Textkit Logo

Assorted Sentences

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

Assorted Sentences

Postby Einhard » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:12 pm

Salvete

There's a few assorted lines from the LA in Wheelock that I need some clarification on.

First off, there's

sed credo eos hoc fecisse ne locus ipse ad bellum faciendum hortari posset.

but I believe that they done this so that the place itself did/would not have the power to wage war

I believe I'm correct in reading ad bellum faciendum as a gerund indicating purpose, and in translating posset along the lines of having power rather than being able to.

In the same passage, there's

Quare potest intellegi nullum bellum esse iustum nisi quod aut rebus repetis geratur aut ante denuntiatum sit

which I translate thus, Therefore no war can be understood to be just unless that war was waged either for things sought again or unless it was declared beforehand.

Here, I'm not so concerned about the exact translation, as with identifying the grammatical constructions used. I take it that the subjunctive is used as part of a relative cluase of characteristic? The sort of war etc...

My screen is going a bit jumpy ever time I try to scroll down, so I'll have to continue in another post...
User avatar
Einhard
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Hibernia

Re: Assorted Sentences

Postby Einhard » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:31 pm

Moving on, there's this short, but definitely not sweet, line which has caused me quite a bit of head scratching: At hoc ipsum scribe: nihil esse quod scribas

The first part in itself doesn't give any pause; it's in combining the two that's problematic. I have,

But write this itself: that you write nothing becuse there is nothing

That translation is just after occurring to me and it seems correct, but I can't really figure why exactly it should be so. I can see a juss noun clause, but not how esse is translated as there is. Is it just a simple indirect sentence?

Finally, (for now!), there's a line from the next passage. It's as follows,

Circenses erant quo genere spectaculi ne levissime quidem teneor

Again, this is an example of having an understanding of what's been said, but not of how it fits together gamatically. For some reason, I just can't seem to get my head around it. The nearest I get is, I am not even slightly held by the type of spectacle by which which the games were/existed..) but that doesn't seem very convincing. If anyone could put me out of my misery I'd appreciate it!!

Thanks in advance,

Einhard.
User avatar
Einhard
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Hibernia

Re: Assorted Sentences

Postby ptolemyauletes » Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:22 pm

Thanks, Einhard, for mentioning that jumpy screen. I thought it was just me!

sed credo eos hoc fecisse ne locus ipse ad bellum faciendum hortari posset.

'hortari', deponent infinitive, seems to be left out of your translation.

I would suggest something like 'so that the place itself would not encourage (them, someone, anyone) to make war'. The word in the brackets needs to be supplied as the context fits.

Quare potest intellegi nullum bellum esse iustum nisi quod aut rebus repetis geratur aut ante denuntiatum sit
Your second sentence could well be read as clauses of characteristic, but I think they would be subjunctive in any case, as they are subclauses falling within indirect speech. Any subclauses within indirect speech are normally in the subjunctive.

Circenses erant quo genere spectaculi ne levissime quidem teneor
teneo in the passive combined with an ablative to have one's attention held, to be distraced, diverted by etc.
The tricky part is that the antecedent noun of 'quo' is actually placed within the relative clause. Latin does this frequently.
An example would be 'Romam qui locus me semper delectat quotannis visito.' 'Every year I visit Rome, which place delights me.' (literal)
Something like 'The games were the sort of spectacle that fails to hold my attention in even the most trivial way.' Or literally 'they were games by which type of spectacle I am held not even very trivially.'


At hoc ipsum scribe: nihil esse quod scribas

It seems to say something like 'there is nothing which you are writing.' And again I would say that it is a subjunctive because it is a relative clause within indirect speech, the indirect speech being introduced by the imperative 'scribe.'

Any better ideas on this last one? Stupid jumpy screnn..
The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.
User avatar
ptolemyauletes
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:26 am

Re: Assorted Sentences

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:28 pm

In my opinion // Meâ sententiâ:
einhard wrote:I believe I'm correct in reading ad bellum faciendum as a gerund indicating purpose
, Yes // Rectum est quod dicis.
einhard wrote:and in translating posset along the lines of having power rather than being able to.
I don't see a difference // Distinctionem non video.
einhard wrote:I take it that the subjunctive is used as part of a relative clause of characteristic?
Ut dicis, "unless such a one as"
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: Assorted Sentences

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:00 pm

Sorry, einhard/ptolemyauletes. I didn't see the subsequent posts.
Me excusate. Epistulas post primam non vidi.
C PLINIUS FABIO IUSTO SUO S
Olim mihi nullas epistulas mittis. Nihil est, inquis, quod scribam. At hoc ipsum scribe, nihil esse quod scribas, vel solum illud unde incipere priores solebant: 'Si vales, bene est; ego valeo.' Hoc mihi sufficit; est enim maximum.


