Lingua Latina - Pars II - Roma Aeterna

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

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."
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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! :shock: 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. :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.

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

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

Amadeus wrote: Amadeus Iuliano salutem:

Eheu! :shock: 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. :D
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
phpbb

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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: «Forte unus Horatius integer fuit — ut universis solus nequaquam par, sic adversus singulos ferox». Quod «universis» 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: «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 hosti». :x Iterum interepretatio mea: «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...» Quid iterum dicitis?

Postremam versus partem, id est, «victori obicitur hosti», 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. :)
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

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

Image
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.

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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


Last edited by Tertius Robertus on Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

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.
L. Amadeus Ranierius

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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 Ørberg 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. :?:
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.

Didymus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

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
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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
Textkit Fan
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

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
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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. :(
Last edited by Tertius Robertus on Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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! :)
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.

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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

heia! quam obviumst!

Plurimas gratias tibi ago! :D

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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

:shock: Re vera?! :shock:

Fortasse quia illuc nondum perveni :wink: ...Sed laetor ob verba tua. :wink:
Last edited by Tertius Robertus on Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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

Tertius Robertus wrote::shock: Re vera?! :shock:
Ita! Auctor "Breviarii Ab urbe condita" natus in saeculo IV p.C., quo tempore lingua latina facillima facta est.

Vale!
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.

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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!

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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? :(
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.

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

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).
phpbb

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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 dédí ex dedere factum esse, neque dedí ex dare. :x :roll:

User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

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
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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. :?:
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
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

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?!"

:wink:
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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

BELLVM PVNICVM SECVNDVM

Ex Libro XXI:

«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...»

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

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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?

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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

Sed, care Roberte, scribo de Bello Punico secundum Ørbergeris versionem in Lingua Latina, capitulo XLVIII. :wink:
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.

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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)

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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 :oops:
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 «traiecturus» mihi videbatur pravo in loco. Nunc puto «traiecturus» adiectivum esse sicut «moriturus»:
Ergo nec noster amor nec dextra data te tenet nec Dido crudeliter moritura. ---Dido. Lingua Latina II, cap. XL
Ita ut versum Livii legatur: «"Hamilcar eo traiecturus" exercitum sacrificaret». Quidnam censes?
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.

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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

ita

sed hamilcar exercitum eo (loco) trajecturus

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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? :)
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.

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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 :lol:

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

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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:

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

Now, Hans Orberg gives us the equivalent of this quibus oppugnandis in hos oppugnando. So the text now reads: «Quia hos oppugnando...» 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:

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

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

Vale!

Edited: Forgot that grave in there
Last edited by Amadeus on Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.

Alatius
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Upsalia, Suecia

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.

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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. :oops:
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?
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.

Alatius
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Upsalia, Suecia

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! :oops:

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. :wink:
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.
Last edited by Alatius on Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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. :P

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

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! :wink:
Last edited by Amadeus on Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.

Alatius
Textkit Fan
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Upsalia, Suecia

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"... :oops: "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. :wink:
Thanks for the help, Alati! :wink:
Well, such help as it was... Please pay it back by helping me understand it. :P

Tertius Robertus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:05 am
Location: 666 Burning Hotties Road, Ol' Dis by Styx, 5th inner circle, Hell.

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: «Quia hos oppugnando...» 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)

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

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?
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.

Post Reply