uiro multa allocuto et ferociam uxoris recordato Alcumena tamen nil respondit.

[Lysandra]

Hello everyone,

I am having great difficulty translating this Latin sentence (uiro multa allocuto et ferociam uxoris recordato Alcumena tamen nil respondit) and wondered if anyone here could help. My main problem is with the adjective 'multa' and what it describes. The best translation I have come up with so far is:



Alcumena, however, responded nothing to the man, after he addressed and recalled the much ferocity of the wife.


Any ideas??? The assignment is due on Monday so I need to come up with a translation quickly.

Thank you so much!

 

[Laurentius]

It is the object of alloquor.

 

[Pacifica]

Hello,

Multa is a substantivized neuter plural, literally "many things". It's a kind of internal object of adlocuto. Translate "much/a lot", because it seems to be used pretty much adverbially here.

Adlocuto itself implies speaking to someone (here apparently to her, which would be the direct object, but is left implied).

The order of ideas of the Latin would be better rendered if you put the "after" clause first in the English translation: "After the man.... Alcumena, however, reponded nothing (to him)".

 

[Laurentius]

I think the dative goes with respondeo here. Btw maybe it would be better if sometimes we just indicate them the right direction, at least at first.

 

[Pacifica]

I think the dative goes with respondeo here.

I didn't say the contrary...

 

[Lysandra]

Thank you so much for the help! I have changed the translation to:

After the man addressed many things and recalled the ferocity of the wife, Alcumena, however, did not respond.

Do you think it is acceptable to change the 'responded nothing' part to 'did not respond'?

 

[Laurentius]

I didn't say the contrary...

Sorry, I misinterpreted. But perhaps the way you suggest to translate it could make it seems like she thought of it as an absolute ablative. The teacher might think of it as an error.

 

[Pacifica]

He didn't really adress many things, but addressed (her) with/about many things = he talked to her a lot, or something similar.

Do you think it is acceptable to change the 'responded nothing' part to 'did not respond'?

I don't know, maybe. Do you feel "did not respond" is better English?

 

[Imber Ranae]

Or 'made no response'.

 

[Pacifica]

Sorry, I misinterpreted. But perhaps the way you suggest to translate it could make it seems like she thought of it as an absolute ablative. The teacher might think of it as an error.

I see what you mean. I do think it's better rendered with the temporal clause coming first, now...

 

[Aurifex]

It strikes me the word "tamen" is unwanted in this sentence.

 

[Laurentius]

She could also avoid the temporal clause and say something like: To the man (husband?), who had addressed many things... or: Alcumena however did not respond to the man who had addressed many things...
But probably it sounds worse in English.

 

[Lysandra]

Yes, I think it is better English, but maybe I should make a note to the TA who grades the assignments that I changed the wording there. In regards to 'multa', I'm really confused now. I don't think the answer would be too complex as this is only my first year of Latin. How exactly would you word that participle clause?

 

[Pacifica]

The "to the man... she made no response" is probably a possible construction, though perhaps a bit stilted, dunno.

But I repeat that it isn't "addressed many things", because alloqui takes the person you speak to as direct object; it doesn't have the meaning of "addressing" as in "addressing a subject matter". Unless whoever wrote that sentence meant that and made a mistake.

 

[Laurentius]

Isn't it a nuance of the English translation? "Many things" seems less elegant than translating it as an adverb, but I don't think it is an error. If we can't use "address" like that then we could say "spoke many things (to her)".

 

[Pacifica]

Isn't it a nuance of the English translation? "Many things" seems less elegant than translating it as an adverb, but I don't think it is an error.

"Addressed many things" is correct English per se, but the problem is that the Latin (normally) can't mean that.

"spoke many things (to her)".

Maybe.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Isn't it a nuance of the English translation? "Many things" seems less elegant than translating it as an adverb, but I don't think it is an error. If we can't use "address" like that then we could say "spoke many things (to her)".

It's misleading as a translation because in English 'to address something' has a different meaning which isn't conveyed in Latin with the word adloquor.

 

[Laurentius]

It's misleading as a translation because in English 'to address something' has a different meaning which isn't conveyed in Latin with the word adloquor.

I see, thanks!

 

[Aurifex]

Yes, I think it is better English, but maybe I should make a note to the TA who grades the assignments that I changed the wording there. In regards to 'multa', I'm really confused now. I don't think the answer would be too complex as this is only my first year of Latin. How exactly would you word that participle clause?

Is the Latin you've given us, Dana, the self-contained entirety of what you have to translate for this question or is there more? If this is all there is to the question, are there any questions before or after on the same topic?

 

[Lysandra]

I don't think it's a temporal clause but a participle one (which is the main point of study this week). If 'multa' should not be translated as 'addressed many things', is it describing 'ferociam' as I originally suggested? I am still not clear on whether 'multa' is acting as a noun or an adjective.