Textkit Logo

Lingua Latina - Pars II - Roma Aeterna

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

Lingua Latina - Pars II - Roma Aeterna

Postby Amadeus » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:57 am

Quis potest mihi respondere cur in Cap. I v. 228 legamus hoc:

[Augusts] tot et tanta nova opera marmorea aedificavit ut iure gloriatus sit "marmoream se relinquere urbem quam latericiam accepisset".


et non quod sequitur:

[Augustus] tot et tanta nova opera marmorea aedificavit ut iure gloriatus sit "marmoream se relinquere urbem quam latericiam accepisse".


:?:
Nonne prima sententia legi "acc. + inf." obedit?

(Anyone can respond in English) :wink:

Valete!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:12 am

Ne quidem, amice; sicut scripta constructio proba est. Gloriatus est Augustus, ut ... accepisset.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Amadeus » Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:22 am

Lucus Eques wrote:Ne quidem, amice; sicut scripta constructio proba est. Gloriatus est Augustus, ut ... accepisset.


Sed quidnam? Nonne verbum "accepisset" in sententia speciei "inf+acc" invenitur?
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby TADW_Elessar » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:51 am

Nonne verbum "accepisset" in sententia speciei "inf+acc" invenitur?


Verbum "accepisset" non in sententia huius generis mihi videtur, sed in alia sententia (quod alium verbum est), qua verbo "quam" incipit.

Rogabis cur verbum "accepisset" modo subiunctivo sit. Quia, puto, verba ipsius Augusti referuntur et, ut fieri solet cum verba alius referantur, modo subiunctivo utitur.


Ita divide:
Augustus dixit ---> marmoream se relinquere urbem ---> quam latericiam accepisset
phpbb
TADW_Elessar
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:10 pm
Location: Sassari, Sardinia, Italia

Postby Iulianus » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:09 am

Tecum valdissime convenio, care Matthaei (quidnam vocativus est??), et anglice explicare velim omnis ut res clarissimae sint:

The general rule is, any dependent clause of a sentence that is in the indirect speech = in the subjunctive.

'Dixit se linguas docturum quas iam optime studuisset.'
phpbb
Iulianus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Voorburgi

Postby Amadeus » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:16 pm

TADW_Elessar wrote:Ita divide:
Augustus dixit ---> marmoream se relinquere urbem ---> quam latericiam accepisset


Salve, Elessar!

Gratias tibi ago! Sane ita est.

Augustus dixit
marmoream urbem (intium sententiae speciei acc+inf)
quam latericiam acceppisset (initium alterius sententiae, quae invenitur in prima et, ideo, generis coinunctivi est)
se relinquere

Iulianus wrote:The general rule is, any dependent clause of a sentence that is in the indirect speech = in the subjunctive.


Yeah, I forgot about that. It's a real shame Mr. Hans Orberg did not explain this fully in Parte I. Perhaps he will in Parte II. I'm only at Chapter 3.

Valete, cari amici!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby bellum paxque » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:49 pm

It's a real shame Mr. Hans Orberg did not explain this fully in Parte I. Perhaps he will in Parte II.


I've always thought the biggest defect of the series is that the syntax ISN'T explained fully. I've read almost both books in their entirety and I've never found a reference to the use of the subjunctive in relative clauses found in an indirect statement.

Nevertheless, I love the books.

David
phpbb
bellum paxque
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: nanun Hanguge issoyo (in Korea sum)

Postby Amadeus » Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:18 pm

I've gone back to the first chapters to go over those sentences which appear difficult or strange to me.

CAP. XXXVII, versiculus 14; 185-187: Et arva colenda dedit. [...] Venus... filio se videndam obtulit.

In LL Parte Prima the gerundivum I learned was always followd by esse, and meant that which should be done (e.g., tacendum est). Now in Parte Secunda cap. xxxvii, v. 14 the gerundivum is without esse. In v. 14 I take colenda to mean 'for plowing' (although 'arvum' is alread an aeger qui aratur), correct? But I'm kinda lost as to the meaning of 'videndam' in v. 187. Anyone care to englighten me?

