Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

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
Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Hello,

I'm doing a careful reading of Winnie ille Pu and I found things I can't explain, and I wonder if it's because I don't get it or because of errors in the text. So I'd like to share the problematic points and have your opinion:
Chapter 1 wrote:Sed mel cum folliculīs nōn aufers
This 'cum' seems to be too much here.
Chapter 3 wrote:Porcellus in sententiā persevērāvit, quia scīlicet avus suus ita vocābātur[…]
Let's suppose that from 'scīlicet' onwards the text is in the indirect speech, or some kind of quote, is it correct to have 'suus' here?
Chapter 3 wrote:Quattuor animālia ante erant!
Same here. If the sentence is an image of what they think, is it correct to have 'sē' instead of 'eōs'?
Chapter 3 wrote:Winnie ille Pu enim repente cōnstiterat et cōnfūsō quoddam modō suprā vestīgia inclīnātus erat.
Shouldn't it be quōdam?
Chapter 4 wrote:Quō in capite Īōr caudam āmittit et Pu caudam quendam invenit
Shouldn't it be 'quandam'? If it's 'quendam', what's the point here?
Chapter 4 wrote:Loquendō enim sternuistī
Būbō says something Pu doesn't understand, so Pu thinks he sneezed. It seems that 'loquēns' would be slightly better in that context.
Chapter 5 wrote:Et crās māne hōrā diēī sextā apud Pīnōs convēnerimus et vīderimus quot Heffalumpōrum in Foveā forent
Can 'quot' be used with a genitive?
Chapter 5 wrote:Prīma sententia Puī erat Foveam Profundissimam fodere, quam in Foveam Heffalumpus trānseundō dēlāpsūrus esset…
Same as with 'loquendō': I don't feel like 'trānseundō' is quite right here and that 'trānsiēns' is better.
Chapter 5 wrote:Pu nāsum iterum fricuit et dīxit ‘sē de eō nunquam sēcum reputāvisse’.
Is this sentence correct? Doesn't 'reputāre' take the accusative only?
Chapter 5 wrote:Habēsne fūniculum quidem?
The English version has 'And have you got any string?'. So shouldn't we have 'quendam' instead of 'quidem'?
Chapter 5 wrote:Nōnnūllās hōrās post
Shouldn't be 'Nōnnūllīs hōrīs post'?
Chapter 5 wrote:Sed postquam ad rīvulum pervēnērunt, illum mūtuīs officiīs dē aliō saxō in alium saltantēs trānsgressī sunt
Shouldn't it be 'salientēs' instead?

That's it for now. Any clarification about any of these points will be appreciated.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Nobody?


Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

bedwere wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 10:52 pm You might have more luck presenting one thing at the time, as people may be overwhelmed.
I get the point, but I don't ask people to answer everything at once. As I have a significant number of questions, I thought it would be more convenient like this.
bedwere wrote: Thu Dec 29, 2022 10:52 pm D With a means or instrument, considered as attending or accompanying the actor in his action
That makes sense. Winnie intents to fly with the balloon and get honey with it. That's the kind of subtlety I was missing.

Thanks, that helps me a lot!

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Well okay, let's do it little by little.
Chapter 3 wrote: Porcellus in sententiā persevērāvit, quia scīlicet avus suus ita vocābātur[…]
Is there some way so that 'suus' is justified here? This usage doesn't fit in what I currently know and understand of this pronoun. I would expect either 'avum suum vocārī esse [dīxit]', or 'avus ejus ita vocābātur'.

truks
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by truks »

Aurēliānus Agricola wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 11:22 am Well okay, let's do it little by little.
Chapter 3 wrote: Porcellus in sententiā persevērāvit, quia scīlicet avus suus ita vocābātur[…]
Is there some way so that 'suus' is justified here? This usage doesn't fit in what I currently know and understand of this pronoun. I would expect either 'avum suum vocārī esse [dīxit]', or 'avus ejus ita vocābātur'.
I have a feeling you're being thrown by scilicet here, which just means naturally or of course. It's being used here as a particle affirming a fact, not as an impersonal verb followed by acc. and inf. Quia (because/since) introduces the subordinate clause. The antecedent of suus is porcellus.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

truks wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 2:10 pm I have a feeling you're being thrown by scilicet here, […]
Well, no, I don't have troubles with it, as the sentence could work as well without it:
Porcellus in sententiā persevērāvit, quia avus suus ita vocābātur
My problem is 'suus'. I acknowledge that generally speaking, I'm not familiar with its nominative form and its use. But still, given the context, as far as I know, the word 'ejus' should be used (in a classical setting), unless the last part of the sentence is some indirect speech as follows:
Porcellus in sententiā persevērāvit, quia “scīlicet avus suus ita vocābātur”
But is it correct in that context? I'm not quite sure.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by seneca2008 »

Suus is used where reference is made to the grammatical subject of the sentence. So Porcellus is the subject of persevērāvit and also vocābātur so it seems one should use suus rather than eius.

