Latin Prose Composition, feedback on my translations please!

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hi!

I’m currently working my way through North & Hillard’s Latin Prose Composition. I’m on exercise 17 now, and it would be nice if you guys could give me some feedback on my translations, before I look in the solutions. :slight_smile:

This is my try for exercise 17:

Exercise 17
Toties victi ab Caesare sunt, ut nuntios ei misserint, ut pacem rogarent. Ne proelium rursus facere volerent, Caesar eos obsides rogavit, qui sibi donaverunt. Sed exercitus Gallorum tantus erat, ut Caesar prope eos noleret et discederit. Ne hostes sequerentur, milites celerrime ducavit et ante noctem in castra advenerunt.

Thanks in advance! I will continue to post my tries here in the future, aiming at doing like 1-2 each day.

2

Exercise 18
Persa, qui ex Persia expelsus est, ad urbem Athenas advenit, ut Cimonem videret. Aurum multum et argentum multum portavit, ut donis Cimonem amicum suum faceret. “Haec pecuniam portavisti, ut amicitiam meam emas?” Cimon rogavit. “Te amicum meum facere volo.” Persa respondit. “Aufer pecuniam,” Cimon dixit “ne te inimicum putarem!” Amicitia non est emenda et vendenda.

A bit unsure about the last sentence “Friendship is not bought and sold.” I guess I could do a prohibitive subjunctive instead of my solution, or just express it with present indicative…

The English texts I’m translating can btw be found here: http://cdn.textkit.net/NH_Latin_Prose_Composition.pdf

3

I can offer one or two suggestions.

  1. ut pacem rogarent: would be more neatly contained in ‘nuntios pacem rogantes.’ Ut…ut… is rarely seen.
    qui sibi donaverunt Qui is nominative here, sibi, dative. Presently this reads ‘They gave to themselves.’ Instead we want ‘quos,’ accusative, representing ‘obsides.’ Thus, ‘…obsides rogavit, quos ei (Caesari) dediderunt.’ (‘Dedo’ is more regular for ‘hand over’ or ‘surrender.’) This translates ‘which they gave him,’ as written in the exercise. Retaining the nominative as you began, an alternative is ‘Qui se ei (Caesari) dediderunt;’ ‘Who surrendered themselves to him.’
    ut Caesar prope eos noleret et discederit The infinitive depending on ‘noleret’ is missing. The infinitive of ‘maneo,’ (to stay or remain), is ‘manere.’ Thus, ‘manere noleret,’ ‘did not wish to remain.’ The perfect stem of ‘discedo’ is ‘discess-,’ thus conjugating the perfect subjunctive here we find ‘discesserit,’ rather than *‘discederit.’

  2. qui ex Persia expelsus est Because this action occurs before ‘advenit’ (which is perfect) Latin really requires the pluperfect: ‘qui expulsus erat.’ An adjective or predicate noun would have taken the imperfect: ‘qui exsul erat,’ ‘qui profugus erat’.
    emenda et vendenda Sounds fine. A&G (500) say

'The Gerundive is sometimes used, like the Present and Perfect participles, in simple agreement with a noun.

fortem et cōnservandum virum (Mil. 104) a brave man, and worthy to be preserved

Gravis iniūria facta est et nōn ferenda. (Flacc. 84) A grave and intolerable wrong has been done.’

The other option is ‘Non est amicitia venalis.’ ‘Venalis’ logically enough covers both, since if something is not for sale, it can’t be bought.

vēnālis, e, adj. 2. venus,

I of or belonging to selling, to be sold, for sale, purchasable

4

ut pacem rogarent – ad pacem petendam – this is the Latin idiom.