Also, is it redundant to say 'videndam se obtulit' and 'eodem loco haerebat', seing as 'se offerre' means 'se ostendere' and 'haerere' means 'fixus esse, moveri non posse'.

'Preciate the help.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Amadeus » Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:40 pm

No one? Really? :shock:

Ok, how about this one. In the same chapter, verse 238 we read: "[Aneas dicit] Neque enim mihi fas est res sacras tangere..." and in verse 269: "[Creusa Aeneam dicit] Nec fas est te hinc comitem portare Creusam". What is the difference? Can the second sentence be changed to "nec fas est tibi hinc comitem..."?

Thanks!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Tertius Robertus » Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:39 pm

Hi

The gerundivium can appear without the esse complement as a adjective, just like the other participles (amatus, amaturus), and, just like them, it conserves its meaning as a verb, passive and future. (to be done, to be made, to be happened) V.g.: Delenda Carthago = Cartago must be destroyed = Cartago delenda est.

So that in "Et arva colenda dedit" colenda means "to be plowed" or "that should be plowed"

"Venus... filio se videndam obtulit" videndam means to be seem "Venus shows herself to be seem by her son"

They are not redundant, for she could have shown herself to be kissed, to be saluted or whatever: Venus filio se salutandam obtulit; se osculandam; se necandam :shock:

"Neque enim mihi fas.." Mihi here is dative of interest "it is not allowed (for me, in my case) to touch.." (perharps, better, I'm not allowed)

"Nec fas est te..." Te is subject of the accusativus cum infinitivo (It is not permitted you to carry...). So that you can't change one for another; but, perharps, you could introduce the tibi, or other dative, to indicate the interest, to whom the prohibition refers: Neque tibi fas est te hinc comitem portare Creusam.

As to the redundacy with haerebat, I pass, for I truly can't answer.

I hope I helped
Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am

Postby Amadeus » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:45 pm

Tertius Robertus wrote:The gerundivium can appear without the esse complement as a adjective, just like the other participles (amatus, amaturus), and, just like them, it conserves its meaning


Ah, wonderful!

hey are not redundant, for she could have shown herself to be kissed, to be saluted or whatever:


Hmmm... Still, if I say simply 'he showed herself to him' you immediately assume that she wanted to be seen. But anyway, no need to quibble over such things (mental note to self).

Te is subject of the accusativus cum infinitivo (It is not permitted you to carry...). So that you can't change one for another; but, perharps, you could introduce the tibi, or other dative, to indicate the interest, to whom the prohibition refers: Neque tibi fas est te hinc comitem portare Creusam.


Oh, I get it. It's like 'necesse est'. Great!

As to the redundacy with haerebat, I pass, for I truly can't answer.

I hope I helped


Yes, I think that is a redundancy.

Thank you for your help, Terti!

Vale, amice!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Amadeus » Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:45 pm

Salvete!

I come with yet another question, and on New Year's Eve!

Chapter XXXIX, v. 100: «Ad haec Veneris filius "Sororem tuam" inquit "neque audivi neque vidi, o ... —quam te apellem?— o, dea certe...». Here Aeneas is speaking to Venus, his mother, but she is disguised as a virgo venans. Aeneas, then, doesn't know how to call her. But why "quam te appellem"? I don't get this at all. Why not "quomodo te appellem" or "quomodo te appellabo"?

Multas gratias vobis ago ob auxilium vestrum.

Happy New Year! :D
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:49 pm

"What should I call you" instead of "How should I call you"

Felicem annum novum!
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Amadeus » Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:45 pm

Lucus Eques wrote:"What should I call you" instead of "How should I call you"


Thank goodness. I was beginning to think that either my questions were too complicated or too stupid.

However, care Luce, isn't "what should I call you" = quid te appellabo? Or is that because Aeneas is addressing a female the use of "quam" is necessary? And why "appellem" in the subjunctive? I notice you write "should", and perhaps that's what the subjunctive translates into English, but, as you know, we don't use Lingua Latina to translate. :wink:

Spero quoque te felicem annum novum habueris.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:06 am

"Should" is a proper way to translate the subjunctive, yes; it is the subjunctive of "shall."

