conditional clauses help

Latin Learning Latin
1

didnt find this lot too difficult:

  1. If the children prefer learning to running, Fronto is ready to teach them.
    si liberi discendum currendo praeferunt, Fronto paratus est eos docere.

not sure about the two gerunds here, are they ok?

  1. If the barbarians were silent, the praetors sent the wisest ambassadors to learn what was happening.

si barbari taciti erant, praetores legatos sapientissimos miserunt qui … discerent.

any ideas how to do “what was happening”? haec occidebant?

  1. If you were as rich as Crassus, o farmers, you would not be cultivating the fields.
    si … essetis, agricolae, agros non coleretis.

any ideas how to do “as rich as”?

  1. The sad mothers did not know if they would see their children again.
    matres miserae nesciverunt si liberos iterum visurum esse.

is it ok to use “si” in an indirect statement like this?

  1. If Pompey returns, the senators will persuade the Roman people to support him.
    si Pompeius redderit, senatores Romanis eum sustinere persuadebunt.

think this one’s ok.

  1. The senate house would have been destroyed, if the priest had not wounded Gracchus.
    senatus destructus esset, nisi sacerdos Gracchum vulneravisset.

  2. If Cicero was not a brave general, nevertheless he spoke very well.
    si Cicero non imperator fortis erat, nihilominus benissime dixit.

this one looks dodgy somewhere.

  1. We would not enjoy freedom now, if Scipio had not defeated Hannibal by hesitating.
    nunc libertate non frueremini, nisi Scipio dubitando Hannibalem vicisset.

is frueremini ok for imp. passive?

  1. If Clodia were to drink more water, she would become very skilled at dancing.
    si Clodia plus aquae bibat, saltare dextrissime fiat.

not sure about the last bit on this one.

  1. If the Spartans capture the city, we shall forgive the consuls; if not, the Romans will die.
    si Lacedaemonii urbem ceperint, consulibus ignoscemus; si minus, Romani morentur.

think this one’s ok.

thanks guys.

2
  1. If the children prefer learning to running, Fronto is ready to teach them.
    si liberi discendum currendo praeferunt, Fronto paratus est eos docere.

Prefer is generally malo. And “I prefer running to walking” is malo currere quam ambulare - you use the infinitive. I see you got the infinitive with paratus sum correct though. Good stuff.

  1. If the barbarians were silent, the praetors sent the wisest ambassadors to learn what was happening.

si barbari taciti erant, praetores legatos sapientissimos miserunt qui … discerent.

any ideas how to do “what was happening”? haec occidebant?

I think this is a sentence which to me means something like “Whenever the barbarians were silent, the praetors…”

Cum and si can be used in sentences like this. The verb in the cum/si clause is in the perfect if the main verb is in the present, or in the pluperfect if the main verb is in the past.

Si barbari tacuerant… Since taceo is a verb. The verb in this construction might also be found in the subjunctive.

“What was happening” is an indirect question. Verb (accidit) will take the imperfect subjunctive.

  1. If you were as rich as Crassus, o farmers, you would not be cultivating the fields.
    si … essetis, agricolae, agros non coleretis.

any ideas how to do “as rich as”?

Right tenses. As rich as is a “tam…quam” construction.

The sad mothers did not know if they would see their children again.
matres miserae nesciverunt si liberos iterum visurum esse.

is it ok to use “si” in an indirect statement like this?

It’s not an indirect statement - it’s an indirect question! Lots of verbs that have nothing to do with asking questions can take this construction -nescio, obliviscor, incertum est, dubio, scio, miror. Use num and the imperfect subjunctive.

  1. If Pompey returns, the senators will persuade the Roman people to support him.
    si Pompeius redderit, senatores Romanis eum sustinere persuadebunt.

think this one’s ok.

Rederit? Redeo is the normal latin for the intransitive verb “to return”. Put it into the future tense, and your sentence is good.

  1. If Cicero was not a brave general, nevertheless he spoke very well.
    si Cicero non imperator fortis erat, nihilominus benissime dixit.

this one looks dodgy somewhere.

