Tum Rōmānī iussērunt captīvōs omnēs quōs Pyrrhus reddiderat īnfāmēs habērī, ‘quod armātī capī potuissent, nec ante eōs ad veterem statum revertī quam sī bīnōrum hostium occīsōrum spolia retulissent.’
Then the Romans ordered that all captives whom Pyrrhus had returned be regarded as infamous, because armed they had been able to be captured, and not before they had returned the spoils of two slain enemies would they be returned to their former status.
I don’t understand what sī is doing in this sentence.
Then the Romans ordered that all captives whom Pyrrhus had returned be regarded as infamous, because, although armed, they could be captured, and not be restored to their former status before that and if they had brought back the spoils of two slain enemies.
Georges tells sub uoce quam that “quam si = tamquam si, gleich als wenn, als ob, wie”, i.e. in English ‘just like’, ‘as if’. Tam may often be omitted in sentences of this ilk.
But I do wonder whether your sentence could be analysed a little differently. Could the latter inverted comma be already after potuissent? Moreover, can the infinitive reuerti really depend on retulissent? Could it instead depend on iusserunt?
“You walk slower than a snail” would be “You walk slower than if (lentius quam si) you were a snail”. quam si is common after comparatives, and ante behaves like a comparative, “earlier than if …”. (This is not quam = tamquam but ante quam.)
Tum Rōmānī iussērunt captīvōs omnēs quōs Pyrrhus reddiderat īnfāmēs habērī, quod armātī capī potuissent, nec ante eōs ad veterem statum revertī quam sī bīnōrum hostium occīsōrum spolia retulissent.
“Then the Romans gave orders that all the captives whom Pyrrhus had returned should be deemed dishonorable, because they had been able to be captured armed, and that they should not be restored to their old status until they had brought back the spoils of two slain enemies apiece.”
English idiom for ante … quam si is “unless and until.” (Main clause always negatived.)
We say “They’ll regain their citizen rights when hell freezes over,” Latin says “They won’t regain their citizen rights before if hell were to have frozen over.”
The editor adds the single quote marks to reflect the terms of the decree (hence potuissent subjunctive, giving the reason in the eyes of the Romans), but they’re rather sloppily placed. In real Latin they wouldn’t be used. nec reverti is of course in parallel with infames haberi.