translation question

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.
Post Reply
spqr
Textkit Fan
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Hemet, CA, USA

translation question

Post by spqr » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:02 pm

Hostes protinus ex eo loco ad flumen Axonam contenderunt, quod esse post nostra castra demonstratum est.

Next the enemy hastened from this place to the river Aisne, which it was pointed out was behind our camp. I am not sure but is this sentence indirect discourse?

anphph
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am

Re: translation question

Post by anphph » Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:53 am

No. Why would it be? Indirect discourse is when someone else's speech is being reported, or else when some sort of question or statement is expressed inside a direct statement.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: translation question

Post by mwh » Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:19 am

But we do have indirect discourse here, acc.&inf. dep. on demonstratum est in the relative clause. Cf. e.g. flumen iam demonstravi esse post nostra castra, “I’ve already shown that the river is/was behind our camp.”

RandyGibbons
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: translation question

Post by RandyGibbons » Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:05 pm

spqr,

As you can see, one's definition of indirect discourse can vary depending on whether you emphasize "discourse" (anphph takes that literally to mean humans speaking) or "indirect", as Michael does. The key thing is, as Michael says and as I think you get (?), is that in the relative clause you have an acc + Inf construction. In fact that's signposted as soon as you get this far:

Hostes protinus ex eo loco ad flumen Axonam contenderunt, quod esse

When you see the infinitive in quod esse, you know there has to be a finite verb governing it, and depending on the context, you can usually take a pretty good guess as to what that verb is going to be.

Wherein was your uncertainty?

Randy G

spqr
Textkit Fan
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Hemet, CA, USA

Re: translation question

Post by spqr » Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:49 pm

Hello Randy G, my uncertainty was that when I first translated the sentence it did not look like indirect discourse. I had translated a few more paragraphs and then went back to that sentence. I looked at the main verb/ accusative + infinitive relationship and then I thought this must be indirect discourse but the way the sentence is worded it didn't appear at first glance to be so. I think part of my problem is that when I learn a grammar concept I tend to think of the simple short sample sentences as a one size fits all template. But real world Latin is not that simple.

RandyGibbons
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: translation question

Post by RandyGibbons » Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:35 pm

it did not look like indirect discourse
That begs the question, what does indirect discourse "look like" to you? From what text, textbook, or grammar did you learn the concept of indirect discourse? Regardless of what you call it, the key thing is that you understand the (exceedingly common) accusative + infinitive construction.
the main verb/ accusative + infinitive relationship
By the main verb do you mean contenderunt or demonstratum est? Are you confusing "main verb" and "main clause"? There's no relationship between contenderunt in the sentence's main clause and quod esse in its relative clause. The acc. + inf. construction quod esse is governed by demonstratum est.

(At some point in the evolution of Latin into the Romance languages, the acc. + inf. construction was supplanted by the 'that' (que) construction: "It was demonstrated that ..." -- I am struggling to recall what we label that construction in English!)

spqr
Textkit Fan
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Hemet, CA, USA

Re: translation question

Post by spqr » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:09 am

Randy, you hit the nail on the head. I was confused as to which is the main verb but you straightened me out. I see now exactly what my error was. Thanks.

Post Reply