Thats how it seems to me, happy as ever to be corrected.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

seneca2008 wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 4:32 pm Porcellus is the subject of […] vocābātur so it seems one should use suus rather than eius.
Well in fact, 'avus' is the subject of 'vocābātur', as can be further seen in the English version:
Christopher Robin said you couldn't be called 'Trespassers W', and Piglet said yes, you could, because his grandfather was, and […]

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by seneca2008 »

Of course it is.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Hm if I understand correctly, Porcellus talks about his own grandfather, so ejus would better fit only if he was talking of someone else's grandfather. If I'm correct about this, I guess it's settled and I can move on to the next point.
Chapter 3 wrote: Quattuor animālia ante erant!
Again a problem with the reflexive. Why 'sē'? The expected word would be 'eōs' to my knowledge. The only way I can think of to make it sound correct is that it's to be taken as their own thoughts in some kind of indirect speech, but I'm not sure it works like that.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by seneca2008 »

Are you happy with the other uses of suus eg

"Porcellus tempus ducebat Puo quid avus suus TRANSITUS VE fecisset ad rigorem post insectationem levandum,......" p 27

"APRICISSIMO QUODEM DIE Pu sedato gressu summam in silvam se contulit, quid amicus suus Christophorus Robinus de ursis generaliter sentiret, speculatum. " p 80

These examples show clearly the rule that suus is used when it refers to the grammatical subject of the sentence.

In "Negavit Christophorus Robinus aliquem "Transitus Ve' vocari posse, sed Porcellus in sententia perseveravit, quia scilicet avus suus ita vocabatur et erat "Transitus Vehi' breviter complexus, quod erat "Transitus Vehilius' breviter complexus.

I think we agree that that suus refers to Porcellus the grammatical subject of the clause preceding "quia scilicet avus suus ita vocabatur", if eius had been used there might be some confusion as to whether it referred to Porcellus or "Christophorus Robinus". Indeed I would have read it as referring to Christophorus Robinus.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

To be honest, I never had any chance to see 'suus' in the nominative until now, and didn't have any rule about it. So any use was going to be problematic. :)

Now I do understand that specific use, exchanging with you helped me a lot.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by seneca2008 »

You seem to have got it and without wanting to labour the point you might find the following from the Companion to Familia Latina (LLPSI) helpful

Possessives: eius/suus

English has one set of possessives for the 3rd person: his, her, its. Latin has two:

the genitive pronoun . eius
the possessive adjective. suus, -a, -um

Compare the following two sentences:

Dāvus sacculum eius sūmit. . Davus takes his (someone else’s) bag.
Dāvus sacculum suum sūmit. Davus takes his own bag.

Both eius and suus, -a, -um mean his, her, it's, but they are not interchangeable.
To understand the difference, compare the two examples (ll.61–62):

Dāvus sacculum suum in mēnsā pōnit.
Iam sacculus eius in mēnsā est.

In the first sentence—Dāvus sacculum suum in mēnsā pōnit—the subject is Davus and the money also belongs to Davus; therefore “his” (or “his own”) is expressed by the adjective suum. When the “his” (or “hers” or “its”) refers back to the subject of the sentence, Latin uses the possessive adjective suus, -a, -um. In English, the word “own” is sometimes added to make the meaning plain: “his/her own.”

In the second sentence—Iam sacculus eius in mēnsā est—the subject is sacculus, and “his” is expressed by the genitive of the pronoun: eius.

Look at another example:

Iūlius pecūniam suam sūmit. Julius takes his (own) money.

Note that “his own” is feminine, because it modifies pecūniam, even though it is translated “his” and refers to Julius. An adjective always has the same gender, number, and case as the noun it modifies.

