...lūnā caelum idem nocte dōnante, caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit.
This is how I would write it in english. With the red sun... and, on the other side of the sky (across the sky) the moon giving the same sky night...
I see what you are doing now.
Dono can take two constructions - accusative recipient and ablative present, or dative recipient and accusative present. I didn't pick up on this metaphor when I read it, but was instead confused by the three ablatives (lunā, nocte, donante) in the absolute. The grammar would be less ambiguous in a separate sentence -
luna caelum idem nocte donans, or you could use the dative/accusative option -
lunā caelo eodem noctem donante. However, I am still not quite satisfied that this metaphorical use of
dono (in which the moon is "presenting" the heaven with night) is completely Latin. It's still striking, though, when the ambiguity is removed.
he (Grandfather) beheld the sky with blue eyes, calm and most wise. I should have added the subject, but I kinda wanted the reader to be in suspense about who was looking at the sky. Should it be
... Is (hic, ille) caelum caeruleis oculis otiosis sapientissimis aspexit.
Remember that
is is a demonstrative, ie, it points to something that ordinarily has already been mentioned. Including
is without a direct antecedent (
ante +
cedens) might be a little odd - perhaps more so than starting a short story with "he," since Latin technically doesn't have simple third person pronouns. What about this: "...aspexit caelum...avus"? Since the subject is arguably the most part of this sentence, it comes at the end, instead of "aspexit" (the action of which is implicit in all of the description)? Also, you avoid the weak demonstrative while still making it clear who is seeing all of this. Just an idea, though.
I don't think I've learned the ablative of description yet (if I have, I don't remember it.), but I kinda like that, since I want to avoid another relative clause.
It's a useful form, and apparently is indistinguishable in meaning from the genitive of description. However, you must have a noun with a modifying adjective to use it. For instance, you can say "erat vir pietate praeclarā / pietatis praeclarae erat" (he was a man of renowned piety), but not "erat vir pietatis." It is essential to remember that, though English commonly uses the simple genitive to describe or modify - "the art of love," "the year of wonders," Latin prefers adjectives - "ars amatoria," "annus mirabilis."
- Sōle trāns caelum rubrō ardente et, ultrā caelō, lūnā caelum idem nocte dōnante, hic caelum caeruleīs oculīs ōtiōsīs sapientissimīs aspexit. Caelō vīsō, ut nepōs suus nātūrae pulchritūdinem vērē sentiat et cernat quī quoque caelum cum eō virō oculīs caeruleīs aspexit, senex tum dīxit; ‘Pax, nepōs. Nunc vērissimam pācem aspicis, et nātūram cernis; animō haec nātūrae pax pulchritūdōque semper teneātur nam in nātūrā Deus. In nātūrā Deus. Nātūra amanda enim semper est.”
- Etiam sentiō et cernō pulchritūdinem nātūrālem et amō. Haec pax mēcum etiam remanet, ō pater matris.
How's that? If I use hic to describe meus avus, it kinda makes it sound like I'm making a Eulogy, and talking about his corporeal remains.
It seems fine to me. As for
hic, see what I said earlier.
*"cum eo viro oculis caeruleis aspexit" - this is now ambiguous for a different reason. What about "eo oculis caeruleis viro"? This sandwich construction presents the reader from (naturally) assuming it is an ablative of instrument with "aspexit."
I guess one could say avus maternus. Or would that simply give maternal characteristics to the grandfather?
Maternus is a good choice. I hadn't thought of that! Note what I said earlier about
ars amatoria, etc.
vale, et in via vitae vigeas,
David
That said, I need practice and criticism, so here it is.
?