Translation of D'Ooge's Lesson LXXIII

Textbooks Latin For Beginners by D'Ooge
1

On pg. 182-183 of the workbook and pg. 33 of the answer key.

LESSON LXXIII
428.I.1. Bear! (sing.), they will bear, so that they may bear, they bear. 2. Bear! (pl.), so that they might bear, to have borne, they had borne. 3. We have borne, bearing, to have been borne, to bear. 4. When the boats approached the island, the foreigners, alarmed with terror, tried to retreat. 5. The Gauls were annoyed that they laid to waste the Roman fields. 6. Caesar ordered his allies not to make war upon their neighbors. 7. The scouts that ran into Caesar said that the army of the enemy, wearied with wounds, had betook itself to another place. 8. The enemy knew that the Romans lacked grain and that this issue would bring the greatest danger to Caesar. 9. After the equipment was brought to one spot, some of the soldiers crossed the river which was not far away. 10. The king encouraged these men to go to the oracle and to recount the things they heard to him. 11. Whom did the general put in charge of that legion? Publius was in charge of that legion. 12. When Caesar was in hither Gaul, frequent reports were brought to him and he was also informed by a letter that the Gauls gave hostages to each other.
II.1. Galli Caesaris sociis bellum inferent. 2. Audivimus Gallos Caesaris sociis bellum allaturos esse. 3. Publius illo proelio non intererat. 4. Certiores facti sumus Publium illo proelio non interesse. 5. Vir qui equitatui praeerat vulneratus est pedemque referre coepit. 6. Caesar cohorti te non praefecit ut exercitui calamitatem afferat.

2
3

For sentence 4 of part II, shouldn’t it be interesse since the main verb is in past tense already? The original reads:

We have been informed that Publius did not take part in that battle.

Wouldn’t it be interfuisse if that bold part was:

had not taken part

Or does that only apply to indirect statements?

4

According to my interpretation, here the main verb in the perfect indicates an act completed in the present time (the so called perfect proper vs. the aoristic perfect, which indicates a mere act in the past): we are now in the condition of being informed. The information regards the participation of Publius to a battle, a mere act in the past. Hence the sequence perfect indicative and perfect infinitive. It seems to me that D’Ooge is encouraging my interpretation through presenting first sentence 3.

Translation of: THE STORMING OF A CITY
5

That makes complete sense. My mistake.

6

Yes, and it is explained at page 179 of D’Ooge:
417. Tenses of the Infinitive. When the sentences in § 415 were changed from the direct to the indirect form of statement, sunt became esse, erant became fuisse, and erunt became futuros esse.
418. …NOTE. When translating into Latin an English indirect statement, first decide what tense of the indicative would have been used in the direct form. That will show you what tense of the infinitive to use in the indirect.

7

Hi. I have a couple of questions:
In I.7. In the Latin version we have "vulneribus defessum ". Does defessus take the dative?
In II.3 and II.4 intererat/interfuisse take the dative of the indirect object (D’Ooge p. 182). What is it “illo proelio” not “illi proelio”, since the dative of illud is illi (illo is the ablative)?

8
  1. It’s ablative. Instrumental ablative, I believe.
  2. Good catch. Either we use the dative or in + ablative, but not ablative alone. I’ll fix it soon.
9

Ablative of cause (vulneribus defessum)?