Textkit Logo

De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

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

De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby Paul Derouda » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:06 pm

Interim paucis post diebus fit ab Vbiis certior Suebos omnes in unum locum copias cogere atque eis nationibus quae sub eorum sint imperio denuntiare, ut auxilia peditatus equitatusque mittant.

The last words mean "that they send auxiliary forces consisting of infantry and cavalry", say my sources, i.e. peditatus and equitatus are sg genetives that limit auxilia. My own instinct (influenced by Greek) was to take them as pl accusatives and make them objects and intreprete auxilia as predicative ("infantry and cavalry as auxiliary forces"). I know this is not correct, but is it completely un-Latin or just unnatural? I mean, does Latin have this sort of predicative constructions, or should I make an effort in the future and try to remember that Latin is not Greek?
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby bedwere » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:08 am

As far as I know, peditatus and equitatus are only used in the singular to mean infantry and calvary respectively.
User avatar
bedwere
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby Qimmik » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:54 am

Apparently these words occur in the plural in the Bellum Hispaniense:

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.14:1083.lewisandshort
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:29 pm

Thank you. So, if I understand you correctly, the sort of predicative construction I was referring to is not completely alien to Latin, but for some reason it's not the most natural interpretation here (maybe because peditatus and equitatus are preferably used in the singular, maybe for some other reason). Anyway, whatever the reason, this will do for now!
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby adrianus » Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm

Ut conjunctio hîc verbo modo subjunctivo servit:
Ut has to go with mittant the subjunctive verb here, not with auxilia:
ut mittant = "that they would/should send"

ut mittant...(i) auxilia peditatûs equitatûsque vel ...(ii) auxilia peditatus equitatusque
(i) "that they should send...reinforcements of infantry and cavalry"
(ii) "that they should send..cavalries and infantries as reinforcements"—even without the "ut" the "as" can be understood but this is less obvious or natural here (in this sentence), I'd say, and the first is meant ("reinforcements of infantry and cavalry").
Verè, sine ut conjunctione fieri potest ut sensum significari cum auxiliorum vocabulo at clarior est alter vocabuli sensus ut objectum clausulae ante nomina peditatûs equitatûsque genetivo casu.

You can say the following in Latin, I do believe:
Sic latinè scribatur, ut credo:
Caesar dux milites auxilia mittit == "Caesar, the general(/as general), sends soldiers as reinforcements."
Caesar dux milites, ut equitatum ut peditatum, mittit = "Caesar, the general/as general, sends soldiers, for example [/such as] cavalry and infantry."
Caesar dux milites ut auxilia mittit == "Caesar, the general(/as general), sends soldiers as reinforcements"-->I (who am not wholly reliable) think less good but sayable more modernly with the meaning "as reinforcements" in some writers // Sic minùs benè dicitur et post classicé, nisi fallor (et frequenter erro, id fateor).

Post scriptum

I reread your post, Paul. I imagined you read "ut" as "as" but now I see you need not have been reading it that way at all, Paul, but as in (ii) above. Sorry about that, if that is the case.
Me excusas, Paule. Epistulam tuam relegi et altera interpretatio mihi in mentem venit. Forsit tu sic dicere nolis: "ut" pro anglicè "as" suprà legi. Forsit tu exemplum secundum (ii) superum dicere vis.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby Paul Derouda » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:52 pm

adrianus wrote:ut mittant...(i) auxilia peditatûs equitatûsque vel ...(ii) auxilia peditatus equitatusque
(i) "that they should send...reinforcements of infantry and cavalry"
(ii) "that they should send..cavalries and infantries as reinforcements"—even without the "ut" the "as" can be understood but this is less obvious or natural here (in this sentence), I'd say, and the first is meant ("reinforcements of infantry and cavalry").

This is nice, because all of you seem to say that my first interpretation was not completely wrong. Greek is indeed great help for learning Latin, though you must be wary of "false friends" (does this expression exist in English?)

Does circumflex mean long vowel? Because shouldn't the final -us be long in equitatus and peditatus in (ii) as well? (Acc pl)
Post scriptum

I reread your post, Paul. I imagined you read "ut" as "as" but now I see you need not have been reading it that way at all, Paul, but as in (ii) above. Sorry about that, if that is the case.
Me excusas, Paule. Epistulam tuam relegi et altera interpretatio mihi in mentem venit. Forsit tu sic dicere nolis: "ut" pro anglicè "as" suprà legi. Forsit tu exemplum secundum (ii) superum dicere vis.

No problem, since your reply with this clarification was a good Latin lesson anyway!
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby adrianus » Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:55 am

Paul Derouda wrote:Does circumflex mean long vowel?

In a latin tradition of writing that I follow, -ûs distinguishes the fourth declension genitive, so it's apt here, if rather old fashioned.
Id non significat. Secundum viam scribendi quam sequor, circumflectitur syllaba ultima nominis quartae declinationis casu genetivo ut differentia ostendatur, quod aptum hîc est etiamsi antiquum.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby Paul Derouda » Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:16 pm

That's quite helpful once you know it.
Paul Derouda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: De Bello Gallico 6.10.1

Postby adrianus » Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:07 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:That's quite helpful once you know it.

Also you have -â for first declension ablative, -è or -iùs for adverbs (or -é or -iús for adverbs in terminal positions), and other things. Just a convention (but note that it applied also to pronunciation, according to many scholars, in a Greek sort of way).
Et -â pro syllabâ ultimâ nominum declinationis primae casu ablativo et -è et -iùs pro adverbiis (vel -é et -iús in locis terminantibus) et caetera. Consuetudo scribendi justa (et sonandi, nota, modo propè graeco secundum grammaticos multos).
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 46 guests