Caesar eos obsides rogavit – Caesar obsides [ab eis] impetravit. Ab eis is not really necessary.

qui sibi donaverunt – quos ei dederunt or dediderunt. quos should be accusative as it is the object of the verb; sibi should not be reflexive as it doesn’t refer back to the subject of the verb but rather to Caesar; and dono means to give as a gift. You could omit ei because it’s obvious to whom the hostages were given.

ut Caesar prope eos noleret et discederit – ut Caesar prope eos manere nolens discesserit

Try to use participles to avoid joining coordinate clauses by et. It’s not absolutely wrong, but it’s very inelegant.

The first sentence could better be rendered, in proper Caesarian style (compressed and succinct): Toties a Caesare victi nuntios miserunt ad pacem petendam. Alternatively, Toties a Caesare victi nuntios miserunt qui pacem peterent. (Relative clause of purpose.) But reframing it that way wouldn’t give you practice with result clauses.

Pronouns that are obvious can be omitted. It’s obvious to whom the messengers were sent.

milites celerrime duxit et ante noctem in castra advenerunt – Again, better to compress it like this: milites a Caesare celerrime ducti ante noctem in castra pervenerunt. Or you could use a result clause: milites tam celeriter duxit, ut ante noctem in castra pervenerint. Or maybe Caesare celerrime ducente milites ante noctem in castra pervenerunt. But these paraphrases are not what N&H are looking for.

duco duxi ductus, not ducavi ducatus

Persa quidam ex Persia expulsus – use participle rather than relative clause – more succinct. Persa quidam better than just Persa.

portavit – ferrebat. Needs to be imperfect. Generally, portare is to carry or convey a heavy load.

amicum suum – just amicum better – suum is otiose and unidiomatic.

haec pecuniam portavisti – hanc pecuniam fers – Better use present tense and fero.

amicitiam meam – just amicitiam

amicum meum – just amicum

Cimon dixit – inquit Cimon

putarem – putem – present subjunctive

non est emenda et vendenda – You have to negate both verbs using nec in Latin, not et: non est emenda nec vendenda; maybe better non emitur nec venditur (following N&H’s English). Or nec . . . nec. If you use nec emenda nec vendenda, you could omit est, which would be more sententious: amicitia nec emenda nec vendenda. non est emenda et vendenda, suggests “friendship is not to be bought and it is to be sold.” non vedenda et non emenda might be correct, but it would be very clumsy, inelegant Latin.

5

Thanks a lot! Was a lot of sloppy errors that you corrected (should really know better haha!), but I also learned a lot of new things! Especially the more idiomatic expressions that was suggested by you guys, as. I have studied and read a LOT of Latin, but I can tell now that my active skills definitely need some fine tuning. And hopefully my reading abilities will increase along the way! In the future I will think more about using participles, abbreviated clauses and the like, in order to make it look more neat and authentic.

It’s been a busy day today, but here’s my try at exercise 19:

Exercise 19:
Pyrrhus Graecus Fabricio duci Romano pecuniam donebat, ut ille exercitum Romanum proderet. Sed nullum donum tantum erat, ut Fabcricium temptaret. Graecus quidam, praemio accepto, in castra Romana venit, ut deinde regem interfecturus sit. Sed Fabricius tam probus erat, ut hunc in regem puniendi causa ab eo remisit.

I’m sure there are some improvements to be made.

1. I’m mainly wondering about pronouns… Is it necessary to write out ille in the first ut sub-clause, so that the reader knows that by ille I mean Pyrrhus and obviously not Fabricius. Also, in the last sentence “sed Fabricius…” I use hic, this time it’s my intention to refer back to Graecus ("hunc in regem…) Am I using the pronouns in a correct manner?

I’ve read that hic can aim at something that in time, room or thought is close to the speaking person/narrator. And since for example Graecus quidem is the subject of the main clause in the last sentence, it should be fairly obvious that I have to mean him in the following sentence, when I write “hunc in regem … remisit”? Am I right here? :blush:

2. (last sentence) “…ab eo…” feels best, but is it certain that it is linked with rex who is going to punish Graecus (who is the subjective in the previous main clause.