In other words, when:

• referring to something that belongs to the grammatical subject of the sentence, the adjective suus, -a, -um is used: Iūlius servum suum vocat.

• referring to something that does not belong to the grammatical subject of the clause, the pronoun eius is used: Servus eius abest.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Wow that's kind of you to put all of this here, but that wasn't really necessary. Although I don't have any LLPSI related books in English, I did all the available exercises at least once, and had a good general view of su- vs ejus, with the exception of suus which is nowhere in FR or the exercitia. So I got troubled on a thing that now looks obvious to me… Grātiās summās tibi agō!

truks
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by truks »

Aurēliānus Agricola wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:40 am Hm if I understand correctly, Porcellus talks about his own grandfather, so ejus would better fit only if he was talking of someone else's grandfather. If I'm correct about this, I guess it's settled and I can move on to the next point.
Chapter 3 wrote: Quattuor animālia ante erant!
Again a problem with the reflexive. Why 'sē'? The expected word would be 'eōs' to my knowledge. The only way I can think of to make it sound correct is that it's to be taken as their own thoughts in some kind of indirect speech, but I'm not sure it works like that.
The reflexive is used here because the information is reported from the perspective of an implied party or parties. The general rule, as seneca has said, is that se/suus are used when referring to the subject of a sentence. There are exceptional situations, though, where the reflexive is the logical choice, even though its antecedent is not the subject, like here. The more you read, the more you will get a feel for these. You might also want to review sections 299 and 300 in Allen and Greenough.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Yess! So I got it right! I did have the feel, but needed the confirmation that it wasn't a mistake or other. Thanks for the information.

And now, the next point:
Chapter 3 wrote:Winnie ille Pu enim repente cōnstiterat et cōnfūsō quoddam modō suprā vestīgia inclīnātus erat.
This clearly looks like an error to me. If I'm right, we should have 'quōdam', not 'quoddam', unless it's some archaic ablative: quōd-dam. Any thought about this?

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

I'll take this as a confirmation of an error, although I would have preferred an explicit confirmation.

As for the next problematic point:
Chapter 4 wrote: Quō in capite Īōr caudam āmittit et Pu caudam quendam invenit
Quendam, really? This makes no sense to me. Quendam is accusative masculine and therefore can't agree with caudam nor anything else.

English has:
in which Eeyore loses a tail and Pooh finds one
Thus the only word I can think of is quandam.

Do you have any idea about that matter? Thanks.

Shenoute
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Shenoute »

Yes, I agree. it seems to be a typo for quandam.

truks
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by truks »

Aurēliānus Agricola wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 5:20 pm
Chapter 4 wrote:Loquendō enim sternuistī
Būbō says something Pu doesn't understand, so Pu thinks he sneezed. It seems that 'loquēns' would be slightly better in that context.
Answering out of order here, as this just caught my eye.

The use of the ablative gerund where Cicero, for instance, might have used a simple present participle, is a feature of later Latin (Tacitus, for example, does this a lot). There's not a huge difference between saying ‘speaking’ or ‘by speaking’ if you think about it.

The ablative gerund would eventually come to be felt as equivalent to the present participle (and it would become the actual present participle in Spanish and Italian).

For an overview starting from Virgil, see Nutting’s ‘The Ablative Gerund as a Present Participle’ (The Classical Journal , Nov., 1926, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 131–4). If you can't find it online, PM me and I'll send it to you.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Shenoute wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 9:36 pm Yes, I agree. it seems to be a typo for quandam.
What's surprising is that it's in a chapter title, and as such is very visible, so it should have been corrected. Thank you for the confirmation.
truks wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:42 am The use of the ablative gerund where Cicero, for instance, might have used a simple present participle, is a feature of later Latin (Tacitus, for example, does this a lot).
That's why I was wary about this gerund.
truks wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:42 am There's not a huge difference between saying ‘speaking’ or ‘by speaking’ if you think about it.
That's true, the difference is subtle, but not nonexistent.
truks wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:42 am The ablative gerund would eventually come to be felt as equivalent to the present participle (and it would become the actual present participle in Spanish and Italian).
So it's to be considered as an evolution of Classical Latin and it may be considered more correct or incorrect depending on the era we figure.
truks wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:42 am For an overview starting from Virgil, see Nutting’s ‘The Ablative Gerund as a Present Participle’ (The Classical Journal , Nov., 1926, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 131–4). If you can't find it online, PM me and I'll send it to you.
I found it by myself, thanks. I guess that settles all of my questions concerning the pair gerund/present participle. Thanks, that helps me going forward. :)

truks
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by truks »