And you're right, "Whom should I call you?" would be truer a meaning.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Iulianus » Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:15 pm

For those who like to assign names to these things, it's called the coniunctivus dubitativus - used when doubting about something. 'quid faciam'?

Vale,

Iulianus
phpbb
Iulianus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Voorburgi

Postby Amadeus » Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:40 pm

Gratias vobis ago, iuvenes (guys?).

Valete!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Amadeus » Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:33 pm

Cap. XL, v. 4: «neque cura membris placidam quietem dat».

Cur duo verba?

v. 15-17: «Sed velim prius terra me devoret vel Iuppiter me fulimne percutiat, quam pudorem solvo aut fidem fallo!».

Ego sic scripsissem supra: «Sed velim prius terra me devoret vel Iuppiter me fulmine percutiat, quam pudorem solvere aut fidem fallere!». Estne valida solutio mea? Aut quod sentitis huius alterae: «...quam pudorem solvam aut fidem fallam!»?

If anyone can help me, either Latine or in English...

Valete! :D
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Didymus » Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:47 pm

Amadeus wrote:Cap. XL, v. 4: «neque cura membris placidam quietem dat».

Cur duo verba?


cura is a noun. This is a prosification of Aen. 4. 5, "... nec placidam membris dat cura quietem."

v. 15-17: «Sed velim prius terra me devoret vel Iuppiter me fulimne percutiat, quam pudorem solvo aut fidem fallo!».

Ego sic scripsissem supra: «Sed velim prius terra me devoret vel Iuppiter me fulmine percutiat, quam pudorem solvere aut fidem fallere!». Estne valida solutio mea? Aut quod sentitis huius alterae: «...quam pudorem solvam aut fidem fallam!»?


Your first version (with infinitives) is correct Latin. Theirs, so far as I can see, makes nonsense -- although I welcome construals to the contrary.
Didymus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:53 am

Versus ipse sensum habet etiam Anglice:

Sed velim terra prius me devoret vel Juppiter me fulmine percutiat, quam pudorem solvo aut fidem fallo!

Sooner I'd wish the earth to swallow me up or Jupiter to strike me with of bolt of lightning, than I violate my chastity or betray my husband!
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Didymus » Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:52 am

Lucus Eques wrote:Versus ipse sensum habet etiam Anglice:

Sed velim terra prius me devoret vel Juppiter me fulmine percutiat, quam pudorem solvo aut fidem fallo!

Sooner I'd wish the earth to swallow me up or Jupiter to strike me with of bolt of lightning, than I violate my chastity or betray my husband!


This doesn't sound like English to me. (No offense to you at all, Lucus; I agree that the given sentence must be translated as you do.)

The issue is with parallelism. Maybe with the first-person singular in English it can be masked slightly, so recast it as third-person singular: "She would sooner have the earth devour her or Jupiter strike her with lightning than she yields her chastity or betrays her oath." This is more clearly not English; English is: "She would sooner have the earth devour her ... than yield her chastity or betray her oath." In the second version, there is an implied "she would"; i.e., "she would sooner have the earth devour her ... than she would yield her chastity ..."

This proper parallelism must be preserved no less in Latin than in English. Thus the sentence from the textbook should be rewritten, as Amadeus has done.
Didymus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:34 am

Actually, Amadeus used the infinitive, not the subjunctive as you suggest; I strongly agree with the subjunctive, particularly in English, and I am an outspoken advocate of clear parallelism (I can't tell you how exhausted I am of complaining about people saying "If I was, I would ..."). Nevertheless, Latin is extremely flexible — for god's sake, they use the præsent tense in remote past narration. And I have seen Roman authors use the indicative just in this manner where the subjunctive would be more sensible, at least by our standards, though I cannot retrieve any examples (I do however recall the feeling of perplexion). I would not myself produce a Latin sentence so written, but it's authority is not thusly diminished.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:49 am

Also, my loose translation was certainly English, whose second phrase could either be indicative or subjuctive ad litteras.

In fact, I'm looking at the Latin again and realize the collective error in comprehension:

Sed velim terra prius me devoret vel Juppiter me fulmine percutiat, quam pudorem solvo aut fidem fallo!

