English-Latin translation check

[jonzl]

salvete,
Could you please check these English to Latin translations: (these are bits from the Oxford Latin Course)

Maecenas told him to come early the next day so that they might ride to the Sabine hills and inspect the farm.
Maecenas eum iussit ut postero die mane veniret ut colles Sabinos equitarent et fundum inspicerent.

Setting out at first light, they arrived there as the sun was setting.
prima luce profecti, ibi advenerunt sole occase.
(should this be an ablative absolute or something else?)

The next day Maecenas said that he must return to Rome.
postero die Maecenas dixit se ad Romam redire debere.

Quintus was delighted by everything that he saw.
Quintus delectatus est ab omnibus quibus spectavit.

He asked her why Augustus had summoned him, but she said she did not know.
eam rogavit cur Augustus se arcessivisset, sed illa dixit se non scire.

I rejoice that you so trust me. But I am not worthy of so great an honour, and I am afraid that if I were to do this, I would not have enough leisure for composing poems.
gaudeo te mihi adeo confidere. sed indignum sum tanto honore, et timebam, si hoc fecerim, non satis otii ad carmina componenda habeam.

He would call the farm manager and arrange for the fields to be ploughed; he would send out boys to guard the sheep.
vilicum vocabat et curabat agros arandos; pueri emittebat ad oves custodiendi.

You could scarcely say that Quintus was an idle man, but he was content with his life and was always sad when he had to return to Rome.
vix dicere potuistis Quintum ignavum virum esse, sed vita contentus est et semper tristis erat cum Romam redire deberat.

multas vobis gratias ago!

[benissimus]

@jonzl

Maecenas told him to come early the next day so that they might ride to the Sabine hills and inspect the farm.
Maecenas eum iussit ut postero die mane veniret ut colles Sabinos equitarent et fundum inspicerent.

iubeo may take the infinitive or the subjunctive clause, but the infinitive would probably be better to avoid your stacked ut-clauses. i.e. eum iussit ut veniret → iussit eum venire.

ut colles Sabinos equitarent means “so that they might horse-back ride the hills”.

Setting out at first light, they arrived there as the sun was setting.
prima luce profecti, ibi advenerunt sole occase.
(should this be an ablative absolute or something else?)

ibi means “there; in that place”. With verbs of motion you usually need a word which means “there (thither); to that place”. Some words for “to there” are illo, illuc, and illoc.

You could use an ablative absolute for “as the sun was setting”. occase could only be the vocative of occasus, -a, -um though, so I don’t think it will be in that case no matter how you word it.

The next day Maecenas said that he must return to Rome.
postero die Maecenas dixit se ad Romam redire debere.

Roma is the name of a city, so you need not use a preposition to show motion.

Quintus was delighted by everything that he saw.
Quintus delectatus est ab omnibus quibus spectavit.

ab introduces personal agents; if the agent is a thing you may just use the simple ablative.

In the relative clause “that he saw”: “he” is subject, “saw” is verb", and “that” is direct object. quibus should be the direct object, so it needs to be in the proper case for a direct object.

He asked her why Augustus had summoned him, but she said she did not know.
eam rogavit cur Augustus se arcessivisset, sed illa dixit se non scire.

non scire = nescire. You could also express the negativity with negare instead of dicere.

I rejoice that you so trust me. But I am not worthy of so great an honour, and I am afraid that if I were to do this, I would not have enough leisure for composing poems.
gaudeo te mihi adeo confidere. sed indignum sum tanto honore, et timebam, si hoc fecerim, non satis otii ad carmina componenda habeam.

timebam is not the right tense for “I am afraid”. Usually the conditional construction “if ___ were ____, (then) ____ would ____” in Latin has both verbs in the imperfect subjunctive. I won’t comment on the fear clause and condition overlapping, since I’m not sure myself how best to write it.

non satis = parum (+ gen.)

