Have I got these right?

[phil]

I have been struggling with these excerpts from Romae Virii for the last couple of months, and I think I have finally cracked them, but I would appreciate it if someone would verify that. The English is fairly crunchy in places, because I'm trying to transliterate rather than translate, if you know what I mean.

Servius Tullius has just built a temple to Diana.

Quō factō bōs mīrae māgnitūdinis cuīdam Latīnō nāta dīcitur, et respōnsum somniō datum, eum populum summam imperiī habitūrum, cūius cīvis bovem illam Diānae immolāsset.

Once it was built, it is said that a great ox was born to a certain Latin (not literally, I assume!) and a premonition given in a dream that that people, whose citizen sacrificed that bull, would be going to have great power.

Have I got the meaning of 'mīrae māgnitūdinis cuīdam Latīnō nāta' close to correct? Is that how the Romans would say he reared a mighty ox?

Pyrrhus has just defeated the Romans, and is feeling more than a little chuffed.

Pyrrhus igitur, cum putāret sibi glōriōsum fore, pācem et foedus cum Rōmānīs post victōriam facere, [sent Cineas to Rome...]

And so Pyrrhus, since he thought (that) to make a peace treaty with the Romans after the victory would be [to be going to be] full of glory for himself...

{Warning: may contain rant]
This snippet took me ages to decipher, because I kept think that Pyrrhus was thinking something to himself, and I couldn't work out how he was thinking to himself how glorious he was going to be, because gloriosum couldn't agree with sibi. Then I thought, 'If I could work out what gloriosum was doing, it might help'. So I looked at the notes at the back. You will not believe how useful they were. They say, and I kid you not "glōriōsum modifies what?". Excuse me, but what fing use is that? If I've looked for a fing answer to a fing question, just how much fing use do you think it is to just parrot the fing question back at me! Useless arrogant supercilious know-all editors that probably enjoy being arrogant know-alls. Just take deep breaths, Philip, and count to ten slowly. Sorry, I went away for a while, but I'm back now.

Is it that gloriosum agrees with facere?

Pyrrhus has released some Roman captives.

Praetereā Rōmānī captīvōs omnēs, quōs Pyrrhus reddiderat, īnfāmēs habēri iussērunt, quod armātī capī potuissent, neque ante eōs ad veterem statum revertī quam si bīnūm hostium occīsōrum spolia rettulissent.

Thereafter the Romans ordered that all the captives, whom Pyrrhus had returned, be considered disreputable because they had been able to be captured, even though armed, and that they not be returned to their previous standing before having brought back the spoils from two dead enemies (i.e. two campaigns, not just the spoils of two dead soldiers from the same war. .

The notes at the back ask 'why binum, rather than duorum?'. I'm assuming that bīnūm is (a) short for binorum, otherwise the question makes no sense, and (b) it's used rather than duōrum for the same reason two camps are bina castra, not duo castra, because hostis (sing) means an enemy, and hostes (pl) means the enemy. Or, according to Words, binum can mean 'on two occasions', so the meaning would be clearer, that they had to go to war twice, but that would make the question in the notes superfluous.

Thanks for any comments.
Phil

[Imber Ranae]

Servius Tullius has just built a temple to Diana.

Quō factō bōs mīrae māgnitūdinis cuīdam Latīnō nāta dīcitur, et respōnsum somniō datum, eum populum summam imperiī habitūrum, cūius cīvis bovem illam Diānae immolāsset.

Once it was built, it is said that a great ox was born to a certain Latin (not literally, I assume!) and a premonition given in a dream that that people, whose citizen sacrificed that bull, would be going to have great power.

Have I got the meaning of 'mīrae māgnitūdinis cuīdam Latīnō nāta' close to correct? Is that how the Romans would say he reared a mighty ox?

Pretty close. Bos mirae magnitudinis isn't just "a great ox" but "an ox of wondrous size". Also notice it's feminine bovem illam, so a cow rather than a bull.

Summam imperii is stronger than "great power". I'd say "supreme command" or something along those lines. Summa is a noun meaning "the highest part" or "supremacy".