I think it’s the English that is rather eccentric - the sentence does not appear to make sense to me. Although would have been a better conjunction to use - if you used etsi/tametsi and the subjunctive, your sentence would make sense (since Cicero was not a good general, poet or leader).

That English is a bit strange. Ask your teacher for some clarification. Then come back to us.

  1. We would not enjoy freedom now, if Scipio had not defeated Hannibal by hesitating.
    nunc libertate non frueremini, nisi Scipio dubitando Hannibalem vicisset.

is frueremini ok for imp. passive?

Wrong ending! Frueremur.

  1. If Clodia were to drink more water, she would become very skilled at dancing.
    si Clodia plus aquae bibat, saltare dextrissime fiat.

not sure about the last bit on this one.

More of water! Good stuff! Skilled at dancing is peritus saltandi.

  1. If the Spartans capture the city, we shall forgive the consuls; if not, the Romans will die.
    si Lacedaemonii urbem ceperint, consulibus ignoscemus; si minus, Romani morentur.

think this one’s ok.

Use of the future perfect in adverbial clauses! Fantastic!

Never seen that si minus construction before. If your teacher/textbook says it’s ok, then use it.. Morior is a third conjugation deponent verb conjugating like capio. Third person future indicative of capio is capient.

Pretty good. I think you’re now reaching the stage when there are several ways in Latin to express the English you’ve been given. We shall have to watch out from now on…

3
  1. If Pompey returns, the senators will persuade the Roman people to support him.
    si Pompeius redderit, senatores Romanis eum sustinere persuadebunt.

think this one’s ok.

redderit is actually an impossible form for any verb in the Latin language (unless there is a variant which I do not know of). It looks like you tried to use the verb reddo, reddere, reddidi, redditum, but if so, you must understand that it means “to return” in the sense “to give back” (think re(d)- “back/again” + do, -are “give”), as you might “return a gift” or “return a pet to its owner”. This is not “return” in the sense “to go back”. To make things more confusing, we have the two verbs reddo and redeo which look very similar and both translate as “return” in English. :unamused:

  1. If Cicero was not a brave general, nevertheless he spoke very well.
    si Cicero non imperator fortis erat, nihilominus benissime dixit.

this one looks dodgy somewhere.

The English is weird, but I would use a cum to represent the “if”. While I admire your valiant use of benissime, it is not a real Latin word :cry:

  1. We would not enjoy freedom now, if Scipio had not defeated Hannibal by hesitating.
    nunc libertate non frueremini, nisi Scipio dubitando Hannibalem vicisset.

is frueremini ok for imp. passive?

The military tactic of delaying is usually referred to as cunctatio, from the verb cunctor, -ari, -atus.

4

To make things more confusing, we have the two verbs reddo and redeo which look very similar and both translate as “return” in English.

Easy to tell 'em apart though. One’s a compound of eo, the other of do.

While I admire your valiant use of benissime, it is not a real Latin word

Eyurrch! I blame you for my not picking that up. At least my username is a real latin word. Benissimus indeed! When did you choose that?

Now some Latin…

Use num and the imperfect subjunctive.

My mistake. You need, actually, to use the future in the past subjunctive - amaturus sis. You know what it looks like.

5
  1. If the children prefer learning to running, Fronto is ready to teach them.
    si liberi discendum currendo praeferunt, Fronto paratus est eos docere.

I see you got the infinitive with paratus sum correct though.

Wouldn’t paratus sum ad eorum/eos docendum be correct too?

The sad mothers did not know if they would see their children again.
matres miserae nesciverunt si liberos iterum visurum esse.

is it ok to use “si” in an indirect statement like this?

It’s not an indirect statement - it’s an indirect question! Lots of verbs that have nothing to do with asking questions can take this construction -nescio, obliviscor, incertum est, dubio, scio, miror. Use num and the imperfect subjunctive.

As far as I know, this would be Matres miserae nesciverunt liberos iterum visurae essentne. Am I wrong or was this what you meant with your correction?

