Hi everyone,
I wanted to translate this sentence into Latin:
“While the farmer drives the flock of sheep, the slowest clouds stood in the sky”.
My translation was:
“Agricolā pecum ovium agente, nūbēs lentissimae in caelō stetērunt”.
But my book put it like this:
“Agricolā pecū ovium agente, nūbēs lentissimae in caelō stetērunt”.
My question: am I wrong? and why they used the ablative “pecū” not the accusative?
Thank you.
Shd be pecus (neut.). And phps stabant. The English is not good.
I thought: pecus, pecūs, m.
I think that entry is a mistake in Lewis and Short that has since been fixed. Glare doesn’t include it in his OLD, and I don’t see it at the cited passage (the edition on PHI has pecunia there instead). The writer of your book was probably thinking of pecū, pecūs n., though if not in the ablative, it’s typically in the plural (Glare: “sg. in quots. only in abl.”). I guess it’s possible, if unattested, but pecus (pecoris) or pecua is the better choice.
What book are you using?
JF Mondon. In the glossary he puts:
pecū, -ūs flock; (pl.) pastures
pecus, pecoris (nt.) cattle.
So, to be clear, the word (whatever it is) should be hear in the accusative?
Yes, but note that pecū is in the accusative.
Yes, you are right.
I thought it was: pecus, pecūs, m.
Instead, it is: pecū, -ūs, n. In this case, pecū is also accusative.
Thank you.
Hi,
I have another translation problem. I don’t know if it is a mistake in my book or I missed something:
“Cūr Trōiānīs campīs occumbere nōn potuī et haec anima mea effundere tuā dextrā, ubi saevus Hector iacet tēlō Achillis, ubi ingēns Sarpēdōn nunc iacet, ubi tot correpta sub undīs scūta virōrum galeāsque et fortia corpora Simoīs volvit?”
Now, my question is: why “haec anima mea” in not in the accusative (as a subject of the infinitive “effundere”?)
The text is an adaptation of the Aeneid:
So it should be in the accusative as you suspected. You may want to contact the author of the book, Jean-Francois Mondon., so that he may correct the text for future editions of the book.
Thank you for the help, in fact, there are many mistakes in this book.
This seems very odd. It should clearly be hanc animam meam as the object (not the subject!) of effundere.
But I don’t know why you are reading this when you could just as well be reading the original. And a text that so ineptly ruins Vergil’s fortia corpora volvit is not worth reading.
This is a grammar book, for the intermediate level, which has also translation exercices like this one. I thought it could be a good idea to review my grammar. But yeah sometimes I have some difficulties, and I don’t know if it is me or a mistake in the key of the book.
Do you think I am able to read Vergil’s original text?
I finished also Cicero’s First Catalinarian (Steadman’s book), which was very good and well explained.
Anto, To answer your question, I really don’t know how you’d get on with Vergil’s unmodified text, but here the original is scarcely more difficult than your book’s prose adaptation (which is not good), and sooner or later (and sooner is better) you’re going to have to learn to walk without the crutches that Steadman provides for the Catilinarians. Best not to develop a dependency on so much hand-holding.
Depending on what “intermediate” means, Pharr’s Vergil is a great student text of the first 6 books.
Generally, I don’t have problems with the grammar and structure of the sentence, the only problem with Vergil is that the vocabulary is totally new for me, this is why I am always looking up the new words.
Yeah, I’ve just downloaded it. Does it have any key or like a translation for students, so I can compare my translations??
That’s a good question. I don’t think so. I probably would suggest just comparing it to a standard translation and see what makes or doesn’t make sense.
Ok, that makes sense.
I started the first verses, it seems not very difficult, although it is challenging.
I found Dewey, which can help to correct my translation.
Or this blog also looks not bad: