I have no clear answer to this, besides I read mostly Medieval Latin, in which present participles are much more common than in Classical
In your example, it seems to me that Milites, arma abiectantes, e proelio fugerunt would give the feeling that the act of throwing away lasts a long time, maybe the whole time they are fleeing, while the abl. abs. marks the throwing away of arms as a short moment. Just my feeling though…
expulsis/exactis. I guess this just indicates imperfect coordination between the notes and the answer key. Shows we shouldn’t be thinking in terms of definitive “answers” so much as of acceptable translations. Many of the sentences could be translated differently and still be decent Latin, and as you get more practiced the possibilities multiply and you can start to distinguish different styles.
e proelio effugerunt etc. Latin often uses compound verbs with same preposition in adverbial phrase (e.g. ex urbe expulsus, in familiam inductus). Speaking generally the simple verb is not wrong but is vaguer. And of course the compound verb can be used with other prepositions, e.g. in urbem effugerunt.
““principes … ad Caesarem ducaverunt” can’t be wrong, can it?” Not wrong, no (except ducaverunt shd be duxerunt), but Latin does like the specificity of compound verbs.
armis abiectis/arma abiectantes (you mean abicientes, present pple.: you’ve wrongly formed it on the perf.passive pple.). Classical Latin (unlike medieval, as Shenoute says) makes little use of present participles. But here abicientes would mean they fled while in the act of throwing away their weapons, stressing the simultaneity. Latin would more likely use a dum clause for that, and/or imperfects. With armis abiectis it’s equivalent to English they threw away their weapons and fled.
Yeah, I think you guys are right - armis abiectis seems best for the reasons you said. It would be weird if they threw away their weapons all the time meanwhile they were fleeing. And yeah, of course it should be duxerunt - don’t know what I was thinking hehe…
Thanks for explaining how Latin uses/prefer compound verbs, mwh! I’ll keep that in my mind while I continue doing the exercises.
In 3, maybe advenissent is better than pervenissent by the way? The book seems to want pervenio, since it’s suggested in the special vocabulary to this exercise…
Check 9. Why se? Just one reflexive pronoun is needed.
Some minor suggestions: 2 and 5 are ok as is, but putting the participial expressions first feels more comfortable to me:
Haec locutus nuntius abiit. Haec picks up from something that preceded–putting it first would provide continuity.
Copiis hostium visis nostri se receperunt. Although Latin word order is flexible and in an extended narrative there might be a reason to put nostri first, it seems best not to break up the two verbal ideas without some reason to do so.
I would suggest a cum clause with subjunctive: Cum nostri timerent, dux se receipt. An ablative absolute with a present participle, though not wrong, seems to me a somewhat unusual construction. There seems to be a causal connection connection between the troops’ fear and the general’s retreat, so this would be a causal cum clause.
Feels like some things are starting to fall into place at least. I think appello can be used in that way. In my dictionary it says that it can mean ‘call, appeal’, but also ‘call’ with an objective predicative. The book puts appello under call with the meaning ‘call (by name)’. But maybe convoco, voco or arcesso is better? I dunno…
You’re really good at picking up subtle details! In 9 I only have one reflexive pronoun? Nos is a personal pronoun, but I guess it’s redundant and should be removed.
I think your suggestion regarding 2 and 5 is good. The book even gives haec locutus fugit as an exemple. If I recall correctly, I wrote haec first, then changed it thinking I should stick to the standard word order of subject followed by object.
I also think that the ablative absolute-construction in 6 looks a bit funny, but knowing that the chapter kind of is about using participles when possible, I think the book is looking for an ablative absolute. I prefer your solution though.
Not at home atm, so haven’t had the chance to post the answer key nor the next exersice. I’ll do two tomorrow instead. Thanks for your responses, feels like I’m learning a ton!
No, I think you misunderstood. Se/sibi/sui is the reflexive pronoun of the 3rd person singular and plural. Nos/nobis/nostrum functions both as both the personal and the reflexive pronoun of the first person plural. Delete se and leave nos standing!
No. 8 – arcesso is the verb you want: the idea is that he called them to come to him, i.e., summoned them; he didn’t call them by name.
Nostri decem milia pasuum progressi ad flumen pervenerunt.
Visis hostium copiis nostri se receperunt.
Timentibus nostris dux se recepit.
Quum constitissemus castra posuimus.
Moriturus filios convocavit.
Profectis hostibus nos pedem rettulimus.
Gallis muros adortis urbs expugnata est.
Hm, I don’t understand why the answer key uses advenio in 3 and pervenio in 4. Isn’t come to and reach the same thing in English? Seems like it at least should be one of the two…
It also has the same word order as I wrote in 2. I buy your reasoning, Hylander, but I have another question about the placement of haec in similar sentences: Often haec means “the following” and not “these things (that have already been mentioned)”, in that case would the Romans tend to place haec at a latter position/the latest position (somewhat) possibly or would it still come first? I hope you understand what I mean. Thanks in advance!
Often haec means “the following” and not “these things (that have already been mentioned)”, in that case would the Romans tend to place haec at a latter position/the latest position (somewhat) possibly or would it still come first?
Usually I think such a sentence would be constructed so that haec would come towards the end of the sentence, but generally not after the verb. But my point went mainly to not breaking up nuntius abiit by interposing haec locutus, which must pick up from a preceding speech. It’s not wrong, and in some situations it might be appropriate, but in this short sentence with no context it seems to me at least more like English word order than Latin, though your rendering of 27.10 seems good.
For 28.10, I think you need a form of possum, not nolo. But it probably should be pluperfect, since their inability to resist occurred before they threw down their arms and fled. The same is true for 28.1, since it was after they left the forest that they saw the camp. But you would have to use a cum clause, or better yet, an ablative absolute silva relicta. However, a better verb, which would provide an active past participle, would be egredior: egressi e silva, but maybe N&H haven’t given you that yet. Also 28.3, unless the subject was speaking as he walked out. Latin is more precise than English about indicating the time sequence of subordinate verbs: if a subordinate verb (or participle) happened before the main verb, even if immediately before or nearly simultaneously, the subordinate verb has to indicate the sequence, using the pluperfect or a past participle if possible (or the future perfect if the main verb is future).
Thanks for your response! Ah, yes of course it should be pluperfect. I think I mixed up volo and possum for some reason when I made my latest reply… I agree with you regarding 28,1, 28,3 and 28,10. I think it’s the English text that fools me… Alright, from now on I’ll write hostes.
Illi domum regressi libenter ab amicis accepti sunt.
Milites ex urbe egressi ad castra redierunt.
Occisus est amicum servare conans.
Nocte appropinquante castris relictis in hostes progressi sumus.
Hoc (or quo) audito dux pedem referre constituit.
His dictis se ad pedes regis proiecit.
Hic decimus annus est ab urbe condita.
Gallum interfectum in silva sepelivit.
Veris initio (or vere appetente) profecti in hostes contenderunt.
Haec dona accepta filio suo dedit.
So I missed to type out milites in 30.2, otherwise I was pretty close. Is it wrong of me to have written contra hostes where the answer key has in hostes? And I also wonder why the answer key has illi in 30.1?
Two wrong endings you’d probably find yourself, if you read it again tomorrow.
Instead of cum his, I’d write his hortationibus or something like that.
I’d write ex