Unit 5, Prelim. Ex., 7. raises an interesting question.
“Patriam populi territi invadere non debetis”
Is it “you ought not invade – you should stay away from their country” or “you don’t have to invade – there is no obligation to invade”? In other words, does “non” here negate the action or the obligation to act? I think it ought to be the latter but, then, I’m not a Roman.
And if it’s the one, how would you express the other?
both of those translations are the same negation, you have merely expressed the obligation in different ways.
In other words, does “non” here negate the action or the obligation to act?
I think it ought to be the latter but, then, I’m not a Roman.
it negates the obligation, because non directly precedes the word it negates (debetis) … usually.
And if it’s the one, how would you express the other?
non invadere debetis, probably with the ‘non invadere’ quite separate from ‘debetis’ within the sentence.
benissimus wrote:
both of those translations are the same negation, you have merely expressed the obligation in different ways
I intended a difference, but perhaps there is a difference in nuance with Australian English (or, more likely, I just wasn’t clear!)
To simplify the issue, consider “discedere debeo” I ought to leave (there is an obligation to leave).
I was asking, is “discedere non debeo”
(a) I ought not leave (there is an obligation to stay), or
(b) there is no obligation to leave (I might leave or stay freely, as I wish)?
So to follow the rule, “discedere non debeo” would be (b), while (a) could be “non discedere debeo”?
I think you might be reading too much into “ought” as a translation of debeo. How about “should”? I cannot think of any examples where debeo means what you say ought means. I do not think that non debeo discedere can be option B. But I am open to correction.
Are you asking if this would be something like the following?
I ought not to eat this cupcake. Gulp.