Some more questions from LLPSI Cap XL

Latin Learning Latin
1
  1. Primo templa adeunt, ut a dis veniam petant: multas hostias Cereri, Phoebo Liberoque immolant et ante omnes Iunoni, cui coniugia curae sunt [res mihi curae (dat) est = rem curo].

…? = coniugia (neut. nom. pl.) sunt cui (dat) curae (dat): marriages are to her care…? Si verus est, cur ‘cui’ sed non ‘suae’: '…et ante omnes Iunoni, suae curae coniugia sunt..?

  1. Sed quid sacrificia mulierem furentem iuvant?

‘quid’ : Interrog. Pron. Neut. Nom. Sing. 'How will sacrifices help a mad woman?..

  1. Nunc per mediam urbem Aeneam secum ducit et opes suas urbemque novam ostentat. Loqui incipit - et in medio sermone consistit. Nunc novum convivium hospiti suo parat, iterumque labores Troianorum audire poscit. Postquam media nocte digressi sunt ceteri, ea sola in domo vacua maeret lectoque Aeneae relicto incumbit: illum absentem et audit et videt.

‘…illum absentem et audit et videt’ (in mentem suam?).

  1. Aeneas autem una cum Didone venatum ire parat. Prima luce regina progreditur Poenis principibus comitata, ac simul Aeneas cum agmine Troianorum exit. Postquam in altos montes ventum est [ventum est (ab iis) : venerunt], caprae ferae de saxis desiliunt et cervi campos et valles cursu petunt.
  • Orberg’s explanation in square brackets confuses me. Does ‘Ventum est’ simply mean ‘Venerunt’ : they came into the mountains? Is it ‘est’ as opposed to ‘sunt’ for an idiomatic / idiosyncratic reason? Would a good English translation be 'after …..they were come into the mountains… perfcet tense…?
  1. Dido et dux Troianus in eandem speluncam deveniunt, ducente Iunone. Ille dies malorum reginae atque mortis prima causa fuit.
  • ‘reginae’ : dativus est? Dative of possession? That (was) the Queen’s unfortunate day and the first cause of her death. ?
2

  1. cui is a relative pronoun whose antecedent is Iuno. It does not modify curae. This is the “double dative” construction: cui is dative of reference; curae is classified as “dative of purpose”: “for whom marriages are [as] a concern.” Allen & Greenough sec. 382 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Apart%3D2%3Asection%3D9%3Asubsection%3D12%3Asmythp%3D382

  2. Correct.

  3. Correct (except it should be in mente sua).

  4. The 3rd sing. passive forms of intransitive verbs can be used impersonally, i.e., the sense is active, not passive, but the person isn’t specified: “we” or “they” or “one” or “everyone” (like French on). ventum est is perfect passive: “they came”. itur in antiquam silvam “they went [‘go’, historical present]into an ancient forest” Aen. 6.179. itur is 3rd sing. pres. pass. of eo, used impersonally. Allen & Greenough 208d: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D208

Can you identify the form of venatum?

  1. Probably dative of reference, possible could be analyzed as genitive. “For the queen, that day was a day of woes and the original cause of her death.” Or maybe “That ws the day of the queen’s woes and the original cause of her death.”
3

Thanks Quimmik. I am very grateful for your kindness and guidance.

Paul

4

Can you identify the form of venatum in Question No. 4?

5

Supine

6

You get extra credit.

7

Quimmik

Just to be clear - ‘curae’ is dat as is ‘cui’. Literally: marriage to the Care to Iuno?

8

The “double dative” construction involves (1) a “dative of reference” – generally, a person, and (2) a “dative of purpose” or function, which expresses the purpose or function that the subject of the clause serves for the person expressed by the dative of reference. Iunoni, cui coniugia curae sunt “Juno, for whom marriages are a care (or concern)”. In other words, “Juno, who concerns herself with marriages,” "“Juno, who cares about marriages”. Juno is the goddess who presides over and protects marriages.

9

Thanks.

10

I know tha this post is long dead but I am currently reading this chapter and was having trouble with pmda’s #5.
The Companion says the following:

malorum atque mortis: genitives with causa; reginae: dative.

So how would that sentence be translated?

Ille dies malorum reginae atque mortis prima cause fuit.

That day was the first cause of the evils and of the death to the queen.

Though wouldn’t it be more correct to say it as if reginae were a genitive:

That day was the first cause of the evils and of the death of the queen.

11

As you can see, it can be expressed either way. BTW, the gentleman who posted that reply is one of the most knowledgeable grammarians on this board. He had to change his nickname a while back; he is now known as Hylander. He goes to a great deal of effort to make sure that what he writes is correct.

12

Thank you for that confirmation Aetos. I am truly indebted to your wisdom. Could you help me out with this sentence that’s found in that same chapter:

Extemplo Fama per urbes Libyae it, Fama qua non aliud malum ullum velocious est- monstrum horrendum, ingens, cui, quot sunt plumae in corpore, tot vigiles oculi sunt, tot linguae, tot aure. Haec tum vario sermone aures hominum complebat gaudens,

It’s the second sentence I’m having trouble with. What is haec referring to here? It can’t be monstrum because even though it’s a neuter noun it’s in the singular.

Also, how would vario sermone be said in natural English. It doesn’t make sense to say in a different speech. And what ablative use is it?

Thanks in advance.

13

Haec refers back to Fama, which of course is a feminine noun. Theodore Williams translates vario sermone as “with changeful speech”. What follows gaudens in the poem is “et pariter facta atque infecta canebat” (hint: fact and fiction), so you can see why Virgil prefaces this with vario sermone. As far as the ablative is concerned, I believe it’s an ablative of means.

14

Here’s the sentence in the full as it is in the book:

Haec tum vario sermone aures hominum complebat gaudens, et pariter ac falsa narrabat.

So would this be a good translation for that sentence:

This (goddess? Is Fama considered a goddess) was then rejoicingly filling the ears of men with a changing discourse equally telling true and false things.

15

Here is Vergil’s original for comparison, Book 4:

189 Haec tum multiplici populos sermone replebat
190 gaudens, et pariter facta atque infecta canebat

I would say the ablative in both cases is the ablative with a verb of filling (yes, it’s considered a thing). In your book’s paraphrase, there is no word for “true.” Pariter ac = at the same time as…"

16

Here’s the reference in A&G, in case you want more!:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D556

17

I’m guessing the book has—or should have—vera before ac falsa.

But how I detest such paraphrasing! It’s a sin to read Vergil in anything other than the original.

Incidentally, search Textkit for monstrum horrendum and you’ll find a fun little thread.

18

No need to search. Here is the thread (mwh has accidentally DOSed the server just a little as everybody searched for that at once):

http://discourse.textkit.com/t/topic/13265/1

19

Yes, you’re right. To boths things. I typed it in a rush at school and while in class too. As for your second statement: how else am I suppose to learn Latin other than by using Orberg’s book? Do you have any other better suggestions?

20

I wrote the sentence in a rush. Here it is again:

Haec tum vario sermone aures hominum complebat gaudens, et pariter vera ac falsa narrabat.

Would my translate be considered correct though?

And would this be a good translation for the original:

This then rejoicingly was filling up
The people with a changeable discourse,
And equally was singing facts and lies.

I wrote it in iambic pentameter. Would that suit?