /><br />Does this also apply to the 4th sentence in the passage? (Inopia bonorum telorum infirmi sunt Germani, sed Romani armati galeis, loricis, scutis, gladiis, pilisque sunt validi.)<br /><br />Is this use of -que just linking gladiis and pilis?<br /><br />So the form of this sentence is : a + b + c + (d + e) ?<br />galeis + lorircis + scutis + (gladdis + pilis) <br /><br /><br />

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:38 pm
by ingrid70
According to bennett's grammar, if you want to make a list, you can:<br /><br />-use no conjunction at all (asyndeton)<br />agris, vicis, oppidis<br /><br />-use a conjunction between all the parts (polysyndeton)<br />agris et vicis et oppidis<br /><br />-use a conjunction (i.e. -que, not et) after the last part of the list<br />agris, vicis, oppidisque<br /><br />Ingrid

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:54 pm
by Episcopus
At that, O Ingrid, am I of accordance: it sounds to me, however only by means of my admittedly limited "Sprachgefuhl", that "X, X, X-que" that this be a list the same as a X, X and X list in english. <br />But said-someone that -que can only link two things?

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:23 pm
by mariek
[quote author=ingrid70 link=board=3;threadid=313;start=0#2118 date=1059417487]<br />-use a conjunction between all the parts (polysyndeton)<br />agris et vicis et oppidis [/quote]<br /><br />This seems so redundant in style, but that's just how it looks to me.<br />
-use a conjunction (i.e. -que, not et) after the last part of the list<br />agris, vicis, oppidisque
<br /><br />The only thing I've found in the book with regards to -que is this:<br /><br />-que, conjunction, and; an enclitic (cf § 16) and always added to the<br />second of two words to be connected, as arma tëla'que, arms and weapons.<br /><br />D'Ooge didn't really mention whether -que could be used when there are more than two nouns. That's why I was a bit confused. Bennett clarifies this point. And I see that it is actually very much like English: a, b, c, and d ==> a b c d-que. <br />

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:24 pm
by Episcopus
It seems that -que be used often in "Latin For Beginners" especially in the longer extracts which one must translate. <br />It sounds right to me.

Re:BLD Ex107 PtI Pg45

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:25 pm
by Skylax
mariek wrote:<br />
Skylax wrote:<br />- You are right : the -que links only vicis and oppidis, this group, denoting built areas, being juxtaposed (Asyndeton, no copulative conjunction) to "agris" denoting open areas. The form of this phrase is thus: a + (b + c).
<br /><br />Does this also apply to the 4th sentence in the passage? (Inopia bonorum telorum infirmi sunt Germani, sed Romani armati galeis, loricis, scutis, gladiis, pilisque sunt validi.)<br /><br />Is this use of -que just linking gladiis and pilis?<br /><br />So the form of this sentence is : a + b + c + (d + e) ?<br />galeis + lorircis + scutis + (gladdis + pilis) <br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Forget it. I made a mistake. Ingrid is right.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:34 am
by Meowth
so we can use et or -que at will ?

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:55 pm
by Timothy
I would think it depends upon what you are trying to express.

I tend to look at "et" as mostly joining phrases and adjectives;
-que for connecting a group of items.

But I think it is a matter of style.

- tim

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:06 pm
by Episcopus
If you ever try writing you quickly need more than one word for 'and'. Gladly Latin has this. Although Timothy is entirely correct (-que grouping 2 or more elements as one force if you will, et being more of a general and) -que is often used after verbs for rhythm metrical purposes etc. also to avoid monotony. Stuff like deinde versus conficit perrexitque postremum in venandum, then he finished his poem and lastly continued hunting.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:30 pm
by Timothy
Do you know if it's the same in Italian as well? I don't know Italian but I seem to recall that my Italian friends say que a lot. I also seem to recall it in French as well.

- tim

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:22 pm
by Episcopus
Ah Ojala tuvieran el enclítico "-que" pero...

"Che" pron (keh) - What, int.+ rel. pron. the french equivalent is "Que" (pron. kur)