Causal clauses help.

[littlewoy]

Found these quite hard, too many combinations of different constructions and i’m not sure how to connect them all.

1. The brave shepherds were sent to help the young women, because the old poets were silent.
   pastores audaces mittebantur qui mulieres parvas adiuvarent, quia poetae veteres taciti erant.

is parvas ok for young? I think the rest is ok.

2. The wise king is to be spared, since he did not harm the happy Romans.
   regi sapienti parcendo est, cum Romanos laetos non laederit.

is the first bit ok, does parco take the dative here?

3. To defend himself, the cunning slave said that he had been asleep, because his labours had been heavy.
   servus callidus dixit se dormiens fuisse quia labores graves fuissent ut se defenderet.

not sure about this one at all, it needs some punctuation i think. I’ve no idea if it’s ok to put the purpose clause on the end like that.

4. The old men stupidly praised the evil Clodius on the grounds that he had guarded the state.
   senes Clodium stulte laudaverunt quod respublicam custodivisset.

think this one’s ok.

5. Because you are the best sailor, I am afraid that the proud master will capture you.
   timeo magistrum superbum te capturum esse, quoniam nauta optimus es.

not sure about the indirect statement here.

6. The river was so deep that the tired Greeks could not cross, since they did not have a bridge.
   flumen tam altum erat ut Graeci fessi transire possent, cum pontem no habuerint.

is habuerint the right tense?

7. Add the fact, members of the jury, that Catilina does not know why you are here.
   id addite, iudices, quod Catilina nescit cur aditis.

is iudices ok for members of the jury?

8. You all went to Rome, citizens, not because you loved the senators, but because you wanted to see the consuls.
   Romam omnes ivistis, civites, non quod senatores amaverint, sed quia consulem videre voluistis.

do i need omnes there? not sure about the rest of this one either.

9. It is strange to me, that some kill others for the sake of obtaining money.
   hoc mihi invisitato est, quod alii necant alios ut pecuniam acquirat.

not sure about any of this, especially the first bit.

10. Do not drink wine because you think that you will be happy.
    vinum non bibe quoniam putes se laetum futurum esse.

can putes be in the subj.? it should be in the causal clause but does it mess up the indirect statement. I also put laetum in the acc. for the ind. statement but not sure if that’s ok or not.

[Turpissimus]

1. The brave shepherds were sent to help the young women, because the old poets were silent.
   pastores audaces mittebantur qui mulieres parvas adiuvarent, quia poetae veteres taciti erant.

is parvas ok for young? I think the rest is ok.

Iuvenes.

2. The wise king is to be spared, since he did not harm the happy Romans.
   regi sapienti parcendo est, cum Romanos laetos non laederit.

is the first bit ok, does parco take the dative here?

I wouldn’t put parco itself in the dative. Just regi sapienti.

3. To defend himself, the cunning slave said that he had been asleep, because his labours had been heavy.
   servus callidus dixit se dormiens fuisse quia labores graves fuissent ut se defenderet.

not sure about this one at all, it needs some punctuation i think. I’ve no idea if it’s ok to put the purpose clause on the end like that.

dormivisse, surely? Not sure about the word order myself.

4. The old men stupidly praised the evil Clodius on the grounds that he had guarded the state.
   senes Clodium stulte laudaverunt quod respublicam custodivisset.

think this one’s ok.

You forgot evil!

5. Because you are the best sailor, I am afraid that the proud master will capture you.
   timeo magistrum superbum te capturum esse, quoniam nauta optimus es.

not sure about the indirect statement here.

This seems OK.

6. The river was so deep that the tired Greeks could not cross, since they did not have a bridge.
   flumen tam altum erat ut Graeci fessi transire possent, cum pontem no habuerint.

is habuerint the right tense?

What’s wrong with haberent?

7. Add the fact, members of the jury, that Catilina does not know why you are here.
   id addite, iudices, quod Catilina nescit cur aditis.

is iudices ok for members of the jury?

I’d have adicite ad haec, from adicio.

Iudices is good for jurymen.

8. You all went to Rome, citizens, not because you loved the senators, but because you wanted to see the consuls.
   Romam omnes ivistis, civites, non quod senatores amaverint, sed quia consulem videre voluistis.

do i need omnes there? not sure about the rest of this one either.

I don’t see why you don’t use the imperfect subjunctive. Omnes is good. It stands in appostition to the missing tu.

9. It is strange to me, that some kill others for the sake of obtaining money.
   hoc mihi invisitato est, quod alii necant alios ut pecuniam acquirat.

not sure about any of this, especially the first bit.