He would call the farm manager and arrange for the fields to be ploughed; he would send out boys to guard the sheep.
vilicum vocabat et curabat agros arandos; pueri emittebat ad oves custodiendi.

“he would call… and arrange” and “he would send” are probably meant to be translated as subjunctives. pueri is the direct object of emittere, so it is in the wrong case. oves is accusative so custodiendi needs to be made to agree.

You could scarcely say that Quintus was an idle man, but he was content with his life and was always sad when he had to return to Rome.
vix dicere potuistis Quintum ignavum virum esse, sed vita contentus est et semper tristis erat cum Romam redire deberat.

contentus, -a, -um has diverged in sense from the verb contineo, continere, continui, contentus to the point where it is really more adjective than participle, so est does not put this sentence into the past as it would with a passive participle.

cum + indicative shows a specific time. “when he had to return to Rome” is not a specific time, since he obviously was going back on forth between Rome and the country at multiple times, so you must use subjunctive. deberat is not a word (debeo, debere, debui, debitum).

[jonzl]

I’m still not too good at this whole gig - Latin-English, fine, but English-Latin… blah. Anyway

ut colles Sabinos equitarent means “so that they might horse-back ride the hills”.

Hehe. ad colles Sabinos.

You could use an ablative absolute for “as the sun was setting”. occase could only be the vocative of occasus, -a, -um though, so I don’t think it will be in that case no matter how you word it.

So it would be ‘sole occaso’? That sounds funny, but I suppose since this book throws ‘sole oriente’ at us all the time I assumed the opposite would be the same…

In the relative clause “that he saw”: “he” is subject, “saw” is verb", and “that” is direct object. quibus should be the direct object, so it needs to be in the proper case for a direct object.

Relative clauses suck. Easy to read, hard to write. quae then, omnibus being neuter plural.

Quintus delectatus est omnibus quae spectavit.

timebam is not the right tense for “I am afraid”.

timeo, obviously, I have no idea where ‘timebam’ came from.

“he would call… and arrange” and “he would send” are probably meant to be translated as subjunctives. pueri is the direct object of emittere, so it is in the wrong case. oves is accusative so custodiendi needs to be made to agree.

I reckon they want us to use gerundives, because in that chapter they’ve just introduced using them to say ‘so and so arranged for something to happen.’

pueros emittebat ad oves custodiendas, would that be correct? Yes, I do know that a direct object takes the accusative case, though it may not look that way

I think ‘he would call’ etc indicates they want imperfect tenses, since it’s a repeated action.

cum + indicative shows a specific time. “when he had to return to Rome” is not a specific time, since he obviously was going back on forth between Rome and the country at multiple times, so you must use subjunctive. deberat is not a word (debeo, debere, debui, debitum).

This book says (and living in the little sphere of the book, that’s gospel ) that cum + pluperfect indicative means ‘whenever’ which I think is the sense here. Obviously the pluperfect of debeo is debuerat. (stupid mistakes are always the ones that get you) So inside the tiny sphere we’re living at the moment I think it’ll work okay.

Again, many thankses.

[benissimus]

Those revisions are sound. Good job

[MickeyV]

As to “advenire” taking the accusative, there exists an interesting difference from the German language, where verbs of arriving, on account of a difference in perspective, as a rule take the dative (for lack of an ablative). Such verbs therefore take in German an adverbial complement of location, whereas in Latin an adverbial complement of direction. So “they arrive in the city” would be in Latin “advenerunt in urbem”, yet in German “sie kommen in der Stadt an”.
(which makes the mistake of topicstarter all the more forgiveable )

With verbs of putting, placing (he places the soldiers in the city) both languages again take opposing approaches, however this time the result is exactly reverse. Although one can easily conceive verbs of placing as directive verbs (the soldiers are directed towards the city), here Latin employs the ablative (“ponit milites in urbe”), and now German the accusative (“er postiert die Soldaten in die Stadt”).