Commentarii de Bello Civili Mexicanorum

[Quis ut Deus]

Salve amici et amicae!

Aliud nuntium habeo de bello civili in Mexico.

Anglice, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_drug_war_mexico

Sicarius Mexicanus: Consulatus Americanus Corruptus est


Dixit Sicarius Iesus Ernesto Chavez mulierem, quae in consulatu laborabat, ab hominibus nefariis corruptam esse. Secundum Chavez, cum mulier rivalibus eius opem dedisset, ea ab Chavez necari iussa est.

Salariaria, nomine Lesley Enriquez, et duo alii salariarii necati sunt ante diem tertium Idus Martias.

Moderatores Americani dixerunt hanc narrationem falsam esse, at se causam necis non habere quia Enriquez multam potestatem in consulatu non haberet.

Cum res violentiae non saepe Americanos attigeret, multi Americani incolantes in finibus Mexicani sollicitare coeperunt.

Plus quam 23,000 necati sunt in bello civili Mexicanorum abhinc annum 2006.

Gratias vobis ago ob patientiam vestram!

[furrykef]

A few comments and corrections:

"Iēsū" should be "Iēsus" (or, according to Lingua Latina, Iēsūs, with a long vowel; other sources I've consulted have a short vowel). The accusative is "Iēsum"; all other forms are indeed "Iēsū", though.

quae in consulatu laboraret

I don't understand why this is in the subjunctive. I'd go with "laborābat" unless there is a reason I'm unaware of...

Dixit ... mulierem ... corrupta esse

As you can see when it's broken down like this, "corrupta" should be "corruptam". (I'd probably make that mistake too...)

quia Enriquez multam potestatem in consulatu non haberet.

Again, I don't understand the subjunctive here. "Habēbat", perhaps?

These are all the problems I can see at the moment.

[Quis ut Deus]

@Furrykef,

Thanks for checking out my article! The changes you suggested are in bold.

As for the last point, "haberet" vs. "habebat," I followed section 540 in A &G:

"The causal particles quod and quia take the Indicative, when the reason is given on the authority of the writer or speaker; the Subjunctive, when the reason is given on the authority of another."

I probably misinterpreted this rule. I am the writer, but I am not giving the reason on my authority, but merely stating the US Consulate's belief that the employee did not have sufficient power to be corrupt.

But I probably misinterpreted this rule!


Vale!

[furrykef]

It seems probable that you're right. My Latin isn't very advanced, so it's not too surprising I didn't know about this rule.

My first thought was that A&G's rule might be intended to be the same rule for using the subjunctive with "porque" ("because") in Spanish, in which case you'd definitely use the indicative here, but I looked it up the examples in the book and it's not the same rule at all -- here it seems to indicate a sort of indirect speech. It's really surprising how much the use of the subjunctive can vary between Latin and the Romance languages... the usage between them has almost as many differences as commonalities.

[Quis ut Deus]

Furrykef,

I appreciate your input!

To me, differentiating between the authority of the writer and someone else seems like major overkill, but if these are the things I have to know to be able to read and write in the language of the Romans, then so be it! I imagine it's going to take a few years to remember A & G's 500+ sections, but hey who's counting?