I need grammar practice!

[Dantius]

Hemo Rusticus I'm not sure if I posted it before, but I think you'd like this Certamen question from a tournament last year:

I am still mad at myself because I got all the forms except sequier — I just completely forgot about that archaic infinitive for a moment. I even knew heminem because of your username.

 

[Glabrigausapes]

That's brutal.

 

[Dantius]

Not as brutal as this one that I wrote for fun the day after.

 

[Lysandra]

Reddibisne Anglice?

What point am I getting to? When you see the forum packed with the crowd and the enclosed zone filled by the convergence of the whole mass and that race course in which people show the greatest part of themselves, know this: in that place there is every bit as much of the vices of such men.

 

[Dantius]

Quid singula persequor? Cum 1uideris forum multitudine *refertum et **saepta concursu omnis frequentiae plena et illum circum in quo maximam 2sui partem populus ostendit, hoc scito: istic ***tantundem esse uitiorum quantum hominum.

What point am I getting to? When you see the forum packed with the crowd and the enclosed zone filled by the convergence of the whole mass and that race course in which people show the greatest part of themselves, know this: in that place there is every bit as much of the vices of such men.

The biggest issue is the last part. tantus(dem)...quantus is a correlative pair: as much ... as .... So the meaning is something like "there are as many vices as (there are) men" (literally "there is as much of vices as there is of men").

I'd translate populus as something like "the populace" rather than "people". I think the sense of maximam sui partem populus ostendit is that a majority of the people go to the circus, so "the populace shows the greatest part of itself/a very great part of itself" seems better.

How might quid singula persequor be more literally translated?

 

[Lysandra]

The biggest issue is the last part. tantus(dem)...quantus is a correlative pair: as much ... as .... So the meaning is something like "there are as many vices as (there are) men" (literally "there is as much of vices as there is of men").

I'd translate populus as something like "the populace" rather than "people". I think the sense of maximam sui partem populus ostendit is that a majority of the people go to the circus, so "the populace shows the greatest part of itself/a very great part of itself" seems better.

How might quid singula persequor be more literally translated?

Thanks, Dantius! I realised after I sent it that the last part wasn't quite right. In terms of translating 'quid singula persequor' more literally, I believe it would be 'What single thing do I follow after?'

 

[Dantius]

Do quid and singula agree?

 

[Lysandra]

Do quid and singula agree?

No, they don't.

 

[Lysandra]

Why do I follow after singular things?

 

[Dantius]

Yes, or more naturally something like "Why am I describing/relating single/individual (examples)?" ("to set forth, treat of, relate, recount, describe, explain" is a meaning of persequor) I'm not familiar with the context, but presumably he's just been discussing individual situations/examples/anecdotes, and he's transitioning into the general statement contained in the rest of the passage.

 

[Dantius]

Here's a new passage, from Tacitus. For context, Tacitus has just described a collapse of an amphitheater, and all the spectators are being crushed.

et illi quidem quos principium stragis in mortem adflixerat, ut tali sorte, cruciatum 1effugere: 2miserandi magis quos abrupta parte corporis nondum vita deseruerat; qui per diem visu, per noctem ululatibus et gemitu coniuges aut liberos noscebant. iam ceteri fama exciti, 3hic fratrem, propinquum ille, alius parentes 4lamentari. etiam quorum diversa de causa amici aut necessarii aberant, 4pavere tamen; 5nequedum 6comperto 7quos illa vis perculisset, latior ex incerto metus.

1. effugere: what form is this? (hint: it could be an infinitive, but that is less likely here)
2. miserandi: what form is this, and how should it be translated? What is left implied?
3. hic fratrem, propinquum ille: what literary device is this an example of?
4. lamentari...pavere: unlike effugere, these actually are infinitives. Why?
5. nequedum: what on earth does this mean? Try to figure out without a dictionary. It's similar to another word in the same passage.
6. comperto: what kind of construction is this?
7. quos...perculisset: what clause?

 

[Lysandra]

1. syncopated 3rd person plural perfect active indicative
2. gerund … could be translated just as ‘pitiable’ … the verb ‘fuerunt’
3. chiasmus?
4. historical infinitives
5. ‘not yet’ … a synonym of ‘nondum’

 

[Dantius]

Yes for 1-4. Although if I were being very picky, I would comment that I don't think effugere can technically be called syncopated; it's rather just an alternate form. Syncopated forms are when letters in the middle (like -vi-) are dropped, which isn't really happening here.
For 5, it's basically synonymous with nondum, but not quite. neque is not quite synonymous with non (except in some archaic passages), and in the exact same way, nequedum is not quite synonymous with nondum.

 

[Lysandra]

6. It’s an abl. sg. perf. pass. participle … are you looking for more information than this?
7. I reviewed your page on relative clauses with the subjunctive, and I believe it’s a relative clause of characteristic.

 

[Lysandra]

And those who the initial havoc crushed to death, as by such fate, indeed escaped torment: more pitiable were those who with a broken part of [their] body had not yet deserted life; those who they [knew] through the day by sight they knew through the night by [their] wails and groaning as wives and children. Presently others roused by the news lamented, here a brother, there a relative, in another place parents. Even friends or relatives among those whom had departed from diverse cause, they nevertheless feared for; by not yet finding those, who that force had crushed, fear [was] more pervasive from uncertainty.


It could be written much more eloquently, but first I want to make sure I understand the grammar.

 

[Dantius]

6. It’s an abl. sg. perf. pass. participle … are you looking for more information than this?

Yes. How about what use of the ablative?

