Why is de with iudicabit?
Hic dies de virtute nostra iudicabit.
Would this translate to:
This day will be the judge of our courage.
I feel that that’s wrong. That would make sense if of our courage was in the genitive, wouldn’t it?
That’s my best go at it. I’d appreciate your help.
Gratis vobis ago.
Well, you captured the sense of it perfectly, I think. Like many Latin words, it has wide range of usage, which includes using de:
b (with de).
de re nihil possum ~are CIC. Fam. 13.73.2; non recte ~as de Catone Amic. 9; Pompeius ‥ de Caesaris consilio coniectura ~ans CAES. Civ. 3.78.5; LARG. pr.p.4; 1.10; amantes de forma ~are non possunt QUINT. Inst. 6.2.6; (of the senses) apud quem de summo, bono malo, ~at tactus SEN. Ep. 124.5; (cf., of a criterion) de terra odor optime ~abit PLIN. Nat. 17.39.
Glare, P. G. W. (Ed.). (2012). Oxford Latin Dictionary (Second Edition, Vol. I & II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
It seems to me that your question boils down to “Why does Latin do things differently than English?”…
You say:
That would make sense if > of our courage > was in the genitive, wouldn’t it?
No, it wouldn’t make sense because “of our courage” is English, while being in the genitive applies to Latin words. Your question is mixing two different languages here and applies Latin grammar to English words.
It sems to me that you translated the sentence, saw “of…” in the translation and thought that since “of…” generally translates the Latin genitive then there should be a genitive (virtutis nostrae?) in the Latin too, otherwise that means the translation is wrong. But, in the end, there’s no reason why idiomatic Latin should conform to idiomatic English (and the other way round).
You probably think I’m pontificating about useless stuff (sorry 
) but I think it’s a very important thing to realize: to me it looks like you’re trying to make Latin match the way English works (or the other way round), and that often leads nowhere.
I get it now. I just wasn’t sure if iudicare could be translated as to act as a judge. As for de: it makes sense now when I think of it as concerning. And I thought there should have been a genitive because iudicabit in a way is acting as a noun, but it obviously isn’t, so I’m guessing that’s why it must take that prepositional phrase. That being said, would this be another way of stating that sentence:
Hic dies iudex virtutis nostrae erit.
Hic dies and iudex are obviously in apposition.
I think this a very important point which P. ignores at his peril.
I have lost count of the number of times on this forum when posters decide what the sentence means in English and then try to fit the Latin to it rather than understanding the Latin and then deciding how to express it English. A lot of heartache and ink would be saved if posters followed this.
That said we all have have to learn and mistakes offer a means of reminding ourselves of the best approach.
Did you see the responses above? They are making a very important point. Iudico can be used with the genitive, but then it’s the genitive of the charge, and means something quite different, and I think that this carries over to iudex, which when followed by the genitive seems to refer to the matter under dispute. My instinct would still be to write de virtute nostra, but that’s simply a guess (though I hope an educated one).
I think this a very important point which P. ignores at his peril.
Hey, I’ve made improvements, haven’t I? You’ve seen my translations from D’Ooge’s book, haven’t you? They’re not that bad, are they? And I think I clarified myself as to why I thought there should have been a genitive there (in my second post in this thread). To be fair, I was doubting that too.
Of course you have. All criticisms offered here are designed to help not belittle your efforts.
When you say “And I think I clarified myself as to why I thought there should have been a genitive there” you show that you haven’t fully understood what Shenoute was saying. The idea of a genitive came from the English translation not the Latin. Statements like “iudicabit in a way is acting as a noun” show that you were trying to fit the Latin to the English.
The mistakes you make are ones which we have all made. I found it difficult in University faced with a time limited unseen(and at other times too) to avoid forcing the Latin into what I thought it meant. Changing the Latin even in your head to fit what you thought it should say is not helpful.
I just wanted to underscore this. Both in my own experience as a student and later in teaching, I think this is one of the primary issues to overcome. It takes time and experience, but the more Latin, the better!
More Latin it is then, which sounds alright with me. By the way, I ordered Caesar’s The Gallic War by Loeb and got it in the mail today. Do you all have any experience with it? How’s the translation? I feel I might need to resort to it sometimes.
I think you will find the resources in this thread http://discourse.textkit.com/t/help-me-find-resources-for-caesar/17786/1 more helpful than the Loeb.
Steadman the Dickinson college commentary and Kelsey are all available on line and will give you a lot of help. If you need more ask here. The Loeb will give you no help in understanding the Latin. Working back from a translation is not helpful when you are learning Latin. As a last resort its ok when you have exhausted all the possibilities but it too soon becomes a crutch.
Did you recall this thread which mentions the new translation by Jim O’Donnell http://discourse.textkit.com/t/how-to-read-caesar/17686/1 It is better I think than the Loeb which dates to 1917.
Hmm, I feel as if that’s what I should have bought instead of a Loeb (I prefer owning the actually book). I didn’t want the translation to be included, but that’s all I could find. Hopefully those books are still in print. I’m definitely going to return the Loeb and look around for those books. Which of the two would you say is the better? I want something clear, but also challenging.
And as for the translation of the Loeb: my instincts told me that it wasn’t that good. I just needed an experienced Latinist’s opinion to confirm.
If you look at this link http://dcc.dickinson.edu/caesar/caesar-sources-notes you will see the soures of notes used in the Dickinson College commentary. It has a “List of older school editions used in the creation of the notes, with links to full scans on Google Books.”
I suggest you look at the books linked and try to buy the one you feel happiest with. I suggest you work with Steadman because he lists the vocabulary for each section. Kelsey has lots of help and so you could refer to it when you are stuck. It also gives references to Allen and Greenough. There are lots of illustrations too.
I was actually considering the Steadman. It appealed to me more. By the way, I need help with another sentence, and seeing that it’s related to the first one, I’ll just post it here instead of starting a new thread:
nec de eorum virtute quisquam iudicare potuit.
(the second clause of a sentence rather)
My translation:
nor could anyone judge (of) their courage.
I’m not sure if (of) should be included. It looks better without it. Or should I translate iudicare like I did in the first sentence:
nor could anyone be a judge of their courage.
Which would be the correct way to translate it?
Gratias vobis ago.
So the first thing to ask yourself is, in your English translation is what do you mean by “of”?
Rather than trying to translate (see above) read the latin in the order it is written.
Nec
de eorum virtute is one unit. De means “about” or “concerning” here.
quisquam iudicare potuit. quisquam is the subject of potuit, i_udicare_ a complementary infinitive.
So your first version omitting the ungrammatical “of” is closest.
Your second version is ambiguous. As soon as you import the idea of being or becoming a judge you raise the possibility that there was some reason why they could not be a judge other than the difficulty of deciding the relative merits of the individuals , ie they were not qualified in some way (not being a citizen or something). The meaning here is simply that it wasn’t possible to determine who had the greatest courage.