Aurēliānus Agricola wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:42 am So it's to be considered as an evolution of Classical Latin and it may be considered more correct or incorrect depending on the era we figure.
Well, I wouldn’t call Livy’s or Tacitus’ use of the ablative gerund where a present participle could potentially fit incorrect.. The usage is perfectly grammatical, and certainly wasn't unknown to Cicero. It's just a stylistic difference, one that took hold and whose influence grew with time.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

truks wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 1:02 pm Well, I wouldn’t call Livy’s or Tacitus’ use of the ablative gerund where a present participle could potentially fit incorrect.. The usage is perfectly grammatical, and certainly wasn't unknown to Cicero. It's just a stylistic difference, one that took hold and whose influence grew with time.
It must be the fact that this particular usage isn't presented in the lesson about the gerund in LLPSI. I guess I'll have to update that part of grammar in my mind in order to label this as "not incorrect" (I tend to be purist and snob at times).

truks
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by truks »

Aurēliānus Agricola wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:13 pm
truks wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 1:02 pm Well, I wouldn’t call Livy’s or Tacitus’ use of the ablative gerund where a present participle could potentially fit incorrect.. The usage is perfectly grammatical, and certainly wasn't unknown to Cicero. It's just a stylistic difference, one that took hold and whose influence grew with time.
It must be the fact that this particular usage isn't presented in the lesson about the gerund in LLPSI. I guess I'll have to update that part of grammar in my mind in order to label this as "not incorrect" (I tend to be purist and snob at times).
Being a purist is a disadvantage when it comes to learning ancient languages. Things are rarely black and white. 😉

I don't know how far along you are in LLPSI, but once you get past a certain point in Roma Aeterna, with all that endless Livy, I'm sure you'll learn this construction.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

truks wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:21 pm Being a purist is a disadvantage when it comes to learning ancient languages. Things are rarely black and white. 😉
It's a hard to swallow pill. :)
truks wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:21 pm I don't know how far along you are in LLPSI, but once you get past a certain point in Roma Aeterna,
Chapter 41. But the huge vocubulary is my enemy, with so many synonyms. So I alternate with other books.

As for the next point:
Chapter 5 wrote: Et crās māne hōrā diēī sextā apud Pīnōs convēnerimus et vīderimus quot Heffalumpōrum in Foveā forent
I find the usage of the genitive with quot a little dubious. This usage matches for example French with "combien de", but is different from the usage with nominative I'm accustomed to. Is it classical? Or even correct?

truks
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by truks »

Aurēliānus Agricola wrote: Tue Dec 27, 2022 5:20 pm
Chapter 5 wrote:Pu nāsum iterum fricuit et dīxit ‘sē de eō nunquam sēcum reputāvisse’.
Is this sentence correct? Doesn't 'reputāre' take the accusative only?
I didn’t find this particularly jarring, and the meaning is clear.

As you say, reputo can take an acc. and inf. but is frequently found with secum, as here, or cum animo (suo) – note the reflexive pronoun/possessive adjective! 😉 – and can also be construed with an indirect question.

As for the preposition, I found this in Nepos’ Life of Alcibiades, so I wouldn't worry too much:

hac Thurios in Italiam peruectus, multa secum reputans de immoderata ciuium suorum licentia crudelitateque erga nobiles… (4.4.2)

truks
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by truks »

Speaking of Nepos, you mentioned you’re reading other things to give yourself a break from RA, which is an excellent idea. Nepos’ prose is accessible and engaging for the most part, and might be a good fit for you at this stage (I realise you didn’t ask for advice! 😉).

The thing to remember is that the more authentic Latin you read, the better equipped you’ll be to judge differences in idiom and usage in texts from whatever period (and there is plenty of stylistic variation in ‘classical’ texts, too).

When I was working through LLPSI, I would switch to reading the Fabulae Syrae in the same series to grab a break. It's neo-Latin, but very well done (I spotted only one or two outright errors, which the author may have since corrected). Just in case you’re not aware, there are also other ancillary texts in the LLPSI series keyed to where you are in RA (excerpts from Plautus, Caesar, Sallust, Petronius, etc.).

