Textkit Logo

non debeo

Are you learning Latin with Latin: An Intensive Course by Moreland and Fleischer? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback.

non debeo

Postby phil96 » Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:24 pm

Unit 5, Prelim. Ex., 7. raises an interesting question.
"Patriam populi territi invadere non debetis"

Is it "you ought not invade -- you should stay away from their country" or "you don't have to invade -- there is no obligation to invade"? In other words, does "non" here negate the action or the obligation to act? I _think_ it ought to be the latter but, then, I'm not a Roman.

And if it's the one, how would you express the other?
phil96
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:05 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: non debeo

Postby benissimus » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:56 pm

phil96 wrote:Unit 5, Prelim. Ex., 7. raises an interesting question.
"Patriam populi territi invadere non debetis"

Is it "you ought not invade -- you should stay away from their country" or "you don't have to invade -- there is no obligation to invade"?

both of those translations are the same negation, you have merely expressed the obligation in different ways.

In other words, does "non" here negate the action or the obligation to act?
I _think_ it ought to be the latter but, then, I'm not a Roman.

it negates the obligation, because non directly precedes the word it negates (debetis) ... usually.

And if it's the one, how would you express the other?

non invadere debetis, probably with the 'non invadere' quite separate from 'debetis' within the sentence.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: non debeo

Postby phil96 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:18 am

benissimus wrote:
both of those translations are the same negation, you have merely expressed the obligation in different ways

I intended a difference, but perhaps there is a difference in nuance with Australian English (or, more likely, I just wasn't clear!)

To simplify the issue, consider "discedere debeo" I ought to leave (there is an obligation to leave).
I was asking, is "discedere non debeo"
(a) I ought not leave (there is an obligation to stay), or
(b) there is no obligation to leave (I might leave or stay freely, as I wish)?

So to follow the rule, "discedere non debeo" would be (b), while (a) could be "non discedere debeo"?
phil96
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:05 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: non debeo

Postby paulusnb » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:25 am

I think you might be reading too much into "ought" as a translation of debeo. How about "should"? I cannot think of any examples where debeo means what you say ought means. I do not think that non debeo discedere can be option B. But I am open to correction.



Are you asking if this would be something like the following?

I ought not to eat this cupcake. Gulp.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. ~Swift
User avatar
paulusnb
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: New Orleans


Return to M&F's Latin: An Intensive Course

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests