Lingua Latina - Pars II - Roma Aeterna

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:30 pm

Right, "I flee the fire," "the people fled the city," "the doves flee the eagles."

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:22 am

Iulianus wrote:Amadeo salutem,

Si mihimet, me hac in re tibi esse auxilio posse putanti...

Amadeus Iuliano salutem:

Eheu!

Optime latine scribis! Ter quaterve tuas litteras legi et nondum omnia capio sed quidditatem solum: quod voluit Ovidius scribere "effugiunt" aut "aufugiunt"; id est, "columbae ab aquilis aufugiunt". Itane?

Multas gratias tibo ago.

Iulianus · Post by **Iulianus** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:14 am

Amadeus wrote: Amadeus Iuliano salutem:

Eheu! Optime latine scribis! Ter quaterve tuas litteras legi et nondum omnia capio sed quidditatem solum: quod voluit Ovidius scribere "effugiunt" aut "aufugiunt"; id est, "columbae ab aquilis aufugiunt". Itane?

Multas gratias tibo ago.

Amadeo salutem.

Tibi tua ob dicta nimia laudantia permultas agere gratias velim; ipsum te nec minus disserte loquier scito autem, praesertim quod nondum, ut puto, librum hunc nomine "Lingua Latina pars secunda" legere finisti. Meo de responso quidem, unum veritati contrarium scripsi, nominatim:

tibi fors sit an intransitivus usus huius, id est 'fugere', verbi confusio est

Quippe quod "transitivus" esse oportet.

Vale!

Iulianus

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:29 pm

Amadeus omnibus sodalibus s.p.d.,

Iam lego capitulum XLIII Romae Aeternae, sed aliqui versus mihi difficilimi videntur. Ideo vos hos versus mihi plane facere velim. Itane?

Bene, versus sex et nonaginta legitur: Â«Forte unus Horatius integer fuit â€” ut universis solus nequaquam par, sic adversus singulos feroxÂ». Quod Â«universisÂ» significetur dubito, at haec mea interpretatio est: ille Horatius solus integer erat, nequaquam par alteris duobus Curiatiis. Quid dicitis? Recte an prave intellego?

Alter versus, centum et decem: Â«Alterum intactum ferro corpus et geminata victoria ferocem in certamen tertium dabat; alter, fessum vulnere fessum cursu corpus trahens victusque fratrum ante se strage, victori obicitur hostiÂ».

Iterum interepretatio mea: Â«Alterum corpus intactum ab ferro (id est, nullum ferrum ei nocuit), et cum spe geminatae victoriae, ferocem adhuc certamen (tertium iam certamen) faciebat. Alter Curiatius corpus, vulnere atque cursu fessum, trahebat et, quo peius, victus erat per mortem fratrum ob oculos suos...Â» Quid iterum dicitis?

Postremam versus partem, id est, Â«victori obicitur hostiÂ», minime comprehendo. Quis quem obicitur si obicere opponere, offerre significat?

Gratias agam vobis per Latine aut Anglice responsum. Unum tamen a vobis peto, nolite traducere vocabula mihi dubia, illas res difficiles cum mente latina comprehendere volo.

Bene, curate ut valeatis!

Post scriptum: corrigite etiam quaecumque menda mea.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:19 pm

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:40 am

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:59 am

Errorne? Haud intellego quam ob rem difficilus hoc fecerit cum pristina verba ipsa hoc modo uti nobis demonstrasti legantur nisi mendae causa.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:24 pm

Hoc erratum, quando capitulum XLII legebam, non vidi.

Exercitia Latina, capitulo XLIV numero IV, iterat Ã˜rberg orationem obliquam sic componi:

obliqua: acc+inf et coni post qui quae quod et quia quod

Sed oratio scripta in versibus 323-324 obliqua non est.

Didymus · Post by **Didymus** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:34 pm

Presumably the so-called "virtual" oratio obliqua. The statement is being ascribed to the "mind of the speaker," and the author does not vouch for its veracity. Would that make sense in context?

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:40 pm

It does make sense, but I did not know it could be done with "quia". (in fact I wrote some months ago a long and confusing post to tell that, and my confusion on such matters, for each reference I checked gave a different answer.)

obliqua: acc+inf et coni post qui quae quod et quia quod

Ecce!

Didymus · Post by **Didymus** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:25 pm

vide Allen and Greenough sec. 540.

e.g., mea mater irata est quia non redierim (Pl. Cist. 101)

Note 1 to sec. 540 observes that the subjunctive with quia is not common. I agree with this assessment tentatively, based on my own reading, but I very much doubt A&G did any systematic research. K & S probably contains more rigorous detail.

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:03 pm

Rursus rete adimens hoc peto:

Cur in capitulum XLIII inter v 95 et 100 scriptumst ut quemque vulnere affectum corpus sineret? et non quidque corpus? Puto non certe me id intellexisse.

"(as he thought the albanos would follow him), as much as the body would allow each condition caused by the wounds" (Hell! isn't it each body which allows the conditions?!?!?)

Dic mihi quomodo recte legendum sit.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:23 pm

"ut quemque [Albanum] corpus -vulnere affectum- sineret?" Ita, Terti Roberte, legi versiculum.

"as much as the body, affected by wound, would allow each [Alban]" In other words, each Alban would go as far as the wounded body would allow (him).

Vale, amice!

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:13 pm

heia! quam obviumst!

Plurimas gratias tibi ago!

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:59 pm

What the...? The second half of Roma Aeterna, after a very difficult Ab urbe condita, starts off pretty easy!

Kinda like a respite from Hans Orberg. I hope it gets more challenging, though.

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:10 am

Re vera?!

Fortasse quia illuc nondum perveni

...Sed laetor ob verba tua.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:16 am

Tertius Robertus wrote: Re vera?!

Ita! Auctor "Breviarii Ab urbe condita" natus in saeculo IV p.C., quo tempore lingua latina facillima facta est.

Vale!

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:44 pm

frrremens reteque iterum adimens robertus omnibus salutem

Si ego injuste impieque illos homines illasque res dedi mihi exposco

cp XLIV 30 - 31

Quid accidit cum conjuntione qua 'dedi'verbum verbo 'exposco' jungit?

forma altertiva: quid non video?!

vale!

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:01 am

Tertius Robertus wrote:Quid accidit cum conjuntione qua 'dedi'verbum verbo 'exposco' jungit?

forma altertiva: quid non video?!

Non intellego. Quae coniunctio?

Iulianus · Post by **Iulianus** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:22 am

Tertius Robertus wrote:frrremens reteque iterum adimens robertus omnibus salutem

Si ego injuste impieque illos homines illasque res dedi mihi exposco
cp XLIV 30 - 31

Quid accidit cum conjuntione qua 'dedi'verbum verbo 'exposco' jungit?

forma altertiva: quid non video?!

vale!

Forsan hoc tibi visum non est, sed verbum 'dedi' hoc loco passivum est (exposco + accusativus + infinitivus).

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:11 pm

Forsan hoc tibi visum non est, sed verbum 'dedi' hoc loco passivum est (exposco + accusativus + infinitivus).

Verum bis dicis. gratias tibi ago plurimas!

haud vidi dÃ©dÃ ex dedere factum esse, neque dedÃ ex dare.

cdm2003 · Post by **cdm2003** » Wed May 02, 2007 9:27 pm

Okay...let me back up a touch and ask a quick question:

XXXVII.120 (Aeneidos II.354):

"Una salus victis: nullam sperare salutem!"

I'm having trouble translating this verse. Is Aeneas saying, "A single salvation belongs to the conquered: to hope for no salvation!" It just sounds a touch weird to me though I suppose it makes a bit of sense. Does this seem right?

Thanks,
Chris

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Thu May 03, 2007 12:32 am

"The only salvation for the conquered is not to hope for salvation" Perhaps. Just a suggestion.

cdm2003 · Post by **cdm2003** » Thu May 03, 2007 2:18 am

Seems a bit tongue-and-cheek for Virgil...hehe...didn't anyone ever tell Aeneas "spes est dum anima est?!"

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:10 pm

BELLVM PVNICVM SECVNDVM

Ex Libro XXI:

Â«Fama est etiam Hannibalem annorum ferme novem, periliter blandientem patri Hamilcari ut duceretur in Hispaniam, cum --perfecto Africo bello-- exercitum eo traiecturus sacrificaret, atlaribus admotum tactis...Â»

Cur Livius verbo Â«traiecturusÂ» utitur nec participium Â«traiectumÂ»? Et, si recte Livius scribit, fortasse voluit dicere: Â«cum --perfecto Africo bello-- exercitum eo traiecturus esset deinde sacrificaretÂ»? Ita ut cum et Â«traiecturusÂ» et Â«sacrificareÂ» afficiat.

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:24 pm

nonne legendum est "Fama est etiam Hannibalem annorum ferme novem, periliter blandientem patri Hamilcari ut duceretur in Hispaniam, cum --perfecto Africo bello-- halmicar exercitum eo traiecturus sacrificaret"?

nonne exercitum accusativum verbi transiturus et hamilcar omissum est?

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:28 pm

Sed, care Roberte, scribo de Bello Punico secundum Ã˜rbergeris versionem in Lingua Latina, capitulo XLVIII.

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:15 pm

ego quoque

rescribo: Fama est etiam Hannibalem annorum ferme novem, periliter blandientem patri Hamilcari ut duceretur in Hispaniam, cum --perfecto Africo bello-- (halmicar) exercitum eo traiecturus sacrificaret"

traiecturus ad agentem verbi pertinet et exercitum ad traiecturus atque hamiclar est ommissus (agens logicus)

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:45 pm

Tertius Robertus wrote:ego quoque

Eheu! Veniam a te peto. Nescio quid censuerim cum legissem litteras tuas

Fama est etiam Hannibalem annorum ferme novem, periliter blandientem patri Hamilcari ut duceretur in Hispaniam, cum --perfecto Africo bello-- (halmicar) exercitum eo traiecturus sacrificaret

Iam intellegebam Hamilcarem agentem logicum esse, indicativi verbum autem Â«traiecturusÂ» mihi videbatur pravo in loco. Nunc puto Â«traiecturusÂ» adiectivum esse sicut Â«moriturusÂ»:

Ergo nec noster amor nec dextra data te tenet nec Dido crudeliter moritura. ---Dido. Lingua Latina II, cap. XL

Ita ut versum Livii legatur: Â«"Hamilcar eo traiecturus" exercitum sacrificaretÂ». Quidnam censes?

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:55 pm

ita

sed hamilcar exercitum eo (loco) trajecturus

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:29 pm

Gratias tibi, Roberte!

Now, I'll ask this in English as it doesn't involve translation:

In the same chapter (XLVIII), verse 43 onwards, Livius uses the indirect speech for reasons I don't understand.

Missus Hannibal in Hispaniam primo statim adventu omnem exercitum in se convertit. Hamilcarem iuvenem redditum sibi veteres milites credere: eundem vigorem in vultu vimque in oculis intueri. [...]

Can anyone tell me what sort of writing this is? Was it common in the Latin world?

A few lines down, Livius uses the infinitive but no indirect speech:

...neque Hasdrubal alium quemquam praeficere malle [malebat], ubi quid fortiter ac strenue agendum esset, neque milites alio duce plus confidere [confidebant] aut audere [audebant].

Any clues?

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:51 pm

non est oratio obliqua: nam veteres milites nominativus pluralis est, ut dicitur in nota credere: credebant

hoc appellatur infinitivus narrativus, quod, ut in alio lbro meo scriptum est, frequens est. nescio num auctor ilius mentiatur.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:10 pm

Well, Livius does certainly have a peculiar Latin. On the same chapter, verse 64 it reads:

Â«Quibus oppugnandis quia haud dubie Romana arma movebantur, in Olcadum prius fines induxit exercitum...Â»

Now, Hans Orberg gives us the equivalent of this quibus oppugnandis in hos oppugnando. So the text now reads: Â«Quia hos oppugnando...Â» It seems to me that this is a condition, and so one should expect a subjunctive after it (Romana arma moverentur ). But no, Livius uses the indicative. Why is that?

In verse 74, we read:

Â«Ab Hermandica profugi concitant Carpetanos, adortique Hannibalem regressum ex Vacaeis haud procul Tago flumine agmen grave praeda turbavere.Â»

Shouldn't there be a conjunction before the highlighted part?

Vale!

Edited: Forgot that grave in there

Alatius · Post by **Alatius** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:43 pm

It is my understanding that the choice of mood conveys slightly different ideas: "Induxit exercitum, quia Romana arma moverentur." = "He lead in the army, because (as he thought! -- might or might not be true!) the Romans were preparing for battle." The indicative, on the other hands, means that there was no doubt that this was in fact the case.

In your second sentence, there seems to be a slight mistake. I don't have the book, but Livy's original has "agmen grave praeda". With this "grave", the sentence seems alright: note that "adorti", from "adorior", is a deponent verb, and thus "adorti" has an active meaning, and can take an object, namely "Hannibalem regressum". The phrase "adorti Hannibalem (regressum (ex Vacaeis))" is in turn the subject to the verb "turbavere" = "turbaverunt"; "agmen" is the object.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:48 pm

Alatius wrote:The indicative, on the other hands, means that there was no doubt that this was in fact the case.

This makes sense. I still think it sounds weird, though. The subjunctive moverentur indicates a future event in relation to quibus oppugnandi; the indicative, however, does not. I would've used the future indicative. Quid sentis?

In your second sentence, there seems to be a slight mistake. I don't have the book, but Livy's original has "agmen grave praeda".

Yeah, I forgot the grave.

note that "adorti", from "adorior", is a deponent verb

Yes: adortique sunt Hannibalem regressum ...

The phrase "adorti Hannibalem (regressum (ex Vacaeis))" is in turn the subject to the verb "turbavere" = "turbaverunt"; "agmen" is the object.

Really? In that case adorti must not be a verb, but ii qui adorti sunt. Correct?

Alatius · Post by **Alatius** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:43 pm

Amadeus wrote:This makes sense. I still think it sounds weird, though. The subjunctive moverentur indicates a future event in relation to quibus oppugnandi; the indicative, however, does not. I would've used the future indicative. Quid sentis?

Edit: Please disregard this!

I'm afraid I'm not really following you. Wouldn't any mood or tempus be a future event relative to "quibus oppugnandis", it being an ablativus absolutus? The imperfect "movebantur" indicates present time in relation to "induxit", as would the subjunctive form. Evidently Livy means that the Romans were already "moving their arms" when Hannibal led the army pass the border, not that they were going to do it.

Or do I look at this in the wrong way? It's entirely possible I'm wrong.

Really? In that case adorti must not be a verb, but ii qui adorti sunt. Correct?

Hmm, wait a sec, I wasn't very precise. "Adorti" is indeed not a verb, per se (depending on what you mean with "verb"), i.e., there is no "sunt" which is left out but implicated. It is a "participium coniunctum", which is governed by the true subject, which is "profugi". Sorry about that.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:54 pm

Alatius wrote:Wouldn't any mood or tempus be a future event relative to "quibus oppugnandis", it being an ablativus absolutus? The imperfect "movebantur" indicates present time in relation to "induxit", as would the subjunctive form. Evidently Livy means that the Romans were already "moving their arms" when Hannibal led the army pass the border, not that they were going to do it.

Huh... Let me chew on this for a while.

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

Added a few hours later:

I did not see that as an ablativus absolutus. In my mind I always substituted quibus oppugnandis with hos oppugnando, which I guess is similar but not the exact same thing in regard to time. So you are correct here. I don't agree, however, that movebantur indicates present in relation to induxit.

I cheated a little bit and looked for translations of this passage. Of the two I found, both translate the quibus oppugnandi as a probability:

As an attack on them would inevitably set the arms of Rome in motion, he began by invading the Olcades http://tinyurl.com/gjv5

As there could be no doubt that by attacking them the Romans would be excited to arms, he first led his army into the territory of the Olcades http://tinyurl.com/2dglvv

So, the Romans were not already moving their armies when Hannibal invaded the Olcades.

So, in conclusion, a) the use of the indicative serves to signify a more certain outcome, and b) since quibus oppugnandi is an ablativus absolutus, the imperfect indicative can also be interpreted as a future event in relation to it.

Thanks for the help, Alati!

Alatius · Post by **Alatius** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:42 pm

Amadeus wrote:I did not see that as an ablativus absolutus. In my mind I always substituted quibus oppugnandis with hos oppugnando, which I guess is similar but not the exact same thing in regard to time. So you are correct here. I don't agree, however, that movebantur indicates present in relation to induxit. ...

Oh! I see now. You are quite right, of course. Problem was, apart from misunderstanding the context, I read "oppugnatis" for "oppugnandis"...

"Quibus oppugnatis" would be an abl. abs., but I don't think "quibus oppugnandis" can be regarded as such? Or can it?

Quibus [=Saguntinis] oppugnandis quia haud dubie Romana arma movebantur, in Olcadum prius fines induxit exercitum.

Actually, I would have expected a future form here, just as you did. Hmm, now it's my time to think about this for a while. It wasn't as straightforward as I though.

Thanks for the help, Alati!

Well, such help as it was... Please pay it back by helping me understand it.

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:41 am

Now, Hans Orberg gives us the equivalent of this quibus oppugnandis in hos oppugnando. So the text now reads: Â«Quia hos oppugnando...Â» It seems to me that this is a condition, and so one should expect a subjunctive after it (Romana arma moverentur ). But no, Livius uses the indicative. Why is that?

oppugnando is gerundium hos oppugnando : in assalting them.

it is commom to change a gerundium that takes an argument into a gerundivum, which agrres with the argument

(check back cp XLIV whre it is introduced)

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:45 am

Tertius Robertus wrote:(check back cp XLIV whre it is introduced)

Yeah, I did that. I went as far back as chapter XLI. So, in your opinion, this is not an absolute ablative? Just a gerund changed into a gerundive?