My only other criticism is that "would be going to" is redundant in English and not reflected in the Latin, either. You also forgot Dianae.

Pyrrhus has just defeated the Romans, and is feeling more than a little chuffed.

Pyrrhus igitur, cum putāret sibi glōriōsum fore, pācem et foedus cum Rōmānīs post victōriam facere, [sent Cineas to Rome...]

And so Pyrrhus, since he thought (that) to make a peace treaty with the Romans after the victory would be [to be going to be] full of glory for himself...

[snipped rant]

Is it that gloriosum agrees with facere?

Yes.

Pyrrhus has released some Roman captives.

Praetereā Rōmānī captīvōs omnēs, quōs Pyrrhus reddiderat, īnfāmēs habēri iussērunt, quod armātī capī potuissent, neque ante eōs ad veterem statum revertī quam si bīnūm hostium occīsōrum spolia rettulissent.

Thereafter the Romans ordered that all the captives, whom Pyrrhus had returned, be considered disreputable because they had been able to be captured, even though armed, and that they not be returned to their previous standing before having brought back the spoils from two dead enemies (i.e. two campaigns, not just the spoils of two dead soldiers from the same war. .

The notes at the back ask 'why binum, rather than duorum?'. I'm assuming that bīnūm is (a) short for binorum, otherwise the question makes no sense, and (b) it's used rather than duōrum for the same reason two camps are bina castra, not duo castra, because hostis (sing) means an enemy, and hostes (pl) means the enemy. Or, according to Words, binum can mean 'on two occasions', so the meaning would be clearer, that they had to go to war twice, but that would make the question in the notes superfluous.

Yes, I believe your first thought is correct. The distributive numerals regularly have their masculine and neuter genitive plural in -um rather than -orum, for some reason.

The use of ante...quam in a negative clause is often better translated with "until" in English. The addition of si here seems strange to me, though. I think you're right to consider it redundant for the translation, but perhaps others have a more solid opinion.

[Kynetus Valesius]

hey say, and I kid you not "glōriōsum modifies what?". Excuse me, but what fing use is that?

This is hilarious! I have had the same thing occur to me numerous times. You'd think that the notes were there to help you, but nooooooooooo such luck. No wonder Latin is nearly dead. For three centuries, the textbook writers have been killing it. Anyway, I admire your determination.

[adrianus]

The addition of si here seems strange to me, though.

I reckon that the use of "si" here, Imber Ranae, distinguishes a conditional future application of the pluperfect subjunctive from its application to past events in a clause linked to an accusative infinitive. After all, just before in the same sentence you did have the pluperfect subjunctive used for past events ("quod armātī capī potuissent").

Meâ sententiâ, Imber Ranae, usus "si" conjunctionis hîc futurum conditionale exprimit, quae conditio aliter per subjunctivum plusquàmperfecto tempore clausulae infinitivae accusativae serviens ab eventibus praeteritis non clarè distinguitur. Verò priùs in eâdem sententiâ modus subjunctivus tempore plusquàmperfecto ad eventus praeteritos ("quod armātī capī potuissent" videlicet) pertinet.

[phil]

My only other criticism is that "would be going to" is redundant in English and not reflected in the Latin, either.

But habiturum is the future participle, so it's that they would have supreme power in the future, isn't it? The English might be horrid, I grant you, but the tense is correct - they would have power?

[Imber Ranae]

My only other criticism is that "would be going to" is redundant in English and not reflected in the Latin, either.

But habiturum is the future participle, so it's that they would have supreme power in the future, isn't it? The English might be horrid, I grant you, but the tense is correct - they would have power?

Yes, but in your original rendering "would be going to have great power" there's a redundant future signification. The idea of futurity in the past is already supplied by "would", which is simply the preterit of the future tense marker "will", so adding "be going to" on top of that is hardly necessary. Do you see what I mean?

[phil]

I see the duplication, but it's an idiom I would use in normal English. 'Are you going to the party?' 'No, I won't be going to go.' Maybe we Kiwis are a bit strange. (It couldn't possibly be just me!)