7. I reviewed your page on relative clauses with the subjunctive, and I believe it’s a relative clause of characteristic.

It's not a relative clause of anything.

et illi quidem quos principium stragis in mortem adflixerat, ut tali sorte, cruciatum 1effugere: 2miserandi magis quos abrupta parte corporis nondum vita deseruerat; qui per diem visu, per noctem ululatibus et gemitu coniuges aut liberos noscebant. iam ceteri fama exciti, 3hic fratrem, propinquum ille, alius parentes 4lamentari. etiam quorum diversa de causa amici aut necessarii aberant, 4pavere tamen; 5nequedum 6comperto 7quos illa vis perculisset, latior ex incerto metus.

more pitiable were those who with a broken part of [their] body had not yet deserted life

Check the cases of quos and vita. I'd translate abrupta parte corporis as more of a proper abl. abs.: "with part of the body broken (off)", or "although part of their body was broken off"

those who they

qui is the subject. After a semicolon it's often best to just translate it as ei. The entire phrase from qui to noscebant is one main clause, there's not really any subordination. I think once you make that change, this part will make more sense.

here a brother, there a relative, in another place parents.

Note the cases of these words. hic, ille, and alius are subjects of lamentari, whereas fratrem, propinquum, and parentes are objects.

Even friends or relatives among those whom had departed from diverse cause, they nevertheless feared for

This doesn't make much sense.
A slight rephrasing of the Latin: etiam ei, quorum amici aut necessarii diversa de causa aberant, pavere tamen.
I'd translate diversa de causa as "for another reason".

; by not yet finding those, who that force had crushed, fear [was] more pervasive from uncertainty.

comperto, as you said, is passive. This can be done more literally. Also, what I was getting at with the neque vs. non thing above is that nequedum is technically "and not yet", whereas nondum is just "not yet", just as neque is "and not" and non is "not". So to be perfectly literal, you should add an "and" at the beginning here.

 

[Lysandra]

Here's what I've changed so far:

And those who the initial havoc crushed to death, as by such fate, indeed escaped torment: more pitiable were those who life had not yet deserted although part of [their] body was broken off; they knew [their] wives and children through the day by sight, through the night by [their] wails and groaning. Presently others [were] roused by the news, this man lamented a brother, that one a relative, another [his] parents. Even those of which friends or relatives were missing for another reason, they nevertheless feared for; and for those not yet having been found, who that force had crushed, fear [was] more pervasive from uncertainty.

I'm a bit confused by the last part ('comperto' can't agree with a plural noun so I know my translation is off) which is why I'm also struggling with #6 and #7.

 

[Dantius]

For the quorum diversa... part, I would say "even those whose friends or relatives were missing for another reason, were nevertheless afraid [i.e. that their friends/relatives had been victims of this disaster]"

I will tell you the answer to number 7: quos...perculisset is an indirect question, not a relative clause modifying any antecedent.

Presently others [were] roused by the news, this man lamented a brother, that one a relative, another [his] parents.

This is fine, but I would not take the Latin as implying a sunt with exciti; I think hic, ille, and alius are in apposition with ceteri in a very Tacitean way. It's hard to translate into English, though, so what you have works.

 

[Lysandra]

Thanks! I think I have it now:

And those who the initial havoc crushed to death, as by such fate, indeed escaped torment: more pitiable were those who life had not yet deserted although part of [their] body was broken off; they knew [their] wives and children through the day by sight, through the night by [their] wails and groaning. Presently others [were] roused by the news, this man lamented a brother, that one a relative, another [his] parents. Even those whose friends or relatives were missing for another reason, they nevertheless feared for [them]; and by not yet having learned who that force had crushed, fear [was] more pervasive from uncertainty.

Is 'comperto' an ablative of cause?

 

[Dantius]

Good.
comperto is literally an impersonal ablative absolute: "with it not yet having been discovered..." The ablative absolute does have a causal sense though.
I just noticed, for noscebant, "recognized" would be a better translation than "knew".

Even those whose friends or relatives were missing for another reason, they nevertheless feared for [them]

This still doesn't make complete grammatical sense. If you removed the relative clause, the sentence would read "Even those they nevertheless feared for [them]". The "they" is superfluous. I would get rid of the "for them" and just say "were nevertheless afraid".


A new passage, from Pliny. Some aspects of it are remarkably similar to the passage you just finished.

Iam cinis, adhuc tamen rarus. Respicio: densa caligo tergis imminebat, quae nos torrentis modo infusa 1terrae sequebatur. 'Deflectamus' inquam 'dum videmus, 2ne in via strati comitantium turba in tenebris obteramur.' Vix 3consideramus, et nox — non qualis illunis aut nubila, sed qualis in locis clausis lumine exstincto*. 4Audires ululatus feminarum, infantum quiritatus, clamores virorum; alii parentes alii liberos alii coniuges vocibus requirebant, vocibus noscitabant; hi suum casum, illi 5suorum miserabantur; erant 6qui metu 7mortis mortem precarentur; multi ad deos manus tollere, plures nusquam iam deos ullos aeternamque illam et novissimam noctem mundo interpretabantur.
*The construction with qualis is a bit tricky, and not easy to translate. It could be rephrased as non talis nox, qualis illunis aut nubila nox, sed (talis nox), qualis... Think back to the tantundem...quantum for an idea of how to translate the correlative pair talis...qualis.

1. What case and why?
2. What type of clause?
3. Parse and give the first principal part.
4. Why subjunctive?
5. What is this doing? What must be implied with it?
6. What type of clause?
7. What is the name for the literary device where words derived from the same root are repeated with different endings?