I am not really sure about this passage
it is from chapter 8 of orberg’s fabellae latina, Speculum Aemilia
Ancillae, quae dominam suamvocare audiunt,..
is it safe to render this passage as
The servants, who hear thattheir mistressis calling…
that vocare is infinitive? because until this chapter, infinitive and its usage has not been introduce yet.
can we treat Latin infinitive the same as the Greek one, that this is a ‘that’-clause and they also take a subject in accusative
and if I do not make mistake, then which one is true? does this similarity just one coincidence or latin and greek is really that strikingly similar?
as Latin is not so distant to greek, then it is possible to attain a good reading capability of both, right?
There are many points of similarity so if you already know Greek, Latin should not pose many difficulties. A particular difficulty for English speakers is the lack of an active perfect participle in Latin.
Sry Sofronios I’ve only just seen this, and I owe you for your help in the other forum. I’m afraid seneca2008’s explanation won’t quite do. For starters, he meant Sua domina vocat not vocant, a typo. More important, his breakdown into two separate sentences doesn’t work. Sua domina vocat would mean “Her mistress is calling”—i.e. the mistress’s own mistress! Only when we have the ancillae as subject can the oblique-case dominam become suam to mean “their (own).”
I don’t know if this is clear. If not, never mind. Your understanding of the construction of the Orberg sentence is quite correct—acc.& inf. in indirect statement. Latin and Greek both have this construction, though there are some differences. E.g. Greek for “He says he knows” (i.e. “He claims to know”) is plain εἰδέναι φησίν, with no accusative, while Latin uses reflexive se as subject of the infinitive, dicit se scire. Maybe Orberg hasn’t reached that point yet.
All the syntax of the two languages is basically the same, but there are differences in the details—the elimination of the ablative case in Greek for one, and poor Latin has to make do without the benefit of the definite article.
I fear I’m about to make a fool of myself, but I have to clarify this for my own benefit. Please bear with me. Does one really use the possessive pronoun suus, sua, suum (and the 3rd person reflexive pronoun se, sui, sibi) in this way?
A few usage examples for the “s-pronoun” taken from my grammatical materials (by my teacher):
Filius regis commemorauit, quot pedites pater suus misisset. (internal subordination)
Rex scire uolebat, quid populus de se cogitaret. (indirect question)
Caesar milites hortatus est, ut se sequerentur. (subordinated volition)
BUT: Nero tam crudelis erat, ut omnes eum odissent. (consecutive clause)
Cincinnatus nuntium accepit se dictatorem dictum esse. (AcI)
BUT: Cincinnato nuntiatum est eum dictatorem dictum esse.
Not referring to the subject:
Aristidem sui ciues eiecerunt. (his own citizens)
Scipio Syracusanis suas res restituit. (their own things)
Would Domina uocat et suae ancillae audiunt be construed by the same token as the last two examples? My gut instinct would have been to form the co-ordinated sentence as Domina uocat et eius/illius ancillae audiunt, but perhaps it would refer to some other person.
Sry for my late reply.. on the contrary, your explanation is very clear.. It is so interesting to learn that these two sister languages are so similar, and yet we still have to watch of the slight difference.
I think this is why people took Latin and then Greek.. It is so logical. and beautiful.. my own native language will never beat those two on precision.. I get a feel that these two languages would be a good solid foundation to learn, let say, Old Slavonic, or the sanskrit!
Are they supposed to be ambiguous, or is it mistaken (or am I missing the point of the examples)?
Rex scire uolebat, quid populus de se cogitaret. (indirect question)
Wouldn’t this translate as “the king wanted to know what the people thought of themselves.”
I assume this is meant to say “The king wanted to know what the people thought of him,” for which I would expect “rex scire volebat quid populus de eo cogitaret.”
Caesar milites hortatus est, ut se sequerentur. (subordinated volition)
Similarly, “Caesar urged the soldiers to follow themselves.”
Assuming that this meant to say that “Cesar urged the soldiers to follow him [Caesar],” I’d expect “Caesar milites hortatus est ut eum sequerentur.”
I hope that’s right… my Latin grammar is getting rusty. Too much casual reading these days and not enough grammatical analysis.
Having got this muddled before I have consulted Woodcock A new latin syntax. When a speaker is referring to himself or to something belonging to himself, the indirect reflexive se, sui,sibi,se and its adjectives suus,sua,suum are used. Se and suus therefore have two uses
i) as direct reflexives: Brutus se suo pugione interfecit. Brutus killed himself with his own dagger,
ii) As indirect reflexives_: Caesar dixit Gallos a se victos esse_. Caesar said that the gauls had been defeated by him(self). here ab eo would mean by someone else.
Rex scire uolebat, quid populus de se cogitaret. (indirect question)
Wouldn’t this translate as “the king wanted to know what the people thought of themselves.”
I assume this is meant to say “The king wanted to know what the people thought of him,” for which I would expect “rex scire volebat quid populus de eo cogitaret.”
I dont think so. Surely de eo would be about a person other than the king.
Caesar milites hortatus est, ut se sequerentur. (subordinated volition)
Similarly, “Caesar urged the soldiers to follow themselves.”
Assuming that this meant to say that “Cesar urged the soldiers to follow him [Caesar],” I’d expect “Caesar milites hortatus est ut eum sequerentur.”
Again I think eum would mean someone other than Caesar.
I dont know what mwh meant by formally ambiguous. Perhaps I havent understood it after all!
“Cicero ordered his slave to wash his (Cicero’s) feet.” cannot be translated without ambiguity as “Cicero servum suum iussit pedes suos lavare.” as the reflexive suos might be either direct or indirect referring either to Cicero or to the slave. Woodcock notes that, if the meaning was clear from the context, this ambiguity did not seem to bother Latin authors even though it can be avoided (Cicero pedes suos a servo lavari iussit).
So I suppose the rex sciret sentence could mean the king wanted to know what the people thought about themselves. In the context although possible is unlikely.
I dont know what mwh meant by formally ambiguous. Perhaps I havent understood it after all!
You’ve understood it perfectly.
By calling it formally ambiguous, I simply meant that
Rex scire uolebat, quid populus de se cogitaret
could mean King wanted to know what the populus thought of him (i.e. the king) OR what it thought of itself. Either way it’s reflexive (so de se not de eo), but grammatically speaking it could refer to the subject either of volebat or of cogitaret.
Similarly with Caesar milites hortatus est, ut se sequerentur: to follow him (Caesar) or to follow themselves?
Same again with Caesar dixit Gallos a se victos esse: defeated by him (Caesar) or by themselves?
It’s a “formal” ambiguity only, since it’s pretty obvious which is meant.
