I’m doing a bit of revision, and have come across this sentence (again with no context). Does it mean ‘You will keep him away from your altars’?
I believe that is correct.
ta very much. I had a mental block.
BTW It is raining again, so I’ll probably manage another chapter (21) tonight. 
hmmm… well I can’t let you get ahead of me again so I’d better do that too. 
I liked it better when I was ahead of you!
I would have used “this man”, unless context dictated otherwise, but it appears correct.
Yes, thanks Benissimus, of course you’re right. hunc = this man (acc) :-[ Hic haec hoc and all that. ‘him’ would be eum. I did say I had a mental block!
this man I would also have used
Sorry I am just happy that I HAVE finally done the demonstratives.
I would also go with “him” or “this man”. However, since the sentence is out of context, “it” or “this” (used as a noun) could also be correct. “Hunc” is masculine & probably refers to a person, but it could be referring to a masculine object or animal such as “culter” or “taurus”.
Context can be extremely important to fine-tune a translation, but, on the other hand, the ambiguity of no context opens more possibilities.
Magistra
Indeed it may mean you will keep this archbishop of mine away from your altars ;D which actually makes very much sense
@ Episcopus: some guy is more something like ‘quidam homo’.
Qui is used for aliquis after a bunch of words like num, ne, alius, …
Aliquis and qui mean that you don’t know the guy.
Quidam means that you know him but doesn’t know his name OR that you know him but do not want to specify him by giving his name.
Qui is supposed to be less definite than aliqui, and quidam is “a certain…” and I certainly don’t want that effect…
I have read that Qui is used in negative sentences sometimes but is not a replacement for aliqui in those situations…
You’ve confused what I should think 
@ Episcopus: You have to burn the book in which you read that, immedeatly!
Qui = aliquis in meaning in most cases.
Sometimes, but very rare, it’s less definite than aliqui. Qui can occure in negative sentences, but mostly they use quisquam in such a case!
To me, ‘some guy’ sounds slightly contemptuous – we don’t know who he is and don’t much care either. Perhaps ‘vir iste’? Or maybe just ‘iste’?
In fact that’s totally wrong. Iste has a negative conatation, when you use it alone or before a noun. When you say ‘vir iste’, iste can be neutral. But ‘vir’ has always a positive connotation, otherwise you have to use ‘homo’, which can be positive or negative or neutral.
In fact you don’t have the ‘some’ in your translation.
If you learnt Latin in some school, if I were you, I would ask my money back!
For those who want to talk Latin, buy H. Menge, Repetitorium der lateinischen Sprache. It’s still the best book available to learn to speak Latin verry correct and at a high level. But the only thing that’s terrifying about it, is that’s it’s in German.
But still really good.
Depending on the intonation, ‘some’ can have a similar negative connotation. If I say “Some guy came in” (singular), that’s quite a negative assessment of the guy, while if I say “Some guys came in” that would be quite neutral, just indicating that it was a group of guys.
However, I take your point about positive connotations of vir v. negative/neutral connotations of homo.
De pronomine : sic non est, non est, non est. Per omnes deos! Opinatio tantum opinatio est, sed ubi sunt argumenta? Lege vetera scripta et videbis me recte dicere!
De vocabulo ‘vir’: si dicis me recte dicere, recte dicis!
Moerus ipse dixit!
Quisquam can not be an adjective however - ullus is that.
qui is less definite and is closer to any. aliqui is closer to some but obviously both may mean both there are no real right or wrongs.
Yes I agree iste is possible but what about when “some random guy” is said without any feelings of contempt or disgust however slight…
I used homo as vir has postive connotations …hero etc.
aliquis and qui mean I don’t know the guy - well I don’t; I wanted the effect of “some random guy” staying neutral, but comical slightly.
How can it ever be Quidam homo? A certain man…
And about that comment concerning my having to burn Professor Benjamin L. D’Ooge’s book…I laugh at that.
Putat se melius scire. Sed NON. pravissime dicis de vocabulis ‘aliquis’ et ‘quis’. ‘Quis’ non indefinitius est vocabulum wuam ‘aliquis’.
Sed si putas melius scire grammaticis, professoribus et me, loquere arbitrio tuo, sed menda facies. Sic est et non aliud. Et ure quidvis.
Cura ut valeas,
Philippus Ludovicus Mauritius Moerus
No. I was saying to you that just perhaps Professor Benjamin L. D’Ooge may be right, not that I know grammar better than they. I actually suck at latin.