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

truks wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:53 am I didn’t find this particularly jarring, and the meaning is clear.
The meaning is obvious, I totally agree. But while the meaning may be obvious, the construction could have been wrong, so I wanted to be sure that it could be considered as correct in Classical Latin.
truks wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:20 am Speaking of Nepos, you mentioned you’re reading other things to give yourself a break from RA, which is an excellent idea. Nepos’ prose is accessible and engaging for the most part, and might be a good fit for you at this stage (I realise you didn’t ask for advice! 😉).
I think I've seen Nepos somewhere, with macrons. I'm not sure there are reprints, though (I'm into paper when reading).

It would be annoying to stick to the main LLPSI books until I assimilate everything. Having other reads helps having fun. I already have all LLPSI supplements that fit the level just after FR. I also have Alicia in Terrā Mīrābilī. Aside from that, not much when it comes to macrons. I have Winie ille Pu, obviously, but frustrated by the lack of macrons and given the fact that the content is attractive (in its own way) and the level not too high, I decided to macronize all the text (and fix the potential errors, hence my questions here).
truks wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:20 am (I realise you didn’t ask for advice! 😉).
That's because many people have already done that, so I only had to look for their questions. :)

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Aurēliānus Agricola wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:37 pm
Chapter 5 wrote: Et crās māne hōrā diēī sextā apud Pīnōs convēnerimus et vīderimus quot Heffalumpōrum in Foveā forent
I find the usage of the genitive with quot a little dubious. This usage matches for example French with "combien de", but is different from the usage with nominative I'm accustomed to. Is it classical? Or even correct?
Just in case my question was drowned in the flow, I reproduce it here. I looked in LewisShort and the Gaffiot, but only nominative there. I think this genitive it's an error, but I'd like to be sure.

Shenoute
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Shenoute »

Aurēliānus Agricola wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:42 am
Shenoute wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 9:36 pm Yes, I agree. it seems to be a typo for quandam.
What's surprising is that it's in a chapter title, and as such is very visible, so it should have been corrected. Thank you for the confirmation.
"Thou shalt commit adultery" says the Wicked Bible :)


I looked around a bit about quot Heffalumporum. Although I've been able to find things like quot civium in Gildersleeve, it's harder to find examples of quot+genitive in actual texts.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 4815
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by jeidsath »

What's surprising is that it's in a chapter title, and as such is very visible, so it should have been corrected.
A number of the early reviews commented on problems with the Latin, including typos on the title page even. My 1994 reprint still has "Londonii". My Latin isn't good enough to spot this sort of thing reading (I wouldn't have caught any of the ones noted in this thread) though I can follow along with the story well enough. "To err is human" as K.G.'s review here from Classical Outlook says (who would "K.G." have been?).

Reviews behind the spoiler tag. Schnur, Classical World. C. J. Fordyce, Classical Review. K.G. Classical Outlook.
Spoiler
Show
Image
Image
Image
Image
"Here stuck the great stupid boys, who for the life of them could never master the accidence..."

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Shenoute wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:43 pm I looked around a bit about quot Heffalumporum. Although I've been able to find things like quot civium in Gildersleeve, it's harder to find examples of quot+genitive in actual texts.
Okay, so this is a really marginal (if not incorrect use), and even if it were correct, the use of quot that we have in Winnie doesn't match the emphasis presented in your example.
jeidsath wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:09 am A number of the early reviews commented on problems with the Latin, including typos on the title page even.
What's crazy is that the quendam error is reproduced as is in the chapters list.

Your newspaper extracts are very interesting and confirm some errors I pointed (and didn't write here yet). And there are some badly chosen words too that are necessary to fix.
Pu sēsē diūtius frēnōs impōnere nequīvit
I didn't notice until now, but it looks wrong indeed, it should be 'sibi'. Okay, I fix that.

The next point is
Chapter 5 wrote: Habēsne fūniculum quidem?
The English version has 'And have you got any string?'. I think we should have 'quendam' instead of 'quidem', this looks pretty obvious to me. Do we agree on this?

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

There are some problematic points I'm confident are errors or barbarisms, but some remain for which I'm really unsure, such as aveō scīre rēs ēvenīret. I don't feel like the use of 'sī' is the best in this context, and think it would be better with 'num'.

Do you have something about this?