Thanks for all the help I can get! I’ll try to do two more tomorrow!

6

Hylander made some fine points; as I make my way steadily through Horace Caesarian elegance and Ciceronian abundance seem equally far from mind. I would only add that, while Latin is willing to omit personal pronouns wherever possible, they may help anchor your compositional efforts logically and syntactically.

duci pecuniam donebat ‘Duci pecuniam dedit.’ The perfect represents the single action best. The imperfect would mean something like ‘was trying to get Fabricius to betray…by…’ Here we may also illustrate dono (first conjugation, thus donabat, not *donebat, by the way), which in giving usually takes the accusative of the person and ablative of the thing given: ‘Fabricium pecunia donavit.’ This however means ‘presented with’ or ‘bestowed (upon),’ rather than ‘gave.’

praemio accepto Is in the wrong position. Where this ablative absolute presently stands it indicates a fact, and a causal one. To give it conditional force (one of its uses is to replace a protasis), place it in the purpose clause: ‘ut, praemio accepto, regem interficeret.’ Deinde is superfluous. The future active participle (interfecturus) is not generally used in Classical prose to express purpose, though you’ve probably seen it can be something of a gray area. Avoid it here, however, and in similar cases.

ut hunc…remisit Your long day may be showing here. First of all, ‘in regem’ should be ‘ad regem’, which suits the notion of sending through space. The second Greek appears to be a new one, not Pyrrhus. Just use eum, which is best and perfectly clear for ‘him.’ Otherwise it would be illum, more than likely, since the view of the writer has returned to Fabricius (nominative, after all). Ab eo is incorrect since the ‘dative of the agent’ is ‘the regular way of expressing the agent with the Second or Passive Periphrastic Conjugation’ (A&G 374). (I’m guessing you’ve just forgotten this.) Since Fabricius would not be present, only the king (who also has the authority to punish), it would be redundant anyway, as would be regi, representing the incorrect *ab eo. Remisit must also be subjunctive. Thus, ‘ut eum puniendi causa ad regem remiserit.’ ‘Eum puniendium ad regem remiserit’ is also likely acceptable, since Cicero himself says ‘Tu…Iuppiter…ad eum poeniendum oculos aperuisti.’ (Pro Milone, 31.)

Your question about pronouns: ille is not necessary in the first sentence, since ‘exercitum Romanum’ is stated. But using one or the other is probably recommended; ‘ut exercitum proderet’ is very terse.

Question 2: The second half of the ‘story’ is apparently a separate episode. Use ‘eum’ for the reasons stated above. Mitto or remitto heavily implies the sender stays put; cf. ‘send’ in English. Otherwise we would see duxerit, or some other verb implying accompaniment.

7

Use do (dare dedi datus) for “give.”

Hic, not ille, should be used here–it’s closer to Fabricius; Pyrrhus would be ille.

The Latin word is tentare, not *temptare.

ut praemium recipiens regem deinde interficeret – better use the participle (present, because there’s no perfect participle in Latin) or contrary to my previous advice, conjoin two purpose clauses with et or -que. Imperect subjunctive is needed here for the purpose clause. ut praemium reciperet regemque deinde interficeret.

hunc. . . remiserit – I would suggest illum rather than hunc, since Fabricius is closer to the pronoun. You could use eum but we need a different pronoun for the king.

ut illum ad regem remiserit ei puniendum or maybe ut eum/illum ad regem remisit huic puniendum, or ut ad regem eum/illum huic puniendum remiserit

Best would probably be not to specify the agent: ut ad regem illum/eum puniendum remiserit or ut ad regem illum/eum puniendi causa remiserit.

I think, though I’m not completely sure, that the genitive gerund in puniendi causa would be active in meaning: “for the purpose of punishing”, so that specifying an agent ab eo or ei would not be appropriate. We want to avoid double ut, so I think the gerundive, which is passive, is probably the best solution here. But it leaves some confusion, because both illum and regem are accusative. Some of this is mitigated by ei, which clearly must refer to regem, since the Greek would-be assassin is referred to as illum. How does the answer key render this?

