Is this Latin sentence correct?

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hi everyone, I came across the following Latin sentence in a Latin primer in which Perseus was inquiring Cepheus, Andromeda’s father, why Andromeda was bound to a rock, ready to be offered to a sea monster:

“Mox meam filiam caram habebit; tum patria et populus servabitur.”

Shouldn’t servabitur be servabantur in this case since the subject of this sentence “patria et populus” is plural ?

Thanks in advance for your help!

2

It can be, but often Latin verbs take the number of the closest subject, in this case, populus.

3

Actually, it would be servabuntur, but servabitur is also correct.

4

I came across the following sentence:

Ei viro fortuna Dionysi bona et clara videbatur.

I couldn’t quite figure out the meaning of the first 2 words in this sentence. Could anyone help?

As usual, thanks a bunch.

5

It is a dative of interest, meaning to this/that man, or to him, depending upon the context.

6

How to decline finitimi singuli (plural only)?

Thanks!

7

I have two questions:

  1. R?manī gl?ri? et fortūn? magnorpere augēbantur.

Does this sentence simply mean:

The Romans were greatly increased in glory and fortune?

Is passive voice in Latin originals always translated as passive in English OR is the active voice in English sometimes preferred? What’s the rule here?

  1. Semper eos spectabo et iuvabo. Numquam abero.

What does abero mean here?

Thanks for the help!

8

  1. It’s magnopere, and it means “greatly”. So, “The Romans were greatly increased by glory and fortune.”

  2. Some verbs are deponent, meaning they only have passive forms, but they are translated as active. There are only very few verbs which have both active and passive forms but are only translated actively. Usually that develops from a deponent verb which “acquired” active forms. But it’s very rare.

  3. It comes from “absum, abesse”.

Cheers,

Chris

9

sentence translation exercise:

The wretched children, when they had been seen by the king, were given to him.

My attempt is (the use of a participle is required):

Illi liberi miseri, a illo rege visi sunt, eo dati sunt.

Could anyone give a little help?

10

it lacks the conjuction when, here indicating a intimate relation, better cum + sbj. The arrangment of time is also incorrect, had been seen is prior to the given, therefore the plusquamperfect is required.

(…)miseri, cum a rege visi essent,(…)

11

But if you have to use a participle, you can use visi but without the sunt (I’m assuming that using a participle means you can’t use compound tenses made up of participles). You’d then just have

Liberi miseri, a rege visi, eo dati sunt.

Also, I don’t think there’s any need to translate “the” into the Latin here.

12

modus.irrealis and Tertius Robertus for the timely help.

I’ll try to keep all my related questions under the same thread, since they all come from the same book I’m working on.

13

in Latin?

Is “Equus est animal pulchrum” acceptable?

I guess I am a little uncomfortable since “equus” is masculine but “animal” is a neuter noun, so it feels awkward.

14

The Horse is a beautiful animal
in Latin?

Is “Equus est animal pulchrum” acceptable?

I guess I am a little uncomfortable since “equus” is masculine but “animal” is a neuter noun, so it feels awkward.

It is perfect. if the predicate and the subject are nouns they do not need to agree in anything except, of course, in case. When both however adimits genre flexion you may want to make them agree inter se, which is not the case.