6

Wouldn’t paratus sum ad eorum/eos docendum be correct too?

Do you mean ad eum docendum? A phrase like this prefers the gerund and object to a noun and gerundive in only two circumstances. And eorum would never be used.

(i) Where the subject is a neuter pronoun. Latin avoids the ambiguity caused by the similar endings of masculine and neuter pronouns by using a gerund not a gerundive. So for by saying these things:

haec dicendo

instead of

his dicendis

(ii) If by using the gerundive+noun construction we would get a cacophonous series of -orum/-arum sounds, we can use the gerund+noun construction:

Not causa amicorum videndorum (possible but ugly), but amicos videndi causa

As for using a gerundive rather than an infinitive…well, I can’t prove the Romans never used the construction with paratus, but the ad+ construction is generally used for a purpose. Paratus definitely uses the infinitive whenever I’ve seen it.

As far as I know, this would be Matres miserae nesciverunt liberos iterum visurae essentne. Am I wrong or was this what you meant with your correction?

Matres miserae nesciverunt -
num iterum liberos visurae essent.
essentne iterum liberos visurae (usual order)

7

w.gerundive:
ciuem illum egregium…et ad haec quae timentur propulsanda paratissimum (Cic.Att.5.7)
ut domum reditionis spe sublata paratiores ad omnia pericula subeunda essent (Caes.Gal.1.5.3)
w.gerund:
Sex. Aelius, iuris quidem ciuilis omnium peritissumus, sed etiam ad dicendum paratus (Cic.Brut.78)
parato tibi ad proficisciendum (Ulp.dig.12.4.5)
quamquam paratissimos milites ad proeliandum uideant (Cic.Phil.4.11)
ut ad audendum proiectus, sic paratus ad audiendum (Cic.Ver.1.2)

~D

8

Do you mean ad eum docendum? A phrase like this prefers the gerund and object to a noun and gerundive in only two circumstances. And eorum would never be used.

Ad eum? Why? “Fronto is ready to teach them”.

Paratus definitely uses the infinitive whenever I’ve seen it.

My dictionary says both work, and I think whiteoctave proved that. The infinitive contruction may be more common though.

9

Ad eum? Why? “Fronto is ready to teach them”.

My mistake. Ad eos docendos.

My dictionary says both work, and I think whiteoctave proved that. The infinitive contruction may be more common though.

Which dictionary do you use? My one is less than wholly satisfactory.

Blast! Yours would be Latin-Swedish, no?

10

Oh, plural of the gerund, I didn’t realise that, but now I understand.

My dictionary says both work, and I think whiteoctave proved that. The infinitive contruction may be more common though.

Which dictionary do you use? My one is less than wholly satisfactory.
Blast! Yours would be Latin-Swedish, no?

Yes, it’s Latin-Swedish. :confused: Sorry. Very good dictionary though.

11

Oh, plural of the gerund, I didn’t realise that, but now I understand.

Gerundive!

12
  1. cum is the conjunction used in this habitual sense with pluperfect/perfect indicative. So cum…tacuerant…misere

To find out, learn in such a sense is cognoscere. I would say ‘evenientia qui cognoscerent’ [who were to find out things dat were happening]

  1. redierit/reversus erit etc. whichever verb you choose it is in the future perfect. Read up on your simple seq of tenses lads.

re: causa amicorum videndorum, it will commonly be simply videndum with the gen pl. to avoid messy spillage of the flow nu.

As whiteoctave appropriately selected, my instinct says ad +gerund paratus esse for to be ready to. Although infinitive would be fine.

13
  1. cum is the conjunction used in this habitual sense with pluperfect/perfect indicative. So cum…tacuerant…misere

the conjunction?

re: causa amicorum videndorum, it will commonly be simply videndum with the gen pl. to avoid messy spillage of the flow nu.

Interesting.

14

wow, thanks everyone. i’m rather overwhelmed.

the reasons is chose gerunds in no 1 is that my grammar book has “she prefers walking to running” as an example for gerunds. anyway, is this ok:

si liberi malunt currere quam ambulare, Fronto paratus est eos docere.

does the second bit need a gerundive or is it ok?

