obnubito and suspendito are fut. imperative - my understanding is that there can be a third person version of these. I was confused as I assumed that Tullus was addressing an order to a particular person or persons - but it seems he is not. He’s speaking about the duties and powers of the Duumirii in the third person - do I have that right?
Horrenda legis verba haec erant: “Duumviri perduellionem iudicent. Si vincent, caput obnubito [ob-nubere = velare]! Infelici arbori reste [restis, -is (f) = funis] suspendito [sus-pendere = pendentem facere]! Verberato vel intra pomerium vel extra pomerium!” (Pomerium est locus quem in condendis urbibus quondam Etrusci, ubi murum ducturi erant, consecrabant, ut et intra et extra moenia aliquid puri soli pateret; hoc spatium [spatium = locus vacuus / apertus], quod neque habitari neque arari fas erat ‘pomerium’ Romani appellaverunt.)
These were the words of that terrible law: “The Duumviri may judge treason. If they prevail, may he cover his head! May he hang by a rope from a gibbet! May he be beaten whether within the boundary or without the boundary!” (The Pomerium is a place which in towns to be built the Etruscans once, where the walls were to be built, consecrated, so that inside and outside the walls only sanctified things could be allowed; this space, which allowed neither dwelling nor farming, the Romans called the ‘Pomerium’.)
These forms are archaic legalese, a little hard to categorize. Here they look as if they’re functioning as passives, but is that possible? Probably not. (There are properly passive forms too.) You construe the first as active (but “he” will not be the subject) and the second two as passive. That won’t do. As actives, they’re not addressed to anyone, so even though not strictly passive they’re probably best translated by English passives (“His head is to be veiled, he is to be hung …”).
Also note:
Horrenda legis verba: horrenda with verba not legis.
ubi murum ducturi erant: murum is object, ducturi erant active.
et intra et extra moenia “both inside …”
aliquid puri soli pateret: soli gen. of noun solum, pateret from pateo not patior!
Livy’s own description is: ‘…puri aliquid ab humano cultu pateret soli.’ Ab Urbs Condita book 44. which seems clearer than Orberg’s abbreviated phrase (assuming I have the source right). It’s a patch of earth free of human cultivation.
I don’t really understand Orberg’s ‘…aliquid puri soli pateret’.. something of pure soil was left open (uncultivated/). Some…pure soil?.. some of the pure soil?
. . . ut aliquid puri soli pateret . . . “so that something of pure soil would be exposed”, i.e., “so that some patch/little bit/piece of pure soil would be exposed”.