phil wrote: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?
phil wrote: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...
Is it that gloriosum agrees with facere?
phil wrote: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.
Imber Ranae wrote:The addition of si here seems strange to me, though.
Imber Ranae wrote:My only other criticism is that "would be going to" is redundant in English and not reflected in the Latin, either.
phil wrote:Imber Ranae wrote: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?