Romani vias OPPIDI, villas, templa deorum statuis Graecis ornabant.
oppidum, oppidi, n, town
Caesar used this word a lot in De Bello Gallico, which used to be (and to some extend still is) read by students of Latin, probably why it is one of the words they deem important enough to learn at this point.
My latin is very very rusty, I’m up to chapter 8 of Wheelock, so forgive me if I am mistaken:
The Romans used to decorate the town’s roads, houses, temples of the gods with Greek statues.
“oppidi” is genative singular. In this case I think “oppidi, villas, templa” is an example of asyndeton (a list that does not use a conjuction such as “et”).
Shouldn’t it be “vias OPPIDIA” instead?
I’m not sure what your source is for that quote, but oppidi (it’s oppidum, not oppidium) is the genitive singular. Your quote, as provided, could translate to:
The Romans decorated the streets of their town, villas, and the temples of the gods with Greek statues.
Hope this helps,
Chris
Here is the URL link to the image of this page:
http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=26978_Maggofin_XIX_122_70lo.jpg
I understand that “oppidi” is genitive SINGULAR, but it modifies “vias”, which is “accusative PLURAL”, hence my question, is that grammatically CORRECT since it didn’t AGREE with the noun in NUMBER?
Oppidum, in this case, is a noun not an adjective, so, no, it doesn’t have to agree.
So is “deum”, yet “deorum” agrees with “templa” in NUMBER, CASE as well as GENDER, why should “OPPIDI” be any different?
If “vias oppidi” are TWO separate things with a missing comma in between, then, “oppidi” should be “oppida”; if “vias oppidi” is taken as one phrase, it should have been “vias oppidorum”, in my opinion, UNLESS, the word “oppidum” is used appositively to mean just the city “ROMA” herself only.
Also, on pp 85 of the same book, one reads:
Carum Romanis erat Forum, cara erant templa deorum, carae erant viae oppidi antiqui.
I thought it should have been:
Carum Romanis erat Forum, carae erant templa deorum, carae erant viae oppidi antiqui.
The reason for me to dewell on this point is to find out how trustworthy is Maggofin’s Latin textbook as a whole, since there is relatively very scanty info about this particular Latin premier on the Internet. I’ve found the arrangement of this textbook is quite different or even original, unlike scores of others in the “elementary Latin textbook” category.
deorum is genitive plural (masc.), templa is nominative of accusative plural (neut.). So, they don’t agree in case nor gender, only in number.
No, my friend. “Templa” here is accusative plural, “deorum” is genitive plural. They don’t agree. Your text is talking about the many streets in ONE SINGLE town (genitive singular) and the temples (neuter acc. plural) of many gods (masc. genitive plural). You are confusing declined nouns with adjectives.
Also, on pp 85 of the same book, one reads:
Carum Romanis erat Forum, > cara > erant templa deorum, carae erant viae oppidi antiqui.
I thought it should have been:
Carum Romanis erat Forum, > carae > erant templa deorum, carae erant viae > oppidi antiqui.
Templa is neuter plural and so the adjective cara [from carum] is correct.
Okay, I can see that now. This really helps!
Thanks for the correction. It is oppidum (not oppidium).
The Romans decorated the streets of their town, villas, and the temples of the gods with Greek statues.
I wouldn’t add “and” unless it was an informal translation. If it needed to be included for clarity I would put it in parenthesis.
It’s not “I came, I saw, and I conquered”, it’s “I came, I saw, I conquered”.
Well, I suppose it can be a matter of taste, but I would still disagree. In English, inserting an “and” before the final element of a list is common practice…blackboard English if you will: I did A, B, C, and D. In Latin, it’s not uncommon to leave it out. The goal for many modern translators is to render a text into a natural, modern language, not something with which Samuel Pepys would be comfortable reading. 
Further, Caesar’s statement has a poetic rhythm to it which the original quote (at the top of this thread) does not. Note that veni, vidi, vici runs long-short-long-short-long-short: vēnĭ, vīdĭ, vīcĭ. The English translation already ambles far away from anything resembling verse (“conquered” just has no metrical relation to “came” and “saw”) and tossing in extra words only muddles things more.
I suppose it’s rather subjective, but I don’t believe that anyone should always make the same translation choices when dealing with prose and verse, unless you are deciding to render the verse as prose (or vice-versa, I suppose).
Best,
Chris
I agree with much of what is said.
However in actual Latin the omission of “et” (asyndeton) serves a specific stylistic purpose purpose, and conveys a sense of urgency, speed, or brevity. It’s not like leaving out “esse”, which served little stylistic purpose.
A student of Latin (especially a beginning student) needs to be able to recognize basic rhetorical forms (such as asyndeton), if they wish to understand the language of something they are reading. Otherwise, why not just read translations?
If a distinguished classicist decides that adding the word “and” to a translation improves clarity without sacrificing the spirit of the work, I have no issue. However, a student of Latin needs to understand that when “et” is omitted it usually serves some stylistic purpose.
I agree that the omission of “et” serves no clear sytlistic meaning in this sentence (which was likely composed with a student of Latin in mind), but it is still important that it be understood that it is an example of asyndeton.
Here are some examples in English. Think of how adding a conjuction would change them.
*We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardships, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. J. F. Kennedy, Inaugural
*But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/rhetoric.html (very helpful website)
You’ll find no argument from me on this point. However, understanding asyndeton and translating asyndeton are separate things. As the paragraph from which the original quote comes was clearly written for the student and is hardly of the rhetorical calliber of the works, say, of Cicero, translating the asyndeton seems to me to be detrimental to the clarity of the original and to the original question.
I think there is a lot of personal style that goes into a choice on how to translate. One can translate with the intent of being as faithful to the original as possible, such as leaving in asyndeton. But that doesn’t always produce a translation with the most clarity. However, to understand a rhetorical form is to understand that the Latin, “A, B, C” really means the English, “A, B, and C.”
These do make for nice examples of asyndeton in English, but adding a conjunction only curtails the strength of their rhetorical power…it does not change the literal meaning of what is being said. Lincoln’s statement is from an address consecrating the battlefield and cemetery where upwards of 50,000 men were wounded or killed…very serious stuff. In translating that address into another language, preserving the asyndeton would be vital as well as preserving the other devices he uses (e.g., “cannot consecrate” and “cannot dedicate” are counter to precisely what he is doing) because it is a heavily rhetorical speech.
“Taberna Antiqua” just doesn’t belong anywhere near that category. 
Plus, my goal in providing my translation was to make the meaning of that particular sentence as clear as day, not to draw attention to the time-honored skill of rhetoric, which lacks in the original even though that particular device is present. You are absolutely correct that were this Lincoln, Kennedy, Cicero, or Aeschines, moving the rhetorical devices across languages would be very important. “Taberna Antiqua,” however, begs to be translated with the upmost clarity.
I don’t mean to pick nits and I think we probably agree on the weight of rhetorical devices. I just believe that it’s a non-sequitur here.
Best,
Chris
Understood.
The student should make note of the asyndeton mentally, if not in his translation, in order to prepare for readering where understanding rhetorical devices are important.