Ch. 32

[elduce]

In the back of the book exercises, Ch.32, #19:

1. Tyrannus cives suos ita male opprimebat ut semper liberi esse vellent.

The tyrant was oppressing his own citizens so badly that they wished to be free.

My question is, why does it use ita and not tam?

2. Ch. 32 Practice & Review #2

Maxime rogavimus quantum auxilium septem feminae adferrent et utrum dubitarent an mox adiuvarent.

Especially we asked how much help the seven women were bringing and whether they were hesitating or soon helping us.

Given the order of tenses, the main verb is historical, and the subjunctive is imperfect, couldn't it be, 'Especially we asked...whether they would hesitate of soon help us'?

Gratias.

[HenryClay]

Ita and tam are, as far as I know, completely synonomous.

For your second question, gramatically you are correct that dubitarent could refer to time future to the main verb. One's translation would probably depend on the context the sentence is found in, which, of course doesn't exist in a stand-alone occurence.

Cheers

[benissimus]

1. don't forget semper.

2. it seems like "would" makes better sense when translating adiuvarent and certainly is a viable option for dubitarent and adferrent.


welcome to the Latin board, Henry!