I’d use invisitatum.

10. Do not drink wine because you think that you will be happy.
    vinum non bibe quoniam putes se laetum futurum esse.

can putes be in the subj.? it should be in the causal clause but does it mess up the indirect statement. I also put laetum in the acc. for the ind. statement but not sure if that’s ok or not.

Putes would only be in the subjunctive if it were a reason ascribed to the drinkers but not vouched for by the speaker himself. This is not the case. Use the indicative.

Acc. and Inf. is fine.

[littlewoy]

thanks turp, in 2 i thought gerundives acted like adjectives so I gave it a dative ending. In no. 6 and 8 i put the subjunctives in the perfect because it says to use the tense that makes most sense from the english?? I’m not quite sure on the imperfect/perfect distinction in these. I used id + quod in 7 because that’s how we were told to express “the fact that” - is it wrong here? In 9 i thought it would be invisitatum aswell, but he gave use this example to illustrate how it works:

hoc mihi ludibrio est, quod laudatur.
It is a matter of ridicule to me that Clodius is being praised.

ludibrio is in either the abl or dat, and I can’t see why. That’s why is did it with invisitatum.

[Deses]

4. The old men stupidly praised the evil Clodius on the grounds that he had guarded the state.
   senes Clodium stulte laudaverunt quod respublicam custodivisset.

Rem publicam would be better

[Turpissimus]

I used id + quod in 7 because that’s how we were told to express “the fact that” - is it wrong here?

Not necessarily wrong, I suppose, it’s just the idiom I’m used to. If you’re told otherwise, use the form you’re familiar with.

In 9 i thought it would be invisitatum aswell, but he gave use this example to illustrate how it works:

hoc mihi ludibrio est, quod laudatur.
It is a matter of ridicule to me that Clodius is being praised.

ludibrio is in either the abl or dat, and I can’t see why. That’s why is did it with invisitatum.

Some nouns take a double dative construction. cui bono would be a good example. lit. to whom for a benefit. Other words used in this way include: curae esse (to be a source of anxiety for), impedimento esse (to be a hinderance for). It’s known as the predicative dative.

I can’t find a noun with the form invisitatum, but then I’ve only a small dictionary. If your professor has a specific idiom in mind, it will be best to listen to him. But I don’t think the double dative has any place here.

In no. 6 and 8 i put the subjunctives in the perfect because it says to use the tense that makes most sense from the english?? I’m not quite sure on the imperfect/perfect distinction in these.

The imperfect stresses the logical connection, the perfect stresses that the result actually took place. You choose what you want to stress.

I’d say the imperfect is far more common than the perfect subjunctive.

2. The wise king is to be spared, since he did not harm the happy Romans.
   regi sapienti parcendo est, cum Romanos laetos non laederit.

Thinking about this, what confused me was that parco takes a dative object. Normally the gerundive would agree with the direct object, yes? So if we want to change “hostages are to be given to the Romans by the Gauls”/“the Gauls must give hostages etc.”, we must ensure that are-to-be-given agrees with hostages which is the direct object of give in the second sentence. But parco has no direct object. Hmmmmmm…

Wait for Benissimus, or some other Latinist of quality, I think.

[Turpissimus]

Generally where the verb can’t take a direct object, it appears that it appears in the neuter singular form:

Romam tibi veniendum est.
You must come to Rome.

I’d have thought that parco follows the same logic.

Some of your translations seem to be a open to a bit of debate. As long as you (i) pay attention to what your professor says, and note down the idioms he tells you about - remember that he is trying to teach you stuff that he will actually examine you on later - and (ii) discuss with him why you made specific translation choices - if he has time - you should be fixed in his mind as an intelligent student. This can sometimes pay dividends in an exam, or when your coursework is marked. You will be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Deses]

@Turpissimus

Some nouns take a double dative construction. cui bono would be a good example. lit. to whom for a benefit. Other words used in this way include: curae esse (to be a source of anxiety for), impedimento esse (to be a hinderance for). It’s known as the predicative dative. I can’t find a noun with the form invisitatum, but then I’ve only a small dictionary. If your professor has a specific idiom in mind, it will be best to listen to him. But I don’t think the double dative has any place here.

