Another from North and Hillard’s Latin Prose Compostion.
The English:
The bread being now all eaten, we were dying of hunger. But the general, calling us together, gave us the bread which he had kept hidden in his house; then, opening the gates, he and the soldiers escaped through the enemy’s camp. The wounded only being left [behind] in the city, we gave ourselves up to the enemy. They soon left us, taking away much gold and silver from the city.
My Latin:
pāne iam tōtō consumptō fame moriebāmur. imperātor autem nōbis convocātīs pānem dedit, quem in domō cēlāverat. quī portīs apertīs deinde cum mīlitibus per castra hostium effūgērunt. vulnerātīs sōlīs in urbe relictīs nōs hostibus trādidimus. mox multō ex urbe aurō atque argentō ēreptō nōs discessērunt.
This one I found harder to join the sentences together, partly because of the many ablative absolutes.
The key has pāne iam esō omni, but I had assumed pānis here was a mass noun, and therefore required tōtus? I wonder if my version sounds like they had one really big bread that they had all finished eating.
More qualified posters will no doubt chime in, so here are just a couple of things that jumped at me:
quī portīs apertīs deinde cum mīlitibus per castra hostium effūgērunt.
If qui picks up imperator then the verb should be singular.
nōs discessērunt Discedo is “to leave” but in the sense of “to go away”. I don’t think it can be used with a direct object (“to go-away someone”). Nos reliquerunt seems to be what is expected here.
Not a mistake per se but I’m not sure celaverat is enough to render “he had kept hidden”.
The key has > pāne iam esō omni> , but I had assumed > pānis > here was a mass noun, and therefore required > tōtus> ? I wonder if my version sounds like they had one really big bread that they had all finished eating.
Years of reading Late Antiquity and Medieval Latin have probably blunted my senses for the omnis/totus distinction but I’d say omnis is the safest choice here. That being said, I’m not sure totus would be wrong.
Even in Classical Latin, it is sometimes hard to see a meaningful difference between the two:
classe Caesari erepta portum ac mare totum in sua potestate haberent (Caes.)
quo facilius omne Hadriaticum mare … in potestate haberet (Caes.)
deinde ad paucos opibus et copiis adfluentis totum agrum Campanum perferri videbitis (Cic.)
Auximo Caesar progressus omnem agrum Picenum percurrit (Caes.)
Later,
Quam simul accessimus, tota ciuitas ad uotiuum conspectum effunditur (Apul.)
Ac dum primum angiportum insistimus, statim ciuitas omnis in publicum effusa mira densitate nos insequitur (Apul.)
I won’t comment in detail, but qui beginning 3rd sentence is jarring even if we correct verb to singular, especially after the preceding quem. qui could well start what you have as the final sentence however.
The totus/omnis examples are helpful, Shenoute; as ever, the student who wants hard and fast rules on these sorts of things finds variation instead.
I take the corrections of quī and nōs discessērunt too. For the former, I suppose I could return to my strategy from exercise 32 and use ille, or, perhaps better, make it all one sentence, since imperātor is subject of both verbs. (I’m trying to think of other ways of doing it than the excellent tum… et ipse et mīlitēs in the key.)
It could be worthwhile deleting all punctuation.(I’m thinking of that quem … qui … in particular.) If the Latin is any good it will articulate itself.
Just an idea.
but I’d say omnis is the safest choice here. That being said, I’m not sure totus would be wrong.