Translating News Articles

I’ve been learning Latin for a year or so, on and off, and I’ve been trying to translate a few news articles written in Latin. How about ‘Non satis fuit tumultuantibus quod Minister Primarius Manuel Valls promiserit se novam legem de operis correcturum esse’ be translated?

I think it should mean ‘(Prime Minister Manuel Valls) is not satisfied with the disruption which he promised new labour legislation would correct’. Is this correct or wrong? What’s stumbling be is the correctum esse at the end, the ‘se’ and the 'fuit + dative/ablative. I’m guessing tumultuantibus means ‘with the tumult’, but I can’t recall learning such a form yet.

Sorry, but it’s all wrong.
tumultuantibus derives from tumultuor. Have you studied the participles yet? Do you know the accusative and infinitive construction? Maybe it’s too early for you to tackle this phrase.

Manuel Valls promiserit se novam legem correcturum esse.

So “novam legem” is the object of “correcturum”, meaning that the sentence implies rather that he will correct the new law, rather than that he will implement new labor legislation. The difference is subtle but it is there.

tumultuantibus

Present participle plural dative of tumultuari, clearly a modern day coinage for “protesters”. Those protesting.


The grammatical gist of the entire sentence is as follows:

Non satis fuit tumultuantibus

It was not enough to the protesters. — And here you ask, What was it that was not enough? (It may be helpful to hear an unwritten [hoc]. "This was not enough to the protesters, that…)

And the answer follows

quod Manuel Valles promiserit

Here, I stand to be corrected, but I believe that in the standard concordance one would be expecting “promitteret” (imperfect subjunctive) rather than “promiserit” (perfect subjunctive). This is because the main clause has the verb in the perfect indicative, and therefore in the subordinate clause an action that occurs simultaneously to the verb goes to the imperfect subjunctive (so ‘promitteret’), and one that occurs before the verb would go to the Pluperfect subjunctive (so ‘promisisset’).

Regardless, the sense is clear. “It was not enough [to the protesters] that he promised / had promised…” (The alternative tenses reflecting the way we choose to correct ‘promitteret’.)

se novam legem correcturum esse.

Now this is clear if you remember that the verb “to promise” (promittere) is taking an infinitive clause. In this case, we are to assume that the Prime Minister said something to the effect of

“I will correct the new law.” — “[Ego] novam legem corrigam.”

How would this sentence be turned into an infinitive clause? The subject, “ego” (unnecessary in the direct speech sentence but necessary in the infinitive sentence, turns into ‘se’ in the accusative — this is because the subject of the infinitive sentence is identical to that of the verb that’s triggering it (ie, the Prime Minister is the subject both of “promiserit” and of “correcturum”); the verb in the future (corrigam) turns into the future infinitive (correcturum esse), and the rest of the sentence remains the same.

My former teacher, now retired, is one of the redactors of Nuntii Latini, a radio news bulletin already 27 years old. They pronounce Latin in a manner mostly used in Finland, but it should be quite clear. If this is at all your cup of tea, I do warmly recommend them. They are meticulously written—you should not be able to find any mistakes.

quod Manuel Valles promiserit – this shouldn’t be subjunctive, it should be indicative. It’s a fact, he promised, not part of a statement by the protesters or an indirect question. “The fact that he promised wasn’t enough.”

EDIT. Hair splitting.

Thank you everyone.

I understand the sentence now; I am not good with Latin parsing and immediate identification of all forms but the constructions I understand.