(even adapted) Livy’s a bit tricky here. Here’s the opening paragraph of Orberg’s LLPSI Cap XLIII. with his side note explanations in square brackets . A worrying number of uncertainties in just the first short paragraph!
Ex T. Livii ‘Ab urbe condita’ libro I.22-31, nonnullis mutatis et praetermissis
- nonnullis mutatis et praetermissis looks like a ablative plural. What is it agreeing with?
Albanis bellum indictum [bellum in-dicere = dicere se bellum facturum esse]
-
Is Albanis ablative - as in War is declared by the Albani ?
-
His explanation dicere se bellum facturum esse - facturum esse is a future active infinitive participle but why is it neuter? I thought this should agree with the subject - i.e. whoever is declaring war so would be facturus or is it facturum because it’s impersonal?
Numae morte ad interregnum res [res publica…] rediit. Inde Tullum Hostilium, nepotem Hostii Hostilii, cuius in infima arce clara pugna [cuius pugna] adversus Sabinos fuerat, regem populus creavit; patres auctores facti sunt.
- adversus is an adverb. Would an adjective adversa to agree with pugna mean the same thing?