Real Latin would not specify the obvious agent here, and neither would real English.

8

Gah, I had written a longer reply, but accidentally updated the site so I guess it disappeared in cyber space. Your input was much appreciated anyway and I learned/relearned a lot! And felt slighty embarrassed for some obvious misses! :smiley:

The answer key says:
Pyrrhus, rex Graecus, pecuniam dedit Fabricio, duci Romano, ut exercitus Romanum proderet. Nullum autem donum tantum erat ut Fabricium temptaret. Graecus quidam ad castra Romana venit ut donum acciperet et tunc regem interficeret. Sed tam probus erat Fabricius ut hominem regi redderet ut ab eo puniretur.

I don’t really think the last sentence looks that neat though… If we’re not going to use pronouns, isn’t it much better to just write …Graecum redderet… rather than hominem? Seems really weird to me at least. And, as has been pointed out before, the double ut-clauses doesn’t look good at all.

Here comes exercise 21 and 22 and my questions. I have double and tripled checked everything, so I don’t think I can do much better than this. Very tired today as well… :unamused:

Exercise 20:
1. Sperare facilius quam credere est.
2. Qui imperare volunt, parere discere debent.
3. Dux bonus (esse) putabatur.
4. Pro patria moriri volere est officium militum omnium.
5. Desine ignavum esse, et laborare doce!
6. Amicis subvenire constituerimus.
7. Hi pugnare non solent.
8. Amici veri tibi visi sunt?
9. Dux castra in colle ponere constitit.
10. Mentiri non ausi sunt.
11. Nonne domum relinquere cognatus es?
12. Nos in urbe remanere non sinunt.

Exercise 21:
1. Iuvare pauperes conari est (res?) civium bonorum.
2. Discere facilius quam docere est.
3. Si milites contendere nolunt, puniuntur.
4. Ipse sibi prodesse cupit.
5. Barbari fortes (esse) dicuntur.
6. Se hostem in urbem sequi constituerunt.
7. Iuvare eos, qui ipsi suos iuvare possunt, iucundum est.
8. Omnes mentiri turpe esse putare debent.
9. Alii imperare, alii parere solent.
10. Qui alios imperare solent, parere discere debent.
11. Moriri pro patria stultum (esse) putant.
12. Omnes laudare eos, qui sapientes (esse) videntur, debent.

Question 1: I have read that Romans didn’t really like to put a lot of infinitives or words on -orum/-arum and the like next to each other. So, I wonder if you think it would be better to perhaps use a gerundivum in sentences 20.2 and 21.10?

**Question 2:**In I’m not really sure how I shall express “It is (the part) of good citizens to try to help the poor.” What confuses me is how to translate “It is the part”. Would it be fine to go with res, or can you skip it and just have civium bonorum as a genitivus proprietatis (don’t know the English term, sorry!).

Question 3: In 21.8 there are a LOT of infinitives… Do you have any suggestions for a neater solution, or is mine fine?

Question 4: 21.12 could potentially be misunderstood. It’s supposed to mean “All men ought to praise those who seem to be wise.” But it could be interpreted as “They ought to praise all those who seem wise.” Should I worry about that, or do you have any suggestions as to how we should translate it in the cleanest way possible? Is perhaps something like Qui sapientes (esse videntur) omnibus laudandi. a better way to say it?

Thanks in advance, again! Really appreciate the feedback you have given me! :slight_smile: A few pages of Cicero, and then it’s bedtime for me! Bonam noctem!

9

So the answer key gives the ugly double ut. quo could be used for the purpose clause to avoid it: _regi redderet quo ab eo puniretur.
_
hominem is contemptuous.

