[WIP] Dē Rōbinsōne Crūsōeō LLPSI style

Latin Medieval and Neo-Latin
21

I’m currently on chapter 14, and here are some forms that I have problems with in various chapters so far, and I’d like to have your educated opinion:

Sequent> e > nocte, Crūsōeus sēcūrus recumbēbat

The present participle “sequente” is a little out of place, the adjective “sequentī” would be much more appropriate in this context. It’s not just the night that happens to follow, but the night that naturally follows.

Jam vērō sitī exārsit vehementissimā, > cui explendae > cum idōnea nōn esset aqua putrēdine corrupta, opportūnē mālōrum citreōrum meminit.

Nowhere I find explēre with the dative with this meaning, only the genitive.

Tum ille territus > undique > circumspicit ; audītō vel levissimō foliōrum strepitū stupet,

Undique is weird here. The intended meaning is “he looks everywhere around [from where he is]”, but “undique” makes it “he looks from everywhere around”. I think it’s a bad word choice.

Tandem collēctīs vīribus fugam corripit, quasi īnstārent > ā tergō> , neque prae terrōre respicere ausus est.

Here, “ā tergō” is used for the position, “behind him”. It looks like “tergum” is normally used only for the physical back of something/someone, not the position. Indeed, we have “ā” before, which may give some “from his back” meaning, but I’m still not quite confident about this one, and I don’t find “īnstāre” with ā+abl. Is this really meaningful?

22

Just to respond to your queries:

  • Sequente nocte: I’d have written sequenti myself but this translator is more at home in Latin than I am so I’d defer to him.
  • Jam vērō sitī exārsit vehementissimā, cui explendae cum idōnea nōn esset aqua …: Have you perhaps misunderstood the construction of the gerundive? cui explendae dative with idonea.
  • īnstārent ā tergō: seems ok to me, of an attack from behind. OLD tergum 5b.
23

It’s problematic, as even my dictionary shows “sequentī nocte” as an example. I see no reason to use the participle instead of the adjective.

Very good point.

And, by the way, I’ve just finished chapter 20. There are much less new words, which make things quicker, and isn’t a bad thing because it allows the reader to digest what was seen in the previous chapters. So far, chapters 12 through 20 need a review.

Here is the link

24

Congratulations on a very fine job.
p.124 cinctum: Yes, eum understood. There were similar instances earlier.

I enjoyed Crusoe’s recycling of Vergil’s “siste gradum!” (Aeneas to Dido in the underworld). The rest only for the latinity.

25

Thanks for this new fix.

Aaand… done! …well, almost. I’m done with the chapters (unless I have to correct things, and there probably are many things to correct).

Here is the link

As for the corrections, here are the things to check in general in what have been done so far:

  • Words that should be explained but aren’t
  • Bad glosses
  • Words or meanings explained more than once
  • Bad formatting (up to the least comma or space)

Now I have to add the geographical data, and the lexicon.

26

One or two things about the Latin surprised me, though I don’t presume to question them:
p.138 Rēbus secundīs adversae levantur (sc. res, obviously)
p.149 ūllus fossam trānsīrent etc. …

I may get to the rest later, if I can stomach the tale’s imperialist ethic. (I write as a self-exiled Englishman.)

27

I checked against the original Goffaux version, which has only singular verbs, which means the plural is a change added to the translation. I could find nowhere any reference to ūllus used with verbs in plural, nor does it make any sense at all. I believe it may be a last minute change that wasn’t fully proofread and ended in the final printed work, and so I guess the intended form is “ūllī fossam trānsīrent […]”

Yup, it’s disturbing, so It may be an idea to add some notes along the text when things get really problematic. This book is fantastic as to learning Latin without too much pain, but is burdened with the mentality from another era.