<br /><br />Why can't the verb tacuit be applied to the first part? I thought that since there was one verb, it must apply to both parts somehow.<br /><br />I had thought the poet was also silent about the glory and fault of the province's inhabitants. Although for this to work, I also wondered why glory and fault weren't pluralized. I just realized that I incorrectly translated incolis, somehow thinking it was genitive. <br />Moerus wrote:<br />the verb in the second part, cannot be used in the first part. The meaning would be something no one would understand.
<br /><br />The thought never crossed my mind that there could be a verb implied. When a verb is implied, is it always the verb "to be"?<br /><br /><br />My opinion is that a verb like 'erat' is understood, but not expressed.
<br /><br />That seems feasible if you make assumptions about the context. Unfortunately, it's a stand-alone sentence, so I have no idea what might have been intended.<br /><br /><br />[It was both], glory and guilt for the inhabitants of the province, but the poet was silent about the nature of the inhabitants.
philjgibbs wrote:<<Et gloria incolis provinciae et culpa>><br /><br />Is there any chance that this is dative of possession - i.e. 'to the inhabitants of the provinces were glory and fault' which might translate as 'The inhabitants of the provinces had both fame and responsibility, but the poet ...etc'<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests