Cur nemo carmina Cinnae legebat?

[pmda]

Orberg in Exercitia de Capitulo XXXIV LLPSI rogat:

Cur nemo carmina Cinnae legebat?

quod non scriptum est a nemo legi poteretur

[Craig_Thomas]

It's a strange question, because Martial's epigram gives no reason for Cinna's poems not being read, but says only that, given that they aren't read, they can hardly be said to have been written. He might not have written any poems in Martialem; he might have written such poems but kept them to himself; he might have written and distributed such poems but, for any number of reasons, found few readers.

Whatever, I don't think your answer makes sense. You seem to be saying 'What has not been written can be read by no one', but if so you have used a passive form of the intransitive verb posse. Or is poteretur the imperfect subjunctive of potior? In that case, what is its subject?

[adrianus]

Non legantur quod malè scribebantur illa Cinnae carmina, ut Martialis absconditè denotat. Non scriptor scriptor ineptus.
Cinna's poems weren't read because they tended to be badly written, Martial indirectly implies. A bad writer is no writer.

"Versiculos in me narratur scribere Cinna"
"in me" = me versús vel contrá // "about or against me"

"Non scribit, cuius carmina nemo legit" = a neat joke // argutiae haec verba.

[pmda]

Actually you're right... my answer was wrong on the facts...- and that's before we even get to the grammar..I'll look at that passive voice issue....thanks.

[pmda]

Yes...my mistake...I was not thinking it through...

Leaving aside the fact that I am wrong on the facts...how about.

quod non scriptum est a nemo legi posset.

Because no one would have been able to read was not written. With the pronoun 'quod' being the subject of 'posset'.

I was trying for pithiness!!?

[Sceptra Tenens]

quod non scriptum est a nemo legi posset.

Nemo is nominative, where you need the ablative. In Classical prose, nullo is used as the ablative of nemo.

The imperfect subjunctive sounds strange with reference to the perfect indicative - replace that with potest.

For some reason or other, I trip over this word order. As a matter of taste (namely my taste), I would reorder it as a nullo legi potest, quod non est scriptum. That is only my opinion, though.

For pithiness, perhaps just non legitur quod non scribitur.

[pmda]

Thanks Sceptra