Formerly you send no letters. You say, there is nothing that I should write. But write this very thing, "there is nothing to write about", or just that with which our predecessors [or "earlier ones/letters"] used to begin "I'm well; if you are, all is fine." That is enough for me; it's even most extensive.
Last edited by adrianus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
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: Assorted Sentences

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:00 pm

...
What's going on? How did I post twice? I deleted the second.
Quid agit? Quomodo bis misi? Secundam epistulam delevi.
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: Assorted Sentences

Postby Einhard » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:37 pm

ptolemyauletes wrote:
Quare potest intellegi nullum bellum esse iustum nisi quod aut rebus repetis geratur aut ante denuntiatum sit

Your second sentence could well be read as clauses of characteristic, but I think they would be subjunctive in any case, as they are subclauses falling within indirect speech. Any subclauses within indirect speech are normally in the subjunctive.






Is it indirect speech though? It doesn't seem so to me. It's Cicero in his own words, rather than Cicero's thoughts as reported by someone else.
User avatar
Einhard
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Hibernia

Re: Assorted Sentences

Postby Einhard » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:24 pm

ptolemyauletes wrote:
It seems to say something like 'there is nothing which you are writing.' And again I would say that it is a subjunctive because it is a relative clause within indirect speech, the indirect speech being introduced by the imperative 'scribe.'

Any better ideas on this last one? Stupid jumpy screnn..


So, "quod scribas" functions as a relative clause of characteristic? That's interesting. I hadn't considered it, but it makes sense. Just to parse it further, we have the indirect statement introduced by scribe and further comprising nihil esse, and then the rel clause of characteristic. That seems right. I have no idea how I considered it a jussive noun clause!!
User avatar
Einhard
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Hibernia

Re: Assorted Sentences

Postby adrianus » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:59 pm

Not//Non "there is nothing which you are writing" but//sed "that there is nothing that you would/might write" = "there is nothing to write about" (ut suprà dixi)
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: Assorted Sentences

Postby ptolemyauletes » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:18 pm

Yes, I think Adrianus is completely correct. I hadn't seen the full context, and I am too lazy to look things up.

Einhard wrote:
So, "quod scribas" functions as a relative clause of characteristic? That's interesting. I hadn't considered it, but it makes sense. Just to parse it further, we have the indirect statement introduced by scribe and further comprising nihil esse, and then the rel clause of characteristic. That seems right. I have no idea how I considered it a jussive noun clause!!


No, it is not a clause of characteristic. Latin rules state that whenever you go into indirect speech, all subclauses need to be subjunctive. There are exceptions, but it is a good general rule. I suspect that this would be subjunctive in any case, as just a normal potential subjunctive. Maybe I will check a grammar book to give you a citation, but I doubt it (lazy).

Einhard wrote:
Is it indirect speech though? It doesn't seem so to me. It's Cicero in his own words, rather than Cicero's thoughts as reported by someone else.


Doesn't really matter. 'Indirect speech' is just a blanket term for accusative infinitive constructions. 'I said this ship to be launched' etc. Doesn't matter who is saying it, thinking it etc.

Also worth noting, from what I know of Cicero's letters, he tends to write a bit more idiomatically than in his other works, and in fact, Latin in his time had not yet fully formed its rules and was a bit more free with constructions than the Augustan age and later.
The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.
User avatar
ptolemyauletes
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:26 am

Re: Assorted Sentences

Postby Imber Ranae » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:39 am

ptolemyauletes wrote:
No, it is not a clause of characteristic. Latin rules state that whenever you go into indirect speech, all subclauses need to be subjunctive. There are exceptions, but it is a good general rule. I suspect that this would be subjunctive in any case, as just a normal potential subjunctive. Maybe I will check a grammar book to give you a citation, but I doubt it (lazy).


But the relative clause of characteristic basically is a potential subjunctive, is it not? Or at least the former developed from the latter, and they would seem indistinguishable in this case. What sort of distinction are you making here, exactly? Regardless, this seems to me to be a textbook example of a relative clause of characteristic. By what criteria do you say that it isn't?

Although I do agree it would be subjunctive anyway, as it is subordinate to indirect discourse, but that's beside the point. The other sentence, with nisi quod, I believe is subjunctive for exactly that reason, as it seems unlikely that there is a relative clause of characteristic at play.
Ex mala malo
bono malo uesci
quam ex bona malo
malo malo malo.
Imber Ranae
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:06 am

Re: Assorted Sentences

Postby adrianus » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:34 am

As you say, "nihil est quod scribam" = "There is nothing to write" = "There is nothing that I would/might write" = relative clause of characteristic // clausula relativa quae adjunctum exprimit.
I was just questioning the translation "there is nothing I am writing".
Traductionem non definitionem corrigebam.

This is a nice take // bella haec interpretatio in A&G, §534: nihil est quod adventum nostrum extimescas (Fam. ix. 26. 4), there is no reason why you should dread my coming.
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: Assorted Sentences

Postby ptolemyauletes » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:33 pm

I thought about this last night after I went to bed and it suddenly occurred to me that it IS a clause of characteristic. Not sure why I said no. 'There is nothing of the sort which I might write.' Seems perfectly obvious now in the light of day. Really it's a textbook example. I'll go back to herding sheep now...
The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.
User avatar
ptolemyauletes
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:26 am


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 23 guests