Here is a puzzler, at least for me:
The first line of Vegetius reads:
Primus liber electionem edocet iuniorum, ex quibus locis vel quales milites probani sint aut quibus armorum exercitiis imbuendi.
I’m tempted to translate this as:
The first book teaches a selection of younger men, from which places or conditions they must be approved of or in which they must be given instruction of the weapons of the army.
What bothers me is the use of the subjunctive in the passive periphrastic constructions of the second clause. How should the translation change to reflect the use if sint rather than sunt?
The subjunctive is used because this is an indirect question. So there is no need to reflect it in the translation.
I thought that an indirect question needed to be introduced with an interrogative word such as quid, quis, quando, cur, ubi, tantus, and so on. Where is the interrogative?
Suntne probari milites?
Illud responum verum possit
I’ve done a bit more inquiry into the matter and apparently the indirect question takes on many more forms than Wheelock would lead you to believe.
Wheelock, pro dolor, terribilis est liber, meo judicio.
Aren’t the quibus and quales in the quote the indicators of a question (i.e. the question words)?
K
How about this. Is this accurate?
Primus liber electionem edocet iuniorum – Book One may instruct the choice (or selection) of juniors (‘cadets’ is actually the best translation in the context, would you say)
ex quibus locis – from which passages [or places in the text]
vel quales milites probari sint – either soldiers may be examined [for] their quality/nature [singular is better here in English, albeit plural in the Latin]
aut quibus armorum exercitiis imbuendi – or by what exercises of arms they should be instructed.
The translation:
“The first book may serve in training cadets, having passages both for the testing of soldiers and for instruction in the exercise of arms.”
