Mike Seigel's Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax Ch. 28 Harder Passages for Translation

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
MegasKomnenos
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:55 pm

Mike Seigel's Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax Ch. 28 Harder Passages for Translation

Post by MegasKomnenos » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:54 pm

Good afternoon everybody,

I hope that people are keeping well, and adjusting to a life spent primarily indoors (in Britain in any case)! Whilst I have yet to post my issues with the previous two chapters' translation passages, having just this minute finished working on this first one from Ch. 28, I thought I'd post it first.

Ex. 28.1 HANNIBAL COMMITS SUICIDE TO AVOID CAPTURE BY THE ROMANS

Hannibal enim uno loco se tenebat, in castello quod ei a rege datum erat muneri, idque sic aedificaverat ut in omnibus partibus aedificii exitus haberet: nam verebatur ne accideret quod accidit. huc cum legati Romanorum venissent ac multitudine militum domum eius circumdedissent, puer a ianua prospiciens Hannibali dixit insolitum armatorum numerum apparere. qui imperavit ei ut omnes fores aedificii circumiret ac propere sibi nuntiaret num eodem modo undique obsideretur. puer cum celeriter quid esset renuntiavisset omnesque exitus occupatos esse ostendisset, sensit Hannibal id non fortuito factum sed se peti, neque sibi diutius vitam esse retinendam. ne alieno arbitrio periret, memor pristinae virtutis, venenum quod semper secum habere consuerat sumpsit.

I have here my, as usual, workmanlike and intentionally literalistic translation:

For Hannibal was holding himself in one place [abl. location/place where?], in a fortress which had been given to him by the king as a gift [predic. dat. purpose], and so he had built it so that in every part the edifice had exits: for he was afraid lest it should happen what did happen [ne accideret quod accidit - had trouble with this]. When envoys of the Romans had come there [huc] and by means of a multitude of soldiers had surrounded his home, a boy looking out from the door told Hannibal that an unusual number of armed men was visible. Who [Hannibal] ordered him [the boy] to go around to all the doors and quickly report to him whether he was besieged by the same means from every side. The boy, when he had quickly reported back what was so [quid esset - trouble here too] and had pointed out that all the exits had been occupied, Hannibal knew/perceived that it had not been done by accident/accidentally but that he had been sought out and that he must not preserve his life for a long time [had trouble with this whole sentence and am unsure of my interpretation]. Lest he should die by means of another's authority, [and] mindful of his former power, he consumed the poison which he had been accustomed to keep with him.

If I could have some help with the bits I have indicated I struggled with - or if there are any other howlers (I'm sure there are), I would as ever take it as a kindness if they were pointed out. Thank you all as ever for taking the time to read this and to instruct me. It's hugely appreciated.

Best wishes,

Jamie

Aetos
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Mike Seigel's Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax Ch. 28 Harder Passages for Translation

Post by Aetos » Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:26 pm

Hi Jamie,
MegasKomnenos wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:54 pm
nam verebatur ne accideret quod accidit
ne is normally translated as "that" after a verb of fearing. ne non would mean "that not"
So the literal translation would be:
for he was afraid that it should happen what happened.

In English, we'd certainly express it differently, perhaps "for he feared that what in fact befell him, should happen". I'm sure there are more polished ways of putting it, but I think you get the idea.
MegasKomnenos wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:54 pm
qui imperavit
Remember, this is a relative pronoun being used as a connective, so:
"and he ordered"
MegasKomnenos wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:54 pm
puer cum celeriter quid esset renuntiavisset omnesque exitus occupatos esse ostendisset, sensit Hannibal id non fortuito factum sed se peti, neque sibi diutius vitam esse retinendam.
"quid esset" , I think is an indirect question (check A&G 574) (Is it as I fear?-It is.)
"factum (esse)" did not happen by chance, "se peti" (that he was sought)
"neque...diutius" = and no longer
"neque sibi diutius vitam esse retinendam". and that his life no longer must be held onto. Here I believe the constructions are as follows:
This is the second clause in indirect discourse following the verb sensit (the first being "id non fortuito factum (esse) sed se peti"). vitam is the subject accusative, 'esse retinendam' is the present infinitive in the 2nd periphrastic conjugation.

I put this together rather quickly, so hopefully I didn't make howlers of my own!

MegasKomnenos
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:55 pm

Re: Mike Seigel's Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax Ch. 28 Harder Passages for Translation

Post by MegasKomnenos » Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:48 pm

Dear Aetos,

As previously, I am very grateful for your willingness to stop by and to share of your expertise. I hope that you and yours are keeping safe.

'quid esset' as an indirect Q. - I feel rather stupid for missing this possibility. I would have expected this to (as perhaps you would have?) be a simple indirect statement after renuntiavisset. Would you literally translate this as, say, e.g.

The boy, when he had reported back what was so [quid here being the 'question' word]?
i.e. The boy, when he had reported back that it was so/ was just so... [as you say, that it was as Hannibal feared]

Best wishes,

Jamie

Aetos
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Mike Seigel's Latin: A Clear Guide to Syntax Ch. 28 Harder Passages for Translation

Post by Aetos » Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:52 pm

MegasKomnenos wrote:
Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:48 pm
'quid esset' as an indirect Q. … . I would have expected this to (as perhaps you would have?) be a simple indirect statement after renuntiavisset.
What alerted me to the indirect question was the use of quid + subj. Normally indirect statements take an subj./acc. plus infinitive construction, unless they are emphasising a fact and then they would use the indicative.

I think we could actually translate this simply as "what it was". This one, btw, is from Cornelius Nepos' biographical sketch of Hannibal. Here are the original sentences:

[4] huc cum legati Romanorum venissent ac multitudine domum eius circumdedissent, puer ab ianua prospiciens Hannibali dixit plures praeter consuetudinem armatos apparere. qui imperavit ei, ut omnes fores aedificii circumiret ac propere sibi nuntiaret, num eodem modo undique obsideretur. [5] puer cum celeriter, quid vidisset, renuntiasset omnesque exitus occupatos ostendisset, sensit id non fortuito factum, sed se peti neque sibi diutius vitam esse retinendam.

As you can see, Nepos actually wrote "quid vidisset", which makes much better sense: "what he had seen"

P.S. As for expertise, Jamie-I'm just a little further along in getting the rust off! And my rust was over 45 years in the making.
EDIT: corrected suspected OCR error "nuutiaret" to "nuntiaret"

Post Reply