Textkit Logo

ego cramans

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

ego cramans

Postby Amy » Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:52 pm

Er I'm kind of "self-cramming" for my Latin final Friday so yeah I've got a few more questions...

What is up with this sentence?
Me rus cum amicis ambulaturum pollicitus, non arbitrarus sum me domi debere morari.
Is that a perfect passive participle?? How do you translate that if it it's deponent! (this is just what episcopus said would happen, "i am fished"...)
I am thinking Having promised to walk to my country house with friends, I did not think I should delay in my (city) house.. But that's indirect statement. Uhhhh

and a more minor question
At that time when I saw Caesar himself, I was living in the city.
Tum cum Caesarem ipsum vidi in urbe habitabam
(tum cum! that sounds a little off! is it?)

finally, about indirect questions for real...
Although we have found out many things about the stars, yet we do not know how far away they are.
Cum multa de stellis invenissemus nescimus tamen quem ad modum abessent.

And the difference between temporal and circumstantial cum clauses, is that with circumstantial the main clause could implicitly only happen under the circumstance of the cum clause and not any other time right?

You don't know how grateful I am to the people of this board!! :shock:
phpbb
Amy
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby whiteoctave » Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:41 pm

the first sentence seems fine, the former half governed by pollicitus, 'having promised...', the latter by non arbitrurus sum, simply 'i did not think that' (i would have to stay at home). i am unsure to which deponent you allude.

tum cum in that collocation would generally be avoided, and indeed tum is superfluous to the sense cum (or even dum) with respective temporal clause serves fine alone.

why the tense of abessent? the rest is fine.

i find the simplest way of distinguishing between temporal and circumstantial clauses is that the former expresses merely time, and nothing more is implied, whereas the circumstances of one event impinges upon, i.e. qualifies, another event. most of that seems to be contrained in their respective names.

good luck w. test.

~D
User avatar
whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Postby Amy » Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:07 am

Phew I was convinced for a second I'd lost my last latin marbles. I was confused by pollicitus as Latin has no perfect active participle and well deponents can't be passive; thought of "having" on impulse as I posted since it seemed correct and apparently it is. Yes absint is much better.

thanks for the quick reply, best wishes to you also at cambridge (!!!)
phpbb
Amy
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: ego cramans

Postby benissimus » Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:29 am

Amy wrote:finally, about indirect questions for real...
Although we have found out many things about the stars, yet we do not know how far away they are.
Cum multa de stellis invenissemus nescimus tamen quem ad modum abessent.

why the pluperfect invenissemus?
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

Postby Amy » Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:50 am

Oh right, that too...I'm in a bad habit of using it inappropriately cause the formation is so easy. invenerimus invenerimus invenerimus!
phpbb
Amy
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 2:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby benissimus » Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:54 am

Good luck with your cramming ;)
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

Postby Moerus » Thu Sep 09, 2004 2:52 am

Tum cum Caesarem ipsum vidi in urbe habitabam


To avoid tum and cum, you could also work with tempus:

Eo tempore quo Caesarem ipsum vidi, in urbe habitabam.
Moerus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Lovanium - Leuven (Belgium)


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests