First, I’ll post the whole sentence:
Caesar, vir rei militaris peritissimus, suis imperavit ut proelium paulisper intermitterent, et, signo dato, ex castris erumperent.
The part I’m referring to is obviously in bold. Now, I know it’s an ablative absolute, but, the verb (dato) being in the past tense, why does it make more sense to translate it in present tense form?
Caesar, a man very skillful in the art of war, ordered his men to stop the battle for a brief moment, and, when the signal is given, to burst out of the camp.
But, though the translation being in present tense form, it takes on a meaning of something that is going to be done in the future much like the future perfect. So that’s my question. Does that use of the ablative absolute have a special grammatical term? Does the future perfect apply to the ablative absolute? I’m guessing that that ablative absolute is making an incomplete action statement since the subjunctive clause is likewise stating incomplete action, and the ablative absolute is a part of the subjunctive clause and not the other way around. That being said, I wouldn’t entirely rule out translating that ablative absolute in past tense form:
Caesar, a man very skillful in the art of war, ordered his men to stop the battle for a brief moment, and, when the signal was given, to burst out of the camp.
It also implies incomplete action. But another question I have is would either be correct?
Gratias vobis ago.
Maybe you are over thinking this?
“When the signal is given” could be an historic present chosen to emphasise the drama of “ex castris erumperent”. “When the signal was given” sounds a bit limp by comparison.
As to which is “correct” it depends on what you are trying to convey in your translation.
Maybe you are over thinking this?
I thought someone might say this.
“When the signal is given” could be an historic present chosen to emphasise the drama of “ex castris erumperent”.
And this is what I was hoping someone might say because it’s what I was leaning towards. Doesn’t the verb have to be in the present in order to be a historic present though?
“When the signal was given” sounds a bit limp by comparison.
Agreed.
As to which is “correct” it depends on what you are trying to convey in your translation.
What does either convey to you? Don’t they both convey the same meaning? That seems to be the case to me. Does the incomplete action of the subjunctive clause not carry over to when the signal was given, making it mean that it is something to take place later on.
Think about the logic of the ablative absolute. Which takes place first, breaking out or the signal? The signal comes first, therefore it’s natural to use the perfect participle rather than the present, which would imply simultaneous action. Your problem, I think is more how we tend to do this kind of expression idiomatically in English than what the Latin means. Subjunctives are by default future realization, so we tend to adjust our sequence of tenses to match. As Seneca said, it depends on precisely how you want to express it in English.