Can someone help me translate these sentences.
“Alios, qui te non sciunt, falle.”
“Those, who don’t know you, you will deceive.”
Qui rebus secundis fortes, dubiis fugaces sunt sibi hoc exemplum adscribere debebunt.
Those who are brave by fortune, they will be doubted whenever they ascribe this example.
Alios the plural accusative for “Another” so I would translate is as “Others”
Falle is a singular active imperative of fallo, fallere. So it is simply a command: “deceive”
So, unless I’m mistaken, (which is possible, it’s late 
) it would come out better as:
“Decieve others who don’t know you.”
Probably, more like:
Those who are brave in favorable conditions, but run away in doubtful [conditions], should take this as an example.
Alios the plural accusative for “Another” so I would translate is as “Others”
Falle is a singular active imperative of fallo, fallere. So it is simply a command: “deceive”
So, unless I’m mistaken, (which is possible, it’s late ) it would come out better as:
“Decieve others who don’t know you.”
Yes, you are right, your translation is ok.
Probably, more like:
Those who are brave in favorable conditions, but run away in doubtful [conditions], should take this as an example.
Hm, I am not sure that is the best translation.
My opinion is that latin sentence is not very well formed, so translation is not so straightforward as it should be.
- Qui rebus secundis fortes, dubiis fugaces sunt sibi hoc exemplum adscribere debebunt.
Boban:
Those who are brave by fortune, they will be doubted whenever they ascribe this example.mind:
Those who are brave in favorable conditions, but run away in doubtful [conditions], should take this as an example.Boban:
Hm, I am not sure that is the best translation.
My opinion is that latin sentence is not very well formed, so translation is not so straightforward as it should be.
I’m curious about the source of these sentences. Are they adapted from ancient authors, or are they artificial sentences composed for the exercises?
The sentence seems well formed to me. It omits words elliptically as you will find in many Latin authors. Consider the sentence with all words supplied:
Qui rebus secundis fortes sunt [sed], [rebus] dubiis fugaces sunt sibi hoc exemplum adscribere debebunt.
It’s clear that “dubiis” ought to take “rebus” since it’s in the same case as “secundis,” and these two words are antonyms (=doubtful/favorable). Or you could take “dubiis” as a substantive, in other words, “questions.” But the parallelism with “secundis” makes it natural to supply “rebus.” Note also the contrast between “fortes” and “fugaces.” This style is very characteristic of Latin writers, who are very fond of antithesis. After all, this was the golden age of rhetoric!
The main clause “[ei] sibi hoc exemplum adscribere debebunt” is much clearer, even if it does use an idiom. Literally, “they will have to write this example to themselves.” Better, what mind provides, or something like “they ought to take note of this example.”
Regards,
David