Although "wish" in English (Modern at least) quite commonly takes the past subjunctive, Latin "velim" is already præsent subjuctive — and moreover, it most certainly is used in parallel with the indicative. Let's translate again:

"Before I betray an oath or yield my chastity [præsent indicative], may Jupiter strike me down [præsent subjuctive] ...!"

This makes the most sense. An æqually reasonable second clause: "..., may I desire for Jupiter to strike me down ...!"
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Didymus » Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:57 pm

There are still several issues. The use of velim in the first half of the sentence ought to be paralleled somehow in the second half; an indicative just won't do. The way you read the sentence tries to imply, "Before I yield my chastity [and I am in fact going to yield my chastity], may I wish that Jupiter strike me down!" But for this reading to work, the second half of the sentence would need to contain future perfect indicatives: "Before I will have done this, let this other thing happen to stop me."

If we take velim as you wish to take it, it is, at the very least, exceptionally clumsy -- why use velim at all? The two other subjunctive verbs would convey the meaning better, and would not create the expectation of a parallel construction in the second half of the sentence. If you want to argue that Latin authors sometimes lose track of parallelism, I will surely agree with you, but such should not be imitated.

Since we are not arguing over manuscript readings, it's not as if this is worth too much spilled ink, but I do feel some discussion is valuable insofar as it may lead to some increased understanding of Latin idiom.

Sorry, this post is written somewhat in haste; if there is more to be said I will post at greater length later.
Didymus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

Postby Amadeus » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:24 pm

Wow, I mean, wow. I'll have to re-read your posts several times to make sense of all this. It's very interesting.

Keep it coming guys! :)

Edit: ***If it helps, here's the Spanish translation of that verse:

«Mas antes querría (simple conditional of indicative)... que me lanzase Júpiter a las sombras con su rayo, antes, Pudor, que profanarte o romper los juramentos que te hice.»***
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:46 pm

Didymus wrote:There are still several issues. The use of velim in the first half of the sentence ought to be paralleled somehow in the second half; an indicative just won't do. The way you read the sentence tries to imply, "Before I yield my chastity [and I am in fact going to yield my chastity], may I wish that Jupiter strike me down!" But for this reading to work, the second half of the sentence would need to contain future perfect indicatives: "Before I will have done this, let this other thing happen to stop me."


Not necessarily at all. "Before I will have done," is, of course, not English, though we both know that this is quite Latin (also, "Before I will have done" in either language exspects the future, and no future is exstant in the second clause, only the præsent subjunctive). The pure English is "Before I have done this" — but this is quite apart from the clear, unmasked "Before I go and do this [no hidden future implied], may I wish that Jupiter strike me down."

If we take velim as you wish to take it, it is, at the very least, exceptionally clumsy -- why use velim at all?


It stands for the original "optem," Æ.IV:

sed mihi uel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat
uel pater omnipotens adigat me fulmine ad umbras
...
ante, pudor, quam te uiolo aut tua iura resoluo

The prosification is fine; there is no problem of parallelism in either the Vergil or the Ørberg, since the two clauses, although relative to one another in the same sentence, are not in fact parallel. In any case, the Ørberg in quæstion imitates the Vergil quite skillfully, and if there be any error it is not in the imitator.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Iulianus » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:51 pm

It may be enlightning to look at the original that Örberg adapted:

"sed mihi vel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat
vel pater omnipotens adigat me fulmine ad umbras,
pallentis umbras Erebo noctemque profundam,
ante, pudor, quam te violo aut tua iura resolvo."

Aeneid IV, 24-27.

Vergil himself used the indicative here, with 'volo' en 'resolvo'. I'm going to look at a few commentaries and see what they say.

EDIT: I guess Lucus beat me to it.
phpbb
Iulianus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Voorburgi

Postby Didymus » Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:08 pm

Ah! I am embarrassed that I didn't recognize that this quote, too, was a Vergilian paraphrase. Well, now we have something to talk about!