  1. cum barbari tacuerant, praetores legatos sapientissimos miserunt qui cognoverunt quid acciderent.

not sure about combining the purpose clause and the indirect question here.

  1. si tam dives quam Crassus essetis, agricolae, agros non coleretis.

is that how to use tam/quam??

  1. matres miserae nesciverunt num liberos iterum visurae essent.

ok now?

  1. si Pompeius rederit, senatores Romanis eum sustinere persuadebunt.

  2. senatus destructus esset, nisi sacerdos Gracchum vulneravisset.

  3. i’m confused about this one too. anymore suggestions? I think the “if” indicates a conditional clause should be used - the sentence makes more sense without it.

  4. nunc libertate non frueremur, nisi Scipio cunctatione Hannibalem vicisset.

is cunctatione ok?

  1. si Clodia plus aquae bibat, perita saltandi fiat.

  2. si Lacedaemonii urbem ceperint, consulibus ignoscemus; si minus, Romani morientur.

15

si liberi malunt currere quam ambulare, Fronto paratus est eos docere.

OK. Can I ask where/why you’re learning Latin? If you have some kind of final Latin composition exam then it might be worth paying more attention to the circumstances in which English and Latin use gerunds, and the differences between them. eos docere or ad eos docendos would both be acceptable.

cum barbari tacuerant, praetores legatos sapientissimos miserunt qui cognoverunt quid acciderent.

not sure about combining the purpose clause and the indirect question here.

I’d still use comperirent, but Episcopus is also correct. Remember the prescribed tenses - quid depends on invenirent, so it must be either imperfect, pluperfect, or future in the past subjunctive. You get to decide which one.

  1. si tam dives quam Crassus essetis, agricolae, agros non coleretis.

is that how to use tam/quam??

Yup.

  1. matres miserae nesciverunt num liberos iterum visurae essent.

ok now?

OK

  1. si Pompeius rederit, senatores Romanis eum sustinere persuadebunt.

What’s the Latin for “shall have returned”? Use that instead of rederit. Which is, as we noted earlier, not a real verb. Give you a clue - it’s the perfect stem of eo, plus the future tense of sum, with re(d) tacked on the front.

  1. The senate house would have been destroyed, if the priest had not wounded Gracchus.
    senatus destructus esset, nisi sacerdos Gracchum vulneravisset.

This one took me a long time to work out.

Past unreal conditions use the pluperfect subjunctive, and here we have a passive verb.

Pluperfect passive is “destructus erat”. Pluperfect passive subjunctive is “destructus esset”. There’s a lot of shifting back and forth there - one might be inclined to think that “destructus erat” means “was destroyed”. And then there’s the whole tense shifting thing for unreal conditions.

But you got it right.

  1. If Cicero was not a brave general, nevertheless he spoke very well.
    si Cicero non imperator fortis erat, nihilominus benissime dixit.

this one looks dodgy somewhere.

Could you ask your teacher? It looks sort of OK to me, but the English doesn’t make much sense.

  1. nunc libertate non frueremur, nisi Scipio cunctatione Hannibalem vicisset.

is cunctatione ok?

Cunctatione is OK. But your teacher wants you to use the gerund here I think. Remember the line of Ennius:

Unus homo nobis cunctando restituit rem

  1. si Clodia plus aquae bibat, perita saltandi fiat.

  2. si Lacedaemonii urbem ceperint, consulibus ignoscemus; si minus, Romani morientur.

She needs to be very skilled at dancing.

  1. is OK.
16
  1. cum is the conjunction used in this habitual sense with pluperfect/perfect indicative. So cum…tacuerant…misere

the conjunction?

As a Latinist of your skill surely knows, Episcope, si can also be used in this way:

Stomachabatur senex, si quid asperius dixeram. (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, I.33,93)

Si pes condoluit, si dens, ferre non possumus (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, II.22,52)

takes Whiteoctave hat off