Loci Immutati Thread

[mozartpc27]

I hope this isn't too presumptuous of me as an only very occasional poster and a "TextKit Neophyte," but I thought I might start a thread dedicated to questions about the Loci Immutati. I just started on Immutati #5, and I guess I have a question about syntax in actual Latin.

So far, I'v really flubbed two translations, it looks like. First, lines 7-9:

"Quid proxima, quid superiore nocte egeris, ubi fueris, quos convocaveris, quid consili (sic?) ceperis, quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris?"

Which I originally translated as:

"Do you think that [we] do not know what you are needed (for) on the night before last, what [you are] nearest, where you will have been, whom you will have called, which of our plan you will have captured?"

I found online a very nice translation, which goes like this:

What is there that you did last night, what the night before-- where is it that you were--who was there that you summoned to meet you--what design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?

I get what I did wrong at the beginning - I should have understood that the "proxima" refers to the "superiore nocte" and renders, essentially, "last night and the night before," but I really don't know how "quid consili (sic?) ceperis" becomes "what design was there which was adopted by you" and how "quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris?" becomes "with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?" The last phrase is at least a little clearer than the former, but is it normal to have to provide so much of the wording to render a proper translation when moving from Latin to English? The only words in that last phrase supported by the Latin present are "do you think that we do not know which of us?" But obviously, that doesn't render anything useful, in context. I wish I was taking a class or something, I guess. This was very frustrating.

Also, lines 14-15 from this passage read:

"Ad mortem te, Catilina, duci iussu consulis iam pridem oportebat, in te conferri pestem quam tu in nos machinaris..."

This, I rendered as:

"It was right that you [were] led to death, Catiline, by the command of the consul long ago; you were conferred into the plague which you contrived against us."

But again, from a website that features some very sophisticated translation work:

"You ought, O Catiline, long ago to have been led to execution by command of the consul. That destruction which you have been long plotting against us ought to have already fallen on your own head."

Now here, this translator is definitely right to use the subjunctive - in full context, this makes a lot more sense, and fits much more logically, tense-wise. But how come the subjunctive, then, is not used in Latin? I feel like my translation is much closer to what the passage actually says. Am I missing something?

[modus.irrealis]

Hi,

but I really don't know how "quid consili (sic?) ceperis" becomes "what design was there which was adopted by you"

For the genitive consilii, it's just that Latin uses the genitive with certain neuter pronouns and adjective (quid, nihil, tantum, etc.), where you wouldn't phrase it that way in English. So quid consili is just "what plan." (Wheelock covers it in the section "Genitive of the Whole" in chapter 15.)

ceperis here is the active perfect subjunctive, the subjunctive being used because it's an indirect question. Literally, it's "what plan you adopted."

and how "quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris?" becomes "with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?" The last phrase is at least a little clearer than the former, but is it normal to have to provide so much of the wording to render a proper translation when moving from Latin to English? The only words in that last phrase supported by the Latin present are "do you think that we do not know which of us?"

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what that English means. I understood it as "which [one] of us do you think does not know..." nostrum is a genitive that's used for the "of us" in things like "one of us" (partitive genitive).

Now here, this translator is definitely right to use the subjunctive - in full context, this makes a lot more sense, and fits much more logically, tense-wise. But how come the subjunctive, then, is not used in Latin? I feel like my translation is much closer to what the passage actually says. Am I missing something?

Here, it's the oportebat which gives the sentence its subjunctive-like sense. Basically oportebat iam duci means "you ought to have been led [and be led]" (without the "iam", the imperfect oportebat would refer only to the present). English doesn't it do it this way because it makes the infinitive have the reference to the past time.

[mozartpc27]

Hi,

but I really don't know how "quid consili (sic?) ceperis" becomes "what design was there which was adopted by you"

For the genitive consilii, it's just that Latin uses the genitive with certain neuter pronouns and adjective (quid, nihil, tantum, etc.), where you wouldn't phrase it that way in English. So quid consili is just "what plan." (Wheelock covers it in the section "Genitive of the Whole" in chapter 15.)

ceperis here is the active perfect subjunctive, the subjunctive being used because it's an indirect question. Literally, it's "what plan you adopted."

Wow, thank you. I completely failed to recognize the perfect subjunctive. Now this makes a whole lot more sense.

and how "quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris?" becomes "with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?" The last phrase is at least a little clearer than the former, but is it normal to have to provide so much of the wording to render a proper translation when moving from Latin to English? The only words in that last phrase supported by the Latin present are "do you think that we do not know which of us?"

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what that English means. I understood it as "which [one] of us do you think does not know..." nostrum is a genitive that's used for the "of us" in things like "one of us" (partitive genitive).

Well, thanks for looking anyway. I'll keep at it!

Now here, this translator is definitely right to use the subjunctive - in full context, this makes a lot more sense, and fits much more logically, tense-wise. But how come the subjunctive, then, is not used in Latin? I feel like my translation is much closer to what the passage actually says. Am I missing something?

Here, it's the oportebat which gives the sentence its subjunctive-like sense. Basically oportebat iam duci means "you ought to have been led [and be led]" (without the "iam", the imperfect oportebat would refer only to the present). English doesn't it do it this way because it makes the infinitive have the reference to the past time.

I see. Is there anyplace around where this is codofied as a grammatical principle of Latin that I could read up on?

[modus.irrealis]