please allow me to correct my understanding of these two passages
this is from Lingua Latina Capitulum XX
Sī māter īnfantem suum ipsa alere nōn potest sīve nōn vult, īnfans ab aliā muliere alitur, quae eī in locō mātris est. line 12
if dative + est shows possession then we can read the last clause as ‘who herself has in the place of mother’ and the eō refers to alia mulier another woman, and a little bit of emphatic?
Tum vērō syra, quae eō ipsō tempore peristylum intrat ūnā cum Iūliā, dominae in ōstiō occurit. line 103
but then syra, who at that time she herself entered together with Iulia, met the mistress at the door
can we take this eō ipsō as a bit emphatic here?
I wonder if the eī and eō in these two sentences would be a redundancy? because if we take these two out of the sentence we could still make sense of the meaning? or on the contrary should they are necessarily to be present?
thank you
I’m no master, but here’s what I see. I don’t have my copy of LL on hand, so I’m going by what you’ve entered.
I think that ei is a dative referring to the child. So I’d write:
If the mother herself is not able or willing to suckle the infant, the infant is suckled by another woman, who for it (the baby) is in the place of the mother.
The second example is less clear to me, but I’d write:
Then verily Syra, who in that time itself enters into the peristyle together with Iulia, runs to meet the mistress at the door.
Ipso does not refer to Syra as you have written because it is not feminine. It is also ablative rather than dative.