Here is the sentence for translation to Latin:
They soon left us, taking away much gold and silver from the city.
My solution: Mox nos relinquerunt, ex urbe auferentes multum aurum argentumque.
Where I used the present participle, the answer key give the ablative absolute construction.
. . . multo auro argentoque . . . ablato
I chose the present participle because I thought the taking of the gold and silver was contemporaneous with the leaving. Have I missed something important here?
Both are correct forms, even though using the present participle is probably less common in prose.
Doesn’t the taking of gold logically occur before leaving? Grammars will provide amply examples, wherefore I’ll give only two (taken from grammar):
In (1) the action of the finite verb occurs after, in (2) during the ablatiuus absolutus. Ablatiuus absolutus is very neat, but thus restricted in its use, that the subject of the finite verb cannot be subject of ablatiuus absolutus, as it is “separate”.
In addition, revise the principal parts for the Latin verb meaning ‘to leave (something)’ (it’s not correct in your translation).
Many thanks to Timothée and bedwere.
My solution, revised, which I hope corrects the verb error.: Mox nos reliquerunt [ was relinquerunt], ex urbe auferentes multum aurum argentumque.
“They soon left us, taking away much gold and silver from the city.”
I see that if this action occurred in two stages then the perfect participle would be required. For example: “They packed up the looted gold and silver, and then they left the city.” And I see also that where either the present participle, or the perfect participle might be used, then the using the perfect participle is more common in prose.
The latter principle seems to govern usage in the answer key, which I was wondering about.