Textkit Logo

Inconsistency in Bradley's Arnold & key

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.

Inconsistency in Bradley's Arnold & key

Postby Nesrad » Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:00 pm

Still practicing Latin prose while proofreading Carolus's transcription of the key...

In Ex. 42, 4: The famine is becoming sorer daily; exhausted by daily toil (pl.) we shall soon be compelled3 to discontinue the sallies which up to this day we have made both by night and by day.

Footnote 3: "The sallies must be," etc., part. in -dus. (See 199.)

I sat scratching my head asking myself how I could use a participle in -dus with the PLURAL laboribus and nobis or some variation thereof without appearing as an ablative absolute, while preserving the agent "nobis" for the participle. I gave up and looked at the key:

Fames fit in dies (328, c.) gravior, quotidiano labore fatigatis eruptiones, quas ad hunc diem nocturnas diurnasque fecimus, mox intermittendae erunt (392).

Curse you, Bradley! you can't even follow your own directions.
Nesrad
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm

Re: Inconsistency in Bradley's Arnold & key

Postby mwh » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:59 pm

Yesterday’s sentence too showed a disconnect between the note and the translation. In both cases the translations conflict with the hints given in the notes and even in the text itself—I spot “daily toil (pl.)” vs. quotidiano labore. Were they done independently do you think? It does seem a very odd state of affairs.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inconsistency in Bradley's Arnold & key

Postby Nesrad » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:09 am

You've spotted it. That's what I'm beginning to wonder. Unlike yesterday's sentence, this one hasn't been fixed in the new edition.
Nesrad
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm


Return to Learning Latin