I’ve read the first two – what do you call the divisions? They contain more than one sentence, so you can’t call them sentences, but they’re too short to be called sections or chapters – divisions in In Catilinam and so far, so good (the third looks to be a bit trickier but we’ll cross that bridge when we get there).
But in this sentence (context: Cicero is ranting and raving at Catiline):
Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis vigilae, nihil timor populi, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora voltusque moverunt?
(“Does nothing move you: not the night watch on the Palatine, not the patrols of the city, not the fear of the populace, not the concourse of all the good men, not this most-fortified place of the senate, not the mouths and faces of the senators?” Correct if wrong, please)
What does “habendi” mean here? The sentence seems to make sense without it but every word matters.
ed: Or maybe it would be “Do (these things) not move you?” since “moverunt” is plural?
ed2: Might “habendi” go with “senatus” as a gerundive: that is, “not the senate having this most-fortified place”?
nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, etc. . . . moverunt? – Have these things (the night watch on the Palatine, etc.) not moved you at all?
hic munitissimus habendi Senatus locus – “Might ‘habendi’ go with ‘senatus’ as a gerundive?” Yes, but not as you construed it: “this very fortified place for holding [sesssions of] the Senate”
Lewis & Short habeo I F:
To hold, to make, do, perform, prepare, utter, pronounce, produce, cause: . . . to be held, Cic. Q. Fr. 2, 6, 6: senatum, id. ib. 2, 13, 3; id. Fam. 1, 4, 1; Caes. B. C. 1, 2, 1: concilia, id. B. G. 5, 53, 4: contionem, Cic. Att. 4, 1, 6: censum, id. Verr. 2, 2, 55, § 138:
The “place of having the senate” would never have occurred to me even if I had translated it correctly. “Holding” wouldn’t have occurred to me either.
I had seen “nihil” in this sense before in the Wheelock’s Latin Reader glossed as “an emphatic ‘non’” (I guess “neque” here?) but yes, “not at all” – which is kind of synonymous with “nothing” – works better. Also I translated the sentence in the wrong tense (present instead of perfect). Oops.