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.
I wanted to ask if I’m correct in assuming that there are no subordinate clauses in either of those sentences:
1. Militibus Graecorum fortiter pugnantibus reges Troiam capere frustra temptabant.
2. Troia deleta Graeci domum ierunt.
If we assumed that there were subordinate clauses here, we’d fall into the trap of conflating phrases/constructions which can be expressed with a subordinate clause in ENGLISH (e.g. ablativus absolutus, participium coniunctum) with a subordinate clause in LATIN.
This is your first post so welcome to Textkit. Normally newcomers post an introductory message on the open board.
Both of these sentences begin with an ablative absolute. I am not sure I understand why you are asking the question in the way you have. What would make you think there were any subordinate clauses here?
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.
The tendency to translate the ablative absolute with a subordinate clause in English, mostly ("Because...", "While...", "After..."). But I understand the difference - the ablative absolute is very much part of the main clause here.
It is natural and correct to translate ablative absolute with any of the words you suggest, but that does not mean the translation uses a subordinate clause, at least not in the way I would understand how subordinate clauses work.. The absolute clause has no grammatical connection with the following clause, but of course it is connected in sense and you have to find that sense when you translate. So I am not sure why you would say "the ablative absolute is very much part of the main clause here".
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.
I think I see what he’s getting at. In traditional grammatical terminology a clause, as distinct from a phrase, has a finite verb. So an ablative absolute (or English “That said,”) would not be a clause, while “If I fall asleep” would be. And in these terms an ablative absolute will always be part of a clause (not necessarily a main clause though).
I don't know what he means by /pc, nor what the point of the question is.
Edit. pc. = participium coniunctum—participles not being finite verbs,
I mentioned "pc" (participium coniunctum") because this construction appeared in my second sentence ("Troia deleta").
As far as the broader question is concerned, I generally try to use the distinction between main and subordinate clauses as the first step toward translating the entire sentence, i.e. trying to identify and translate the main clause first, then the subordinate clause.
This is not always easy. Here, for instance, I am struggling to identify the main clause:
Hic ego si finem faciam dicendi, satis causae et controversiae, satis etiam iudicii fecisse videar.
As no doubt you realize, Troia deleta there is an ablative absolute, a discrete component of the main clause.
How are struggling to identify the main clause in the new sentence (adapted from Cicero)? If you can say just what your difficulty is, we can probably help.
My apologies - yes, that is an ablative absolute! (Although I have a hard time telling them apart when the PC is in the ablative as well)
As far as the difficulty in identifying the main clause is concerned, I am (or thought I was) mostly struggling with identifying the inflected verb (‘nucleus’ of the sentence) in the main clause:
Hic ego si finem faciam dicendi, satis causae et controversiae, satis etiam iudicii fecisse videar.
I guess it is "videar", however? I wonder how one could translate the main clause on its own, then. Perhaps one reason I was struggling here is that "videar" can be subjunctive of videre AND videri, and here probably the latter.
Rather than hunting around for things why dont you just read the Latin as it comes holding anything that you dont understand until you get to the end of the sentence. I think this is the best strategy for reading.
( I pointed out in my first post that both sentences you posted had ablative absolutes)
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.
ValeMT, While it can certainly be useful to break down sentences into their constituent parts I’d encourage you to follow seneca’s advice and train yourself to read Latin in the order in which it comes rather than searching for the main clause first. That way you’ll find it easier to attain reading fluency as well as accuracy. And it’s best not to translate anything until you’ve understood it.
In this sentence (hic ego si finem faciam dicendi, satis causae et controversiae, satis etiam iudici fecisse videar) do you see that the opening “hic” is to be read as belonging to the conditional clause, rather than as part of the main clause (satis causae … videar)? The fronting of “hic” is more a matter of rhetoric than of grammar.
I appreciate the kind response and advice, mwh. Breaking down the sentences into their constituent parts also by no means substitutes reading the entire text and letting it sink in.
I do see that the opening "hic" belongs to the conditional clause. However, I’m still struggling to identify the 'main clause' here. Fecisse videar?
There are two finite verbs so the structure of the sentence is:
si finem faciam dicendi ...........................fecisse videar
It is a conditional sentence so strictly you are looking for Protasis (if I were to...) and apodosis (I would seem to have done...)
Does that help?
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.