At Aen. 4. 27 there are textual disputes. Some MSS (admittedly the older ones) have the indicatives; one older MS and several newer use the subjunctive. As the indicative is the lectio difficilior and is supported by older MSS, I agree that it must stand. But glance at a commentary for some information on the issue; Conington's ad loc. ("The grammatical qusetion is a difficult one") sheds some light (I don't have access to a more modern commentary at work). This is unusual grammar, which I certainly would not imitate in a textbook.

Again, somewhat in haste, sorry.
Didymus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:22 pm

Neat! Gratias pro verbis tuis ago.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Amadeus » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:17 pm

So let me get this straight. All three answers were correct (quam fidem fallere, quam fidem fallam, quam fidem fallo)?
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Didymus » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:28 pm

So let me get this straight. All three answers were correct (quam fidem fallere, quam fidem fallam, quam fidem fallo)?


In my opinion, you should use the present indicative in this construction only when you are a poet as competent as Vergil. Until then I would stick with more standard syntax.
Didymus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:29 am

Agreed.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby fierywrath » Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:23 am

in other words: never use it. death to creativity.
phpbb
User avatar
fierywrath
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:55 am

Postby Amadeus » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:28 pm

Chapter XLI, v. 41: "Aeneas, quamquam tanta opibus Ertruria erat ut iam non terras solum, sed mare etiam per totam Italiae longitudinem... fama nominis sui implevisset..."

I have a problem with this. What does tanta refer to? Neither "tanta Ertruria" nor "tantis opibus" seems right to me. Shouldn't it be "tanta opes Ertruriae erat", id est, Ertruria had so much power etcetera? I have a suspicion that the answer might be in front of my nose, but I just don't get it.

Gratias.

Edit: I checked out the original latin of Ab urbe condita and it's the same as above, but I still don't get it. :cry:
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:33 am

Hm, I see that. What about one of the uses of the ablative? Accompaniment, no? Try putting a "with" in there, and see how you like it.

It's idiomatic, a way of saying "Etruria was so rich ..."
" ... such with power ..."
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Amadeus » Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:16 pm

Lucus Eques wrote:Hm, I see that. What about one of the uses of the ablative? Accompaniment, no? Try putting a "with" in there, and see how you like it.


Num sententia tum dicit "'tanta' aut 'tam magna' Ertruria opes habebat"? Memento, care Luce, verbum 'tantam' potius esse dubium meum. Sed gratias!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Amadeus » Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:00 pm

Cap. XLII v. 362:

«Ut fugiunt aquilas, timidissima turba, columbae».

And on the margin, Ørberg wrote the logical construction thus: «ut columbae, timidissima turba, fugiunt».

My question is, where does «aquilas» fit in!? Image

P.S.: Btw, this is taken from Ovidius' Ars amatoria, Ex libro I v. 109-110, 113-132

************

Oops. I forgot to add another problematic verse. :evil:

v. 338: «[Numae Marcio] sacra omnia scripta tradidit, quibus hostiis, quibus diebus, ad quae templa sacra fierent».

Si quis supra latine explicare potius quam traducere posset mihi optimum videbitur.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:30 pm

"as doves flee eagles"

The second one tells of the details for implementing the religious practices, "with which sacrifices, on what days, at which temples."
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Amadeus » Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:53 pm

Lucus Eques wrote:"as doves flee eagles"

The second one tells of the details for implementing the religious practices, "with which sacrifices, on what days, at which temples."


Amadeus Luco spd,

Ut columbae fugiunt aquilae? At, quidnam accusativo usus est?

Stultissimus omnium sum, legi "hostibus" neque "hostiis"!!! :oops:
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Iulianus » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:33 pm

Amadeo salutem,

Si mihimet, me hac in re tibi esse auxilio posse putanti, licet quid dicti offerre: tibi fors sit an intransitivus usus huius, id est 'fugere', verbi confusio est: columbae aquilas effugiunt, id est fugendo elabuntur.

Hoc tibi aliquid adiumenti spero futurum ut sit.

Valeto,

Iulianus
phpbb
Iulianus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Voorburgi

Next

Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bedwere, Google [Bot], Petrus, Shenoute and 80 guests