Textkit Logo

Loci Immutati #13

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.

Loci Immutati #13

Postby tbearzhang » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:37 am

Original Sentence:

At vero Diogenes liberius, ut Cynicus, Alexandro roganti ut diceret si quid opus esset ...

My translation:

But, however, Diogenes, as a Cynic, boldly said to Alexander asking if he needed anything ...

Question:

1. What is the case of "Alexandro roganti"?

I think it's in the DATIVE case, as an indirect object of "diceret".

2. What is the function and meaning of the second "ut"?

I feel that the second "ut" (right before "diceret") is superfluous and omitted it in my translation. Is this a feature of the Latin language that is not present in English? Or am I missing something?

Thanks!
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA
tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California

Re: Loci Immutati #13

Postby anphph » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:11 am

1. Correct! Dative. But it is possible that you may have missed the nuance.

2. The second ut is there because the verb "rogare" asks for a ut. Rogo ut mihi panem des. Etc. This remains the case even if rogare is a participle, even a participle in the dative, as is the case here.

At vero Diogenes liberius, ut Cynicus, Alexandro roganti ut diceret si quid opus esset ...

My translation:

But, however, Diogenes, as a Cynic, boldly said to Alexander asking if he needed anything ...


It is not clear to me whether you understood what's going on. If you did, please ignore what follows.

Since the two words are together, we are to understand that it is Alexander who is asking. A clearer way of expressing this would be to translate

boldly said to Alexander [when he asked / as he asked] if he [ie, Diogenes] needed anything.
anphph
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am

Re: Loci Immutati #13

Postby mwh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:14 pm

Alex was asking him to say if he needed anything—roganti ut diceret (lit. "asking that he say").
There’s no “said” in the sentence so far. We haven’t yet reached the main verb, which I presume is something like respondit—hence the dative Alexandro.
Diogenes’ reply explains liberius (comparative) ut Cynicus.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Loci Immutati #13

Postby tbearzhang » Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:10 pm

anphph wrote:1. Correct! Dative. But it is possible that you may have missed the nuance.

2. The second ut is there because the verb "rogare" asks for a ut. Rogo ut mihi panem des. Etc. This remains the case even if rogare is a participle, even a participle in the dative, as is the case here.

At vero Diogenes liberius, ut Cynicus, Alexandro roganti ut diceret si quid opus esset ...

My translation:

But, however, Diogenes, as a Cynic, boldly said to Alexander asking if he needed anything ...


It is not clear to me whether you understood what's going on. If you did, please ignore what follows.

Since the two words are together, we are to understand that it is Alexander who is asking. A clearer way of expressing this would be to translate

boldly said to Alexander [when he asked / as he asked] if he [ie, Diogenes] needed anything.


Thank you anphph!

Yes, I understood that Alexander was the subject of roganti, but it wasn't obvious in the translation. I was going for a strictly verbal translation.
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA
tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California

Re: Loci Immutati #13

Postby tbearzhang » Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:12 pm

mwh wrote:Alex was asking him to say if he needed anything—roganti ut diceret (lit. "asking that he say").
There’s no “said” in the sentence so far. We haven’t yet reached the main verb, which I presume is something like respondit—hence the dative Alexandro.
Diogenes’ reply explains liberius (comparative) ut Cynicus.


Hmm... I haven't thought about it that way.

The entire sentence is:

At vero Diogenes liberius, ut Cynicus, Alexandro roganti ut diceret si quid opus esset: "Nunc quidem paululum," inquit, "a sole."

So you would say that "inquit" is the main verb? But to me it seems that "inquit" is the verb for the next sentence and I tend to think that "diceret" is the main verb of the first sentence.
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA
tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California

Re: Loci Immutati #13

Postby mwh » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:49 am

tbearzhang wrote:Hmm... I haven't thought about it that way.
Then do.

I tend to think that "diceret" is the main verb of the first sentence.
Then why is it imperfect subjunctive, and why is there an ut in front of it? How do you tend to explain that?
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Loci Immutati #13

Postby tbearzhang » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:57 pm

mwh wrote:
tbearzhang wrote:Hmm... I haven't thought about it that way.
Then do.

I tend to think that "diceret" is the main verb of the first sentence.
Then why is it imperfect subjunctive, and why is there an ut in front of it? How do you tend to explain that?


I was a bit confused by the punctuation, since in English the main verb is not very commonly separated from the rest of the sentence by direct quotations.

A bit more explicit explanation would be much appreciated.
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA
tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California

Re: Loci Immutati #13

Postby mwh » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:16 pm

Yes the punctuation could be a bit confusing: a comma would be better than a colon before Diogenes’ reply. But it’s normal for Latin to put inquit after the first few words of direct speech rather than preceding it. (It’s the same with Greek ἔφη.)

So it’s all one sentence, and inquit is the one and only main verb. Lit. “Diog. …, to Alex asking that he say if there was any need, said (inquit) …,” i.e. “Diog, when Alex asked him to say if he needed anything, quite bluntly (liberius) told him: ‘Right now [get] a little bit away from the sun.’” Cynics showed contempt for worldly goods, and Diogenes, like the good Cynic he is, wants nothing of the world-ruler Alexander except for him to move out of the light, which he’s blocking. The anecdote is designed to amuse, and to illustrate Cynicism in the ancient sense.

Alexandro dative: Diogenes … Alexandro … inquit means “D. said to A.,” “D. told A.”

rogo takes ut and subjunctive, as anphph indicated, giving the example Rogo ut mihi panem des (present subjunctive), lit. “I ask that you give me bread,” i.e. I ask you to give me bread.” Here we have roganti (participle agreeing with Alexandro) ut diceret, “asking that he say” or “asking him to say …”. Here diceret is imperfect rather than present subjunctive because the main verb of the sentence (inquit) is effectively in the past tense.

Hope that’s all clear now.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Loci Immutati #13

Postby tbearzhang » Fri Nov 04, 2016 5:42 pm

mwh wrote:Yes the punctuation could be a bit confusing: a comma would be better than a colon before Diogenes’ reply. But it’s normal for Latin to put inquit after the first few words of direct speech rather than preceding it. (It’s the same with Greek ἔφη.)

So it’s all one sentence, and inquit is the one and only main verb. Lit. “Diog. …, to Alex asking that he say if there was any need, said (inquit) …,” i.e. “Diog, when Alex asked him to say if he needed anything, quite bluntly (liberius) told him: ‘Right now [get] a little bit away from the sun.’” Cynics showed contempt for worldly goods, and Diogenes, like the good Cynic he is, wants nothing of the world-ruler Alexander except for him to move out of the light, which he’s blocking. The anecdote is designed to amuse, and to illustrate Cynicism in the ancient sense.

Alexandro dative: Diogenes … Alexandro … inquit means “D. said to A.,” “D. told A.”

rogo takes ut and subjunctive, as anphph indicated, giving the example Rogo ut mihi panem des (present subjunctive), lit. “I ask that you give me bread,” i.e. I ask you to give me bread.” Here we have roganti (participle agreeing with Alexandro) ut diceret, “asking that he say” or “asking him to say …”. Here diceret is imperfect rather than present subjunctive because the main verb of the sentence (inquit) is effectively in the past tense.

Hope that’s all clear now.


Yes, now it's crystal clear.

Thank you!
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA
tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California


Return to Wheelock's Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests