Textkit Logo

Chapter 34, P&R, #16

Are you learning Latin with Wheelock's Latin 6th Edition? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback.

Chapter 34, P&R, #16

Postby whalenburns » Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:09 pm

If those four soldiers had followed us, we would not have dared to put the weapons on the ship.
Si illi quattuor milites nos secuti essent, arma in nave ponere non ausi sumus.

That is how my answer key has this sentence translated. I have two questions about this sentence. First, I wonder why the perfect imperative is used in the apodosis rather than the pluperfect subjunctive. I know that there are variants on the forms conditionals, but I am wondering why specifically one might have been used here. Also, I thought that I should have used in + accusative to translate "on the ship". To me, it implies putting the weapons onto the ship, whereas in + ablative describes where the weapons already are (given its position in this translation).
whalenburns
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: Chapter 34, P&R, #16

Postby furrykef » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:13 am

I don't see an imperative anywhere. (In fact, I don't even know what a perfect imperative would be...)

The end though, almost certainly should be "ausī essēmus". The official answer key has several mistakes in the English-to-Latin translation exercises. I caught this one myself a while back. (That thread also has a few others I've caught.)
Founder of Learning Languages Through Video Games.
I also have a lang-8 journal where I practice Spanish and Japanese.
User avatar
furrykef
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:18 am

Re: Chapter 34, P&R, #16

Postby modus.irrealis » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:22 pm

I think "imperative" was just a typo for "indicative".

whalenburns wrote:Also, I thought that I should have used in + accusative to translate "on the ship". To me, it implies putting the weapons onto the ship, whereas in + ablative describes where the weapons already are (given its position in this translation).

Here, though, the answer key is correct. What you say makes sense, but Latin did use in+ablative with verbs like pono or loco, as you can see in A&G §430. I think the usual explanation is that the ablative is due to the perspective that after you place the object it then it stays there.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto


Return to Wheelock's Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ed-lanty and 14 guests