question about chapter 22.

[Turendil]

I was informed by my latin prof that the following sentence on chapter 22 of was all Fubared and I was wondering exactly what I did that was so horrible.

The english sentence was "With great hope the tyrant ordered those ships to be destroyed.

My sentence ran as follows: Cum magna spe Illae navis ab isto tyranno Iubebantur esse delendam.

(this was all alfter class so it doesn't quite count yet.)

WHat's wrong with this sentence and why?

[cdm2003]

The english sentence was "With great hope the tyrant ordered those ships to be destroyed.

My sentence ran as follows: Cum magna spe Illae navis ab isto tyranno Iubebantur esse delendam.

Hi Turendil...

Your prof may have taken issue with the fact that you took and active sentence and made is passive. Now, I don't know if that was an option to you or not, but even as a passive statement it's a little off, especially the verb:

Magna cum spe - you don't even need the cum but it isn't incorrect to use it. If you do, the adjective in a cum + abl construction regularly moves outside, e.g., magna cum spe, magna cum laude, summa cum laude, etc.

illae naves - naves, plural, not navis, singular.

a tyranno - no need for iste, which would suggest that very tyrannt, or that tyrannt which is a real pain in all our tails.

delere iussae sunt - I would use the perfect tense (perfect, passive, 3rd. pers. plural) of iubeo here and just the plain ol' infinitive of deleo.

Grand total: Magna cum spe illae naves a tyranno delere iussae sunt. Beware, however, that the sentence in English is an active one, so unless your prof told you to change it into the passive it is fubared upwards and sideways. So, for active: Magna cum spe tyrannus illas naves delere iussit. Nice and neat.

Best,
Chris

[Turendil]

Gratias ago.

I appreciate it. I think that the active/passive end of things was primaril the issue. However he didn't put it that way so I was left to wonder that on my own. many thanks.

Sorn

[Chris Weimer]

Actually, with commands (and ordering is a command), you would normally use ut + subjunctive.

Turendil - you used "delendam" for "to be destroyed". While in English it may be hard to distinguish the two, delendam (which actually should be delendae, since it, as an adjective, ought to have agreed with illae naves), denotes an action to be undertaken in the future. You missed out on the sequence of tenses here, since a future can't be a secondary tense when the main verb is perfect. Instead, you use the imperfect.

Also, I wonder why king isn't used here? I think I'd prefer rex, unless there's some sort of context indicating tyrannus.

Tyrannus (vel rex) iussit ut illae naves delerentur.

[cdm2003]

Actually, with commands (and ordering is a command), you would normally use ut + subjunctive.

The above--less common though nevertheless acceptable--construction (iubeo + indic.) is what Wheelock's expects at the moment. The subjunctive mood and jussive clauses aren't introduced to the student until chapter 28.

Also, I wonder why king isn't used here? I think I'd prefer rex, unless there's some sort of context indicating tyrannus.

I'm not sure why you think rex is a better translation for "tyrant" than tyrannus. To me, at least, there is a clear difference between a king and a tyrant, a distinction which would not have been lost on the Classical world. I don't recall (and I could be wrong) Numa Pompilius ever regarded by Classical authors as a tyrannus, yet he was well understood to be a rex.

Chris

[Chris Weimer]

The above--less common though nevertheless acceptable--construction (iubeo + indic.) is what Wheelock's expects at the moment. The subjunctive mood and jussive clauses aren't introduced to the student until chapter 28.

What's the frequency.

I'm not sure why you think rex is a better translation for "tyrant" than tyrannus. To me, at least, there is a clear difference between a king and a tyrant, a distinction which would not have been lost on the Classical world. I don't recall (and I could be wrong) Numa Pompilius ever regarded by Classical authors as a tyrannus, yet he was well understood to be a rex.

I didn't know the context. If he's talking about a Greek Ï„Ï…Ï￾αννος, then I suppose that tyrannus would be acceptable, although, and I don't know how ancient it is, but OἰδίπoÏ…Ï‚ Ï„Ï￾Ï￾αννoÏ‚ was translated into Oedipus Rex in Latin.

Also, to the point, Numa Pompilius was a Latin, not a Greek. If he were king, I believe, but I'll have to check on this, that he has the option to be called either rex or tyrannus. Do let me check.

In the mean time, tell your professor that normal Latin prefers the subjunctive with indirect commands and he'll be more impressed.

Chris

[Iulianus]

"With great hope the tyrant ordered those ships to be destroyed.

Magna cum spe tyrannus illas naves delere iussit.

Salvete omnes!

Shouldn't this be "deleri"? "To be destroyed" sounds like a passive infinitive to me.

Valete sodales,

Iulianus

[cdm2003]

Shouldn't this be "deleri"? "To be destroyed" sounds like a passive infinitive to me.

Sounds like it to me too. Thanks for the correction.

The above--less common though nevertheless acceptable--construction (iubeo + indic.) is what Wheelock's expects at the moment.

What's the frequency.

I'm not sure of an exact ratio here, but my OLD lists the following Classical sites for using iubeo with an infinitive:

Cicero, de Lege Agraria, 2.63: "Hac pecunia iubet agros emi quo deducamini." Caesar, de Bello Gallico, 7.47.1: "Consecutus id quod animo proposuerat, Caesar receptui cani iussit legionique decimae, quacum erat, continuo signa constituit." Also, the OLD states that the construction is also used by Pliny, Ovid, Seneca, Apuleius, Suetonius, and others.

The construction with ut + subj. is defined with more examples, so, without an electronic analysis of the entire Classical Latin corpus, it looks as if the frequency is perhaps 2:3, with the iussive subjunctive leading by a length.

I didn't know the context. If he's talking about a Greek Ï„Ï…Ï￾αννος, then I suppose that tyrannus would be acceptable, although, and I don't know how ancient it is, but OἰδίπoÏ…Ï‚ Ï„Ï￾Ï￾αννoÏ‚ was translated into Oedipus Rex in Latin.

Also, to the point, Numa Pompilius was a Latin, not a Greek. If he were king, I believe, but I'll have to check on this, that he has the option to be called either rex or tyrannus. Do let me check.

I apologize if I had seemed (and seem) to be picking nits--I don't mean offense. The sentence is, unfortunately, one of many in Wheelock's and other textnooks where there is no context given outside of the sentence itself, usually surrounded by other sentences which have no connection to one another aside from the similar vocabulary.

I suppose when I read his sentence, I immediately thought of Turnus, and so tyrannus did make more sense (in my mind). But, those are my own blinders. Numa, however, is referenced as a rex by Livy and Ovid. Yet the Tarquins alone of the Roman Kings were frequently referred to as tyranni by Augustine.

Best,
Chris

[Turendil]

I knew what you meant anyway. When I reconstructed I used deleri. I apreciate it. Thanks much.

Sorn

[elduce]

How about this:

Magna spe tyrannus iussit ut naves eas/illas delerentur.

Since I haven't practice Latin much in the last year, I'm not as strong as I used to be.