Locī Immūtātī #8

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.
Post Reply
tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California

Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by tbearzhang »

Hi, I haven't posted here in a while. Been pretty busy in the past few months. I try to spend a few nights per week to work on the Locī Immūtātī, but progress has been slow (just plowed through two excerpts from Cicero's In Catilīnam Ōrātiō, and boy does he have a lot to write about our friend Catilīna...)

I had a question about a particular sentence from article #8:


Original sentence:

Et ille, "Tu vero . . . sic habeto non esse te mortalem, sed corpus hoc; nec enim tuis es quem forma ista declarat, sed mens cuiusque is est quisque, non ea figura quae digito demonstrari potest. ..."

My translation:

And that (man) (said), "You indeed ... you shall thus consider (that) you are not mortal, but this body (is mortal); and you are not to your (friends) whom that form declares, but (the) mind of each (person) he is each (person), not the form/body which is able to be demonstrated by (a) finger.

Questions:

1. What is the correct translation of "is" in the sentence above?

I translated it as a pronoun referring to "mēns cuisque" but I find this problematic as "mēns" is feminine, while "is" is masculine...

2. Why is the demonstrative "ista" used to describe "fōrma"?

"Ista" usually is associated with a negative connotation, is this because it is referring to the body which is considered ephemeral?

3. What does "quae digitō dēmōnstrārī potest" mean?

I know what it means literally, but what do you mean by "be able to be demonstrated with a finger"?


Thanks in advance!
Last edited by tbearzhang on Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by Victor »

There are a couple of errors I can see in your reading and/or transcription of the passage: "tuis" and "cuisque". Clearly cuisque should be cuique but have you realised yet what tuis should be? Understanding the latter correctly may help you to make much better sense of the passage.

ista doesn't always have negative connotations, by any means. Here it just means "your" effectively.
tbearzhang wrote: 3. What does "quae digitō dēmōnstrārī potest" mean?

I know what it means literally, but what do you mean by "be able to be demonstrated with a finger"?
That the forma is visibly existent, essentially, unlike the mens.

For future reference, it would be helpful if you didn't include macrons when writing Latin in your questions; they make any Internet search for the original passage more time consuming.

tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by tbearzhang »

Victor wrote:There are a couple of errors I can see in your reading and/or transcription of the passage: "tuis" and "cuisque". Clearly cuisque should be cuique but have you realised yet what tuis should be? Understanding the latter correctly may help you to make much better sense of the passage.
Yeah, I was also not quite sure what "tuis" meant, but to translate it as "to your (friends)" was what was supplied in a footnote in the textbook (footnote #56 says that "tuis" is a DAT. depending on the verb "declarat"), so I just went with it...

I double checked, "mens cuisque is" should actually be "mens cuiusque is", I misspelled it in the original post. Does that change anything?
Victor wrote:For future reference, it would be helpful if you didn't include macrons when writing Latin in your questions; they make any Internet search for the original passage more time consuming.
Will do.

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: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by tbearzhang »

So I looked up the original text on the Latin Library:

Et ille: 'Tu vero ... sic habeto, non esse te mortalem, sed corpus hoc; nec enim tu is es, quem forma ista declarat, sed mens cuiusque is est quisque, non ea figura, quae digito demonstrari potest. ...'

Compared to the textbook, "tuis" becomes "tu is".
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by Victor »

tbearzhang wrote: I double checked, "mens cuisque is" should actually be "mens cuiusque is", I misspelled it in the original post. Does that change anything?
Ah, right. Cuiusque it is then. It makes better sense than cuique, and you translated it correctly in any case.

tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by tbearzhang »

But I am not clear on the grammatical structure of the sentence. As I understand it, "mens cuiusque" and "is" are both subjects of the verb "est"? But why are we using the masculine form "is" instead of "ea", since "mens" is feminine?
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by Victor »

tbearzhang wrote:But I am not clear on the grammatical structure of the sentence. As I understand it, "mens cuiusque" and "is" are both subjects of the verb "est"? But why are we using the masculine form "is" instead of "ea", since "mens" is feminine?
It's an abrupt transition, admittedly, but all that's happening is that the gender of is is anticipating the gender of quisque.

tbearzhang
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 7:33 am
Location: Franciscopolis (aut Sanctus Franciscus) in California

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by tbearzhang »

I see. Many thanks!
行勝於言
FACTA NON VERBA

Charlie Parker
Textkit Fan
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:58 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by Charlie Parker »

I, too, am having a bit of trouble with this passage in Wheelock's Latin. Here is the sentence:
Quare et tibi, Publi, et piis omnibus retinendus animus est in custodia corporis nec iniussu eius, a quo ille est vobis datus, ex hominum vita migrandum est,...
I don't understand the gerundive migrandum. It seems to be in the accusative, but it should agree with animus, masculine nominative, which is taken up by ille. Would someone be so kind as to enlighten me?

Shenoute
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by Shenoute »

Migrandum does not refer to animus, the neuter here is impersonal. Combined with the dative, it expresses obligation: "someone has to do X" (literally something like "there is to-someone the-fact-of-having-to-do-X").

- What do I have to do?
- You have to depart.

- Quid facere debeo?
- Debes migrare.

- Quid mihi necesse est?
- Tibi necesse est migrare.

- Quid mihi faciendum est?
- Tibi migrandum est.

See §500.3 here: http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ ... -gerundive

Charlie Parker
Textkit Fan
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:58 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by Charlie Parker »

Thank you very much. The link to Allen and Greenough is especially helpful.

Shenoute
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Locī Immūtātī #8

Post by Shenoute »

Glad I could help!

Post Reply