Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Context: Briton leader Calgacus gives troops a spirit speech on eve of battle with Romans.
An eandem Romanis in bello virtutem quam in pace lasciviam adesse creditis? nostris illi dissensionibus ac discordiis clari vitia hostium in gloriam exercitus sui vertunt;
I had trouble with this passage:
nostris illi dissensionibus ac discordiis clari vitia hostium in gloriam exercitus sui vertunt;
Translation: Because of our quarrels and feuds, they [merely seem] outstanding[;] the renown of their army results from the faults of their enemies.
It bothers me that I had to add that semicolon, to avoid a run-on sentence in English. It makes me wonder if I missed something in the Latin.
The loeb puts a colon between the two limbs, the perseus translation adds "and". I am not sure that vertunt is "results" isnt it more they turn (transform) the faults of their enemies into (in) the fame of their own army?
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.
bedwere wrote:They, who are brilliant through our quarrels and feuds, turn the faults of the enemies into the glory of their army.
That works for me! Read it as an adjective phrase, or clause, modifying "illi", seen as the subject of "vertunt". I *did* overlook a possibility in the Latin. But I feel good about having that nagging feeling that I had gone wrong somehow.
Putting a semi-colon after clari implies an understood sunt, but it's not necessary to do so. It does work better in English translation if broken into two sentences, however.
Hylander wrote:Putting a semi-colon after clari implies an understood sunt, but it's not necessary to do so. It does work better in English translation if broken into two sentences, however.
Is there somewhere a list of conventions for capitalization and punctuation of Latin documents?
Punctuating Latin texts is a matter of editorial judgment. Sometimes it can make a big difference in meaning.
There was of course no punctuation in ancient Latin texts. Punctuation began to be added much later, in the 9th century or so, sometimes wrongly. Editors need to be attentive to the possibility that traditional punctuations of Latin texts may be wrong.
seneca2008 wrote:The loeb puts a colon between the two limbs, the perseus translation adds "and". I am not sure that vertunt is "results" isnt it more they turn (transform) the faults of their enemies into (in) the fame of their own army?
Yes, your English seems more faithful than my "results from".
I think Tacitus is hard to translate, All the suggestions by Hylander and bedwere are very good. But there is something imperious and craggy in his style which is lost by trying too hard to put it into readable English (by which I mean smoothing it out too much). I have only really studied the Annales but I can recommend book 12 and 13 on Nero (and Seneca!) if you haven't already read them.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.
seneca2008 wrote:I think Tacitus is hard to translate, All the suggestions by Hylander and bedwere are very good. But there is something imperious and craggy in his style which is lost by trying too hard to put it into readable English (by which I mean smoothing it out too much). I have only really studied the Annales but I can recommend book 12 and 13 on Nero (and Seneca!) if you haven't already read them.