I haven’t looked at the English, but:

  1. Should this be coactus, not cognatus?

  2. remanere is ok, but why not just manere?

  4. Delete se.

  5. suos or se?

Questions:

  1. Yes, you could use gerundives, but you would need dative pronouns: Eis qui imperare volunt parere discendum. (You can leave est out if you like.) Also, you could reframe 21.12 the same way: Qui sapientes videntur omnibus laudandi.

  2. Just the genitive bonorum civium est

  3. Omnibus mentiri turpe [esse] putandum [est].

10

I looked at the English.

  1. parere discere debent Somewhat more neatly, ‘discant parere.’ The jussive subjunctive ‘Let them learn’ gets rid of a verb; we could add ‘Si’ at the beginning but I don’t think it’s necessary.
    4.duty of The book seems to want a genitive of characteristic, which doesn’t really express obligation or duty.

  2. Desine ignavum esse ‘Ignavus,’ for the human reader. ‘Tu,’ not ‘te’ is understood and this is not indirect discourse; thus the nominative.

  3. non solent It is my feeling that '‘non soliti sunt’ represents English ‘are not=have not been accustomed’ where the party is a specific one, better than solent, which English would tend to translate with an adverb: ‘These men do not usually…’ I may also be wrong.

  4. num…cognatus es The English seems to imply the questioner knows the answer is ‘Yes.’ Thus ‘nonne.’ Cognatus is a mistake for ‘coactus,’ >cogo. Thus, ‘Nonne…coactus es?’
    12.sinunt Siverunt is the perfect, respresenting ‘did not allow.’

  5. Omit res. The predicate genitive is the genitive of characteristic.

  6. How true.

  7. Technically correct, but ‘(Ipse) se solum iuvare cupit’ seems more natural.

  8. Se, accusative, is incorrect. We need a nominative subject of the verb: ei, illi, or omit it.

  9. Qui ipsi suos iuvare possunt Omit the nominative (ipsi); qui is limiting and it’s redundant. We need se, ‘themselves,’ again. Thus ‘qui se iuvare possunt.’ ‘Qui suos [sc. amicos] iuvare possunt’ means ‘who can help their own people or friends.’

  10. Omnes…debent. To translate the English this is fine at this point.

  11. Qui alios Impero takes the dative, thus aliis. Again, the jussive subjunctive would be appropriate: parere discant.

  12. See, not all soldiers think it wise to die for their country!

  13. If I had to try to channel Cicero I would translate this ‘(Ei) Omnibus laudandi (sunt) qui…videntur.’

It’s hard to strike a balance in such exercises between correctness and idiomatic Latin. I’d say follow your instincts as if you were speaking a modern foreign language, then check your constructions in a grammar. A further note on ‘puniendi causa ab eo,’ from the above discussion. Causa + genitive is, I think, just plain adverbial and can’t support an agent of any kind; thus ‘ab eo’ was have been left hanging. Context makes the direct object and punisher clear. I was somewhat mixing up what you had written with I was thinking.

11

I’m not sure if these were picked up on in 17.
volerent, noleret: Impf.subj. is vellent, nollet. — Cf. 20.4.

Sed exercitus Gallorum tantus erat, ut Caesar prope eos noleret et discederit. (ut Caesar prope eos manere nolens discesserit Hylander.) Is his going away really part of the consecutive clause?

20.4 mori velle. 21.11 sim.
21.7 Missing negative here?

12

Once again, thank you so much for the feedback! It’s really fun to try to write Latin! Here is two more exercises:

Exercise 22:

  1. Discere celeriter quam nunc solitus sum.
  2. Queri inutilis est.
  3. Queri de amicis numquam desinit.
  4. In campo manere constituimus.
    5. Valde fortis mihi visus est. Fortissimus mihi visus est.
  5. Regere difficilius quam regi est.
  6. Si alios iuvare conimur, nos iuvare volunt.
  7. Manere malo, tu abire.
    9. Laborare constituerunt, ne punirentur.
  8. Ire domum cum amicis soliti sunt.
  9. Se recipere coacti sunt.

Exercise 23:
1. Esse virum velle non debes. Virum esse noli/nolis.
2. Dux proficisci contra hostem constitit.
3. Dicere facilius quam persuadere est.
4. Discere desinere non debes. Discere ne desinas/desiveris.
5. Si discere volimus, magistros scilicet habemus.
6. Non iuvare amicos suos est idem ac eis nocere.
7. Eum puni/punite, si discere non vis.
8. Urbem defendere constituimus.
9. Emere multa, quae inutiles videntur, coacti sumus.
10. Me invitum dicere cogis.

22.5: Wasn’t sure how to translate “very brave”, but I think either fortior or fortissimus is best. Do you guys have anything to say regarding this?
22.9: I was a bit unsure which tense I should have in the ne-clause…
23.1: Here I have two solutions: one with debeo and one with imperative/jussive subjunctive (depending how you interpret the English “you”. I prefer the second solutions anyway. Opinions?
23.4: Kinda the same thing as 23.1… I prefer the the second solution again,
23.5: The English text says “If we desire to learn we can always have masters.” I wasn’t sure how to translate “always”. To my ears “always” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with time, but rather something obvious, like “we can of course have masters”. Thus I chosed to go with scilicet. But English is not my native language, so I might be wrong…
23.9: Here I was again unsure about which tense I should have in the relative clause. But I think I’m right, but not sure…



20.11: Yes, it should be coactus - I don’t know what was going on in my mind. :unamused:
20.6: Why delete se? Because it’s just superfluous or grammatically incorrect?
20.7: Should be se, yes. Again, I don’t know what I was thinking.
20.12: Yeah, I guess manere is better. Remanere was probably just the first word that popped up in my head at that time…

Thanks for the other answers! I agree that the answer key gives a weird solution to the last sentence in 19, and a quo-clause looks a bit better at least. Hominem is really weird though. Graecum must certainly be slightly better?


Your idea to use the jussive subjunctive instead of debeo seems neat to me!
20.4: Yep, so maybe using officium as I did is better?
20.5 and 20.7: Yes, I think you’re right. Thanks for the corrections!
20.11: I did write nonne, not num as you seem to have read. :S
20.12: What do you mean? Should I have written siverunt instead of sinunt? Isn’t “They do not allow” the presence tense?
21.4: I agree!
21.6: Se above!
21.7: I stand corrected. :slight_smile:
21.10: Yep, impero do indeed take the dative. Should have used a dictionary and checked how the verb is used…
21.12: Looks neat!

You’re right - volerent and noolerent doesn’t exist. :stuck_out_tongue: Regarding 21.7: No, I’m not missing a negative. The book says “It is pleasant to help those who can help themselves.” Yes, I think his going away is part of the consecutive clause. Why wouldn’t it? The army of Gauls is so big that he don’t wanna be close to it and thus goes away.


Really have to go to bed now. This reply took ages to write haha. But it’s really fun to do this exercises. If someone wanna do a study group or something like that, then I’m up for it!

Bonam noctem!

13

A few corrections, and answers to your queries. Without looking at the English. (Maybe you should have put your new exercises after your responses to earlier feedback. Then you’d have gotten quicker and better feedback from others. :slight_smile:)
22

  1. Not a sentence. quam implies celerius comparative adverb, but the rest is not clear.
    EDIT. I think I see. (Olim, quondam) celerius discere solebam (discere poteram, discebam) quam nunc (possum, disco)? As you have it it looks as if solitus sum belongs to the quam clause.
  2. inutile neuter.
  3. Superlative is what they’ll be after. Better with esse.
  4. Sense seems to require illi at beginning of main clause for emphasis (and possibly nos in the if-clause).
  5. Similarly here, ego is needed.
  6. Looks ok, impf.subj. in past sequence.
  7. solebant more likely.

23
1 virum: vir. Vir sum I’m a man, vir esse volo I wanna be a man; virum eum esse volo I want him to be a man, virum eam esse volo I want her to be a man.
With noli it would just mean Don’t be a man (refuse to be a man). I guess debes is what they’re after, but the Latin is ugly and the meaning strange.
4. Second (with desinas) is good, but they may just want debes. Adjust word order to make clear which inf. is dep. on which?
5. volumus indic. (if simply If we are willing/want).
Your point about semper is good but I expect it’s what they’re after. Some of these sentences are not very natural.
6. suos redundant. You’d use it only if you wanted to stress one’s own friends as distinct from someone else’s.
7. Should vis be vult?
8. Nothing wrong with videntur (if “seem” not “seemed”), but inutiles should be inutilia neuter (cf.22.2), and would be better with esse.

14

God damn it - Still making some beginner’s mistakes! :blush: 23.7 Yes, should be vult. I pretty much agree with all your corrections. The answer key gives the following:

22

  1. Celerius quam nunc possum discere solebam.
  2. Queri inutile est.
  3. Nunquam desinit de amicis queri.
  4. Im campo manere constituimus.
  5. Fortissimus esse mihi visus est.
  6. Regere difficilius est quam regi.
  7. Si alios juvare conamur, illi nos juvare volunt.
  8. Ego manere malo, tu discedere.
  9. Constituerunt laborare ne punirentur.
  10. Domum cum amicis ire solebant.
  11. Coacti sunt se recipere.

23

  1. Non debes vir esse cupere.
  2. Dux conctra hostes proficisci constituit.
  3. Dicere facilius est quam persuadere.
  4. Nunquam desinere debes discere.
  5. Si discere cupimus magistros semper habere possumus.
  6. Amicos non juvare idem est atque eos laedere.
  7. Puni eum si discere nonvult.
  8. Urbem defendere constituimus.
  9. Multa emere coacti sumus quae utilia esse non videntur.
  10. Me invitum loqui cogis.
15

Exercise 24

  1. The army having been defeated the general fled.

  2. Regulus having been given up to the enemy was put to death.

  3. Having conquered the enemy the general returned home.

  4. Having summoned the citizens he spoke as follows.

  5. The soldiers having been captured gave up their arms.

  6. Having collected his forces he led them against the enemy.

  7. The Gauls having thrown away their arms were taken by the Romans.

  8. Having taken the messenger they put him to death.

  9. Having killed his brother he fled into the woods.

  10. The enemy having captured the messengers put them to death.

  11. Exercitu victo dux fugit.

  12. Regulus traditus hosti interfectus est.

  13. Hoste victo dux domum rediit.

  14. Civibus arcessitis haec dixit.

  15. Milites capti arma abiecerunt.

  16. Copias collectas contra hostem duxit.

  17. Galli armis abiectis ab Romanis capti sunt.

  18. Nuntium captum interfecerunt.

  19. Fratre interfecto in silvam fugit.

  20. Nuntios captos hostis interfecit.

I’m gonna go down to doing one exercise a day now, in order to try to reduce the obvious mistakes to the minimum. This exercise felt pretty easy, but I’m probably making some blunder anyway. :laughing: In 9 I don’t see why it can’t just as well be interpreted as “after his brother had been killed, he fled into the woods”? In order to get around this, I would write “Cum fratrem suum interfecisset, silvam fugit.” But since the exercise is about participles, I guess what I first wrote is what they are after.

16

dux – imperator?

  1. abiecerunt – better reddiderunt, but in 7 abiecerunt is ok.

  2. a Romanis

  3. I would write hosti traditus, but traditus hosti is not absolutely wrong.

17

Good point on #9. Latin suffers from a participle deficit. Of course context would clarify.

18

The answer key to exercise 24:

  1. Victo exercitu dux fugit.
  2. Regulus hosti traditus interfectus est.
  3. Victis hostibus dux domum rediit.
  4. Civibus arcessitis haec dixit.
  5. Capti milites arma tradidere.
  6. Copias collectas in hostes duxit.
  7. Galli armis abiectis ab Romanis capti sunt.
  8. Captum nuntium interfecerunt.
  9. Fratre occiso in silvas fugit.
  10. Hostes nuntios captos interfecerunt.

So my translations only differ from the answer key when it comes to the choice of singular/plural in a couple of instances, and in 5 the answer key prefer to use trado instead of abiecto - which seems better. In my grammar book, and from what I’ve learned, it’s supposed to be a Romanis though, just as you pointed out Hylander. I don’t know why the answer key has ab Romanis… I’m not really sure about the difference between dux and imperator, but imperator does definetely sound heavier.

19

Exercise 25:

  1. Having been made king he tried to benefit the state.

  2. Kings having been driven out consuls were elected.

  3. The soldiers, throwing away their arms, fled from the battle.

  4. Caesar having conquered the Gauls demanded hostages.

  5. Our men having taken the chiefs brought them to Caesar.

  6. Seizing his sword he tried to kill his enemy.

  7. Having taken the camp we set it on fire.

  8. Having conquered the enemy the soldiers wished to return home.

  9. Having set the prisoners free he sent them home.

  10. The Gauls having been defeated asked for peace.

  11. Rex factus civitati prodesse conabatur.

  12. Regibus expulsis consules creati sunt.

  13. Milites armis abiectis e proelio fugerunt.

  14. Caesar Gallis victis obsides poposcit.

  15. Nostri principes captos ad Caesarem ducaverunt.

  16. Gladio rapto hostem interficere conatus est.

  17. Castra capta incendimus.

  18. Milites hostibus victis domum redire voluerunt.

  19. Captivos liberatos domum misit.

  20. Galli victi pacem petiverunt.

The only thing I’m a bit unsure of is 3; “throwing away their arms” sounds like it could just as well be happening as they are fleeing from the battle, i.e. I don’t see why arma abiectantes is wrong.

20

Answer key for 25:

  1. Rex factus civitati prodesse conabatur.
  2. Regibus exactis consules creati sunt.
  3. Mlites, armis abiectis, e proelio effugerunt.
  4. Caaesar Gallis victis obisdes imperavit.
  5. Nostri duces captos ad Caesarem adduxerunt.
  6. Gladio rapto hostem occidere conatus est.
  7. Castra capta incendimus.
  8. Hostibus victis milites domum redire volebant.
  9. Captivos liberatos domum misit.
  10. Galli victi pacem petierunt.

I was pretty close to the answer key except for the choice of words in a couple of instances. I’m actually very confused as to why the person who wrote the answer key chose the words he/she did… To every exercise there is a special vocabulary. To this exercise the author suggested that one should use expello for ‘drive out’ in sentence 2, but still the answer key has exactis. Isn’t that a bit weird? I looked up exigo in my dictionary, and it also means ‘drive out, expel’, but why chose that word when expello is suggested in the book?!

I’m also baffled by effugo and adduco. To me e … effugo and ad … adduco is pleonastic. In the book, simply duco is suggested, with the meaning “bring (of persons), duco; (of things), fero”. My dictionary says that duco can mean ‘bring’ and be used as “alqm ab, e, de re; in, ad, per alqd, ad alqm”, so “principes … ad Caesarem ducaverunt” can’t be wrong, can it?

And is writing simply “e proelio fugerunt” wrong? Is “e proelio effugerunt” better?

Some input on this would be much appreciated. I’ve done 3 more exercises today (had nothing to do anyway lol), but I’ll wait with posting them, so I don’t clog up the thread. I would really like to get some input on my questions before I post the exercises I did today.

Thanks in advance! Valete!