I like to think of it as Dative of Purpose or End. Sure, ludibrium is no stranger in such constructions:

quibus mihi videntur ludibrio fuisse divitiae (Sall. Cat. 13.2)

Nam et uultus et uox et ipsa illa excitati rei facies ludibrio etiam plerumque
sunt hominibus quos non permouerunt. (Quint. Inst. 6.1.45)

L & S and OLD do not have this word as a noun. And if it were, it would not be an abstract noun, judging from the sense. I would be very interested in hearing what your teacher has to say, littlewoy. One sure thing is that there is no such idiomatic occurence in classical texts (or in any later texts within my reach). Livy uses invisitato as an Ablative two times. I believe, that’s it.

I know, it is hard to doubt your professor. Maybe, you could ask to explain the grammar of invisitato in this example, not in the ludibrio case. That one is clear and well attested.

[littlewoy]

thanks guys, i’ll go for invisitatum.

I’m going to order no.3 like this:

servus callidus, ut se defenderet, dixit se dormivisse quia labores graves fuissent.

[benissimus]

@littlewoy

2. The wise king is to be spared, since he did not harm the happy Romans.
   regi sapienti parcendo est, cum Romanos laetos non laederit.

I think parcendo should be changed to parcendum if you want to use the impersonal construction. An impersonal gerundive does not generally agree with anything (except occasionally neuters…). You would say “it is to be spared to the king”. To make the gerundive agree with the indirect object would suggest that the verb were in fact transitive. Similary, you cannot say something like corpus valendum because of the intransitivity of that verb. The dative for rex sapiens is of course necessary for the intransitive verb. The double dative is an occasional occurrence with nouns, but to apply that to an impersonal gerundive seems risky.

Also, I don’t think anybody else caught laederit, which I assume is meant to be a perfect subjunctive… the perfect stem of laedere is laes-. I do like the use of the perfect here rather than the imperfect since it stresses the bearing on the present.

3. To defend himself, the cunning slave said that he had been asleep, because his labours had been heavy.
   servus callidus dixit se dormiens fuisse quia labores graves fuissent ut se defenderet.

I would put the purpose clause adjacent to dixit or at the beginning of the sentence, so that it is more apparent whether he made up that excuse to defend himself or he did the heavy labours to defend himself. sui defendendi causa is a less bulky alternative.

dormiens needs to be in the accusative to complement se if you choose to say it that way, but dormivisse would be better, getting rid of fuisse (as the Basest said).

4. The old men stupidly praised the evil Clodius on the grounds that he had guarded the state.
   senes Clodium stulte laudaverunt quod respublicam custodivisset.

res publica is two words and both words have to be declined, even if you combine them into one word (as the Bystander said)… similar to quisquis, quemquem, quoquo.

5. Because you are the best sailor, I am afraid that the proud master will capture you.
   timeo magistrum superbum te capturum esse, quoniam nauta optimus es.

You should use timeo ne + subj.

6. The river was so deep that the tired Greeks could not cross, since they did not have a bridge.
   flumen tam altum erat ut Graeci fessi transire possent, cum pontem no habuerint.

You have said “The river was so deep that the tired Greeks could cross…” - you are missing a non.

7. Add the fact, members of the jury, that Catilina does not know why you are here.
   id addite, iudices, quod Catilina nescit cur aditis.

nescit cur sets up an indirect question:
does not know: why are you here?

Indirect questions are set in the subjunctive. aditis means “go to, approach”. I believe adestis (in the subjunctive) would be a better choice.

8. You all went to Rome, citizens, not because you loved the senators, but because you wanted to see the consuls.
   Romam omnes ivistis, civites, non quod senatores amaverint, sed quia consulem videre voluistis.

It’s your choice whether you use omnes or not. The English “you all” might just be a cue to use the second person plural, so you have a good argument to leave it out if you want.

Usually with ire the contracted forms of the perfect tense are preferred (ivistis → istis), but ivistis is acceptable.

civis, civis; civites is not a word.

why is amaverint third person plural?

The translation calls for “consuls” in the plural, but you have translated it as singular.

9. It is strange to me, that some kill others for the sake of obtaining money.
   hoc mihi invisitato est, quod alii necant alios ut pecuniam acquirat.

The double dative construction might be acceptable in the first part, though invisitatum in the nominative would be more orthodox.

acquirat has the same implied subject as necant and needs to be in the third person plural.

10. Do not drink wine because you think that you will be happy.
    vinum non bibe quoniam putes se laetum futurum esse.

In prohibitions (negative commands), you usually do not use non + imperative, i.e. non bibe. The most basic construction is noli (imperative of nolo) + infinitive, e.g. noli bibere. The other common construction is ne + 2nd person subjunctive present or perfect, e.g. ne bibas/bibatis, ne biberis/biberitis.

[littlewoy]

thanks benissimus, it’s always the little things…