Pugio Bruti pg. xxv

[john abshire]

Terentia iam tam pallida erat quam tunica quam gerebat. Sonitum rursus audivat. Iam aliquis non longe ab ea stabat.
“Adiuva me, rogo te! Volo domum redire!”

Terentia now was already as pale as the tunic that she was wearing. She heard a sound again. Already someone was standing not far from her.
“Help me, please! I want to return home!

I saw where the compared words are in the same case, tunica and pallida. Is quam....quam “as.....as”? (I couldn’t find this) tam.....quam is “as....as”
and is the first sentence correct?

Edits; in bold italics (brain storm after I first posted this)
Later edits in bold

 

[Bitmap]

I know the first sentence is wrong. I could not get any closer.

It's actually right.

 

[Bitmap]

But you should pay some attention to your spelling. In most cases, it's easy to understand what your misspelling was and to infer what the original text was, but it can be completely misleading at other times. This is at least the second time you misspelt audivit.

She heard a sound outside.

Where did you get the "outside" from?

 

[Pacifica]

Is quam....quam “as.....as”?

No. Tam... quam is "as... as". The second quam is a relative pronoun referring back to the tunic ("the tunic that she was wearing").

Details:

- The iams would better translate as "now" in this context.
- Rogo te can translate more idiomatically as "please".

 

[john abshire]

It's actually right.

I had a brain storm about after my reply.

But you should pay some attention to your spelling. In most cases, it's easy to understand what your misspelling was and to infer what the original text was, but it can be completely misleading at other times. This is at least the second time you misspelt audivit.
Where did you get the "outside" from?

I mistakenly translated rursus as “outside”.

 

[john abshire]

vir magna barba, “bene,” inquit, “dormivisti? In raeda enim mea sedens dormivisti. Te ante excitare nolui, sed nunc mihi raeda opus est. Haec enim raeda Lutetiam mox ibit, itaque tibi descendendum est.”
The large barbaric man said, “did you sleep well? For you were sleeping (while) sitting in my carriage. I did not want to wake you up earlier, but I need my carriage. For this carriage will go to Paris soon, therefore it is coming down to you.”
??
the underlined part doesn’t feel right at all.

 

[Pacifica]

The large barbaric man

Barba is a noun in the ablative meaning "beard". Magna agrees with it. Magna barba is an ablative of quality referring to the man. Try to remember; you've come across this construction before.

you were sleeping

More exactly "you slept", since dormivisti is perfect rather than imperfect.

therefore it is coming down to you.

"It is to be gone down by you", i.e. "the action of going down must be done by you", "you need to go down". This is an impersonal passive construction with the gerundive.

 

[john abshire]

Barba is a noun in the ablative meaning "beard". Magna agrees with it. Magna barba is an ablative of quality referring to the man. Try to remember; you've come across this construction before.

Vir magna barba “man with a large beard”
I do not remember “ablative of quality” but if I had realized magna barba were in the ablative I would have gotten closer.

 

[Pacifica]

Vir magna barba “man with a large beard”

That's right.

 

[john abshire]

"It is to be gone down by you", i.e. "the action of going down must be done by you", "you need to go down". This is an impersonal passive construction with the gerundive.

It seems that “by you” would be better represented by the ablative te, “by, with, from”, vs the dative tibi, “to you”, or “from you” occasionally.

 

[Dantius]

The passive periphrastic (gerundive + est) regularly uses a dative of agent rather than an ablative of agent.

 

[Pacifica]

"By you" would never be denoted by a mere te. Most of the time it's a(bs) te. Gerundives, however, usually take the dative instead (the dative there basically denotes the person for whom the need to do such and such action exists).

 

[john abshire]

"By you" would never be denoted by a mere te. Most of the time it's a(bs) te. Gerundives, however, usually take the dative instead (the dative there basically denotes the person for whom the need to do such and such action exists).

I had another question about something that I thought unrelated, but now I see some similarities.
Mihi raeda opus est. “I need my carriage” From the back of the book, and the dictionary.
I first saw opus as “work” opus, operis, nt.
But then I found opus indecl. nt =need, necessity.
mihi opus est= “there is need for me” ? (“By me” makes more literal sense, “I have need”)

 

[Pacifica]

mihi opus est= “there is need for me” ?

Yes.

(“By me” makes more literal sense, “I have need”)

I disagree.

 

[john abshire]

Terentia paulisper venientes et euntes oculis secuta est. Erat stabulum plenum equorum et raedarum. Huc multi veniebant homines: alii ut ad urbem aliam raeda irent, alii ut dona ad aliam urbem mitterent.
For a little while, Terentia followed (them) coming and going with her eyes. It was a stable full of horses and carriages. Many men were coming here: some were sent to one city going by carriage, others were sent to another city with gifts.
??

 

[Pacifica]

were sent

Where did you get this from? Mitterent is active, not passive, and belongs only in the second ut clause. The verb in the first one is irent (which is a finite verb, not a participle like "going"). The ut clauses denote the purposes the people have to "come here": "many people came here, some so that that might go... others so that they might send..."

 

[Bitmap]

For a little while, Terentia followed (them) coming and going with her eyes. It was a stable full of horses and carriages. Many men were coming here:

Good.

alii ut ad urbem aliam raeda irent, alii ut dona ad aliam urbem mitterent.

some were sent to one city going by carriage, others were sent to another city with gifts.

This sentence implicitly picks up the verb from the previous sentence:
alii veniebant, ut ... irent;
alii veniebant, ut ... mitterent.

 

[john abshire]

Good.

This sentence implicitly picks up the verb from the previous sentence:
alii veniebant, ut ... irent;
alii veniebant, ut ... mitterent.

Many men were coming here: some were coming in order that they could go to one city by carriage, others were coming in order that they could send gifts to another city.
?

 

[Bitmap]

Many men were coming here: some were coming in order that they could go to another city by carriage, others were coming in order that they could send gifts to another city.
?

Yes ... you can make the English a bit smoother and you should retain your one-and-another distinction for the cities:
Many men/people were coming: some in order to go to one city by carriage, some in order to send gifts to another city.

 

[john abshire]

Yes ... you can make the English a bit smoother and you should retain your one-and-another distinction for the cities:
Many men/people were coming: some in order to go to one city by carriage, some in order to send gifts to another city.

Thank you,
I made the correction in bold.