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

I finally found the answer for this last point. It's mentioned in Sermōnēs Rōmānī as being a colloquial alternate to 'num', 'an'. So it's okay for speech, but not quite so in a narrative (if we try to stay classical).

In order to change a little from questions I ask, here are some words I found which are wrong in the context they're used, with the substitution I suggest:
  • Ex arbustō quōdam → Ex arbusculā quādam (English 'It was hanging over a bush')
  • caccabus → cadus (English 'jar', specifically a honey jar)
  • dē aliō saxō in alium saltantēs trānsgressī sunt → dē aliō saxō in alium salientēs trānsgressī sunt (they're jumping, not dancing ; the word 'saltāre' is here used with its meaning in romance, not Latin)
  • Nucēs et Majum → Nucēs et Albam (English 'Nuts and May'; the sentence bears no sense in Latin, because the name is a calque from English)
  • vusillī silvāticī → vusillī ferī (again a romance meaning)
  • ad largum arboris rāmum → ad lātum arboris rāmum (romance)
  • dēnique est Nūncius → itaque est Nūncius (dēnique is used here with a very marginal meaning, not quite classical)
  • Pu īmus et intrā eōs → Pu īmus et inter eōs (English 'Pooh sat at the other, and between them')

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

Hello,

There's a sentence I don't understand:
Chapter 4 wrote: 'A lick of honey,' murmured Bear to himself, 'or - or not, as the case may be.'

“Lambitum mellis,” murmurāvit sēcum Ursus, “aut – aut nihil, prō temporibus.”
I don't understand the prō temporibus part, and the matching English is quite obscure to me. From what I can find, the English seems to mean 'depending on the case'.

Is it correct, and moreover, is the Latin version right about it?

Thanks!

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by seneca2008 »

L&S has:

Pro tempore, according to circumstances: consilium pro tempore et pro re capere, Caes. B. G. 5, 8: pauca pro tempore milites hortatus, Sall. J. 49, 6; Verg. E. 7, 35; Ov. Tr. 4, 2, 23.

as the case may be. = according to circumstances

It looks as if the author has made this plural.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

seneca2008 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 8:53 am It looks as if the author has made this plural.
And that's why I didn't find any relevant information for the Latin part. Okay, now it makes sense, thanks. But is it 'correct' in plural? Because if nobody ever used it in plural, what's the point?

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by seneca2008 »

I found this:

M. Tullius Cicero. Epistulae ad Atticum (Cicero's Letters to
Atticus. 6 vols., ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, 1965–1968).
(0474: 057)
book 8, letter 9a, section 1, line 1
NB. Loc: in Formiano; Date: v Kal. Mart. 49 (§2)
<CICERO ATTICO SAL.>
Εὐγενῆ tua consilia et tamen pro temporibus non incauta
mihi valde probantur.

If its good enough for Cicero....
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

Aurēliānus Agricola
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:15 pm
Location: Gallia

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by Aurēliānus Agricola »

seneca2008 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:57 pm If its good enough for Cicero....
Indeed. I'll keep that, then. Thank you for your help.

And obviously, I'm not over with unusual things:
Chapter 5 wrote: agendum expergīscere!

wake up!
I only keep the relevant part here.

This looks very weird. Expergīscere is normally a deponent (expergīscī), so this form must be a second person singular (either indicative or imperative). But I don't understand the role of 'agendum'. With 'agendum', I would expect an infinitive, not a conjugated verb. But it would still be weird, albeit less so. If the verb is, for some reason taken as a non deponent, and so expergīscere would be an infinitive, that would be grammatically better, but still super weird and unnatural.

The only thing that may make sense to me is that if there were a typo: agendum instead of agedum: « agedum, expergīscere! »

So, is the text legit or is there an error somewhere?

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1796
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

Post by seneca2008 »

"agendum expergīscere!"

expergiscere seems fine:

M. Tullius Cicero. Epistulae ad Atticum (Cicero's Letters to
Atticus. 6 vols., ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, 1965–1968).
(0474: 057)
book 2, letter 23, section 3, line 8
quam ob rem, si me amas
quantum profecto amas, si dormis expergiscere, si stas ingredere,
si ingrederis curre, si curris advola.

I am confused by your "agendum" My text says "agedum expergiscere". Agedum seems correct here. Come! Wake up!
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

Post Reply