By rothbard, in 'Latin Grammar Questions', Jan 22, 2017.
Thanks a lot.
Here are some sentences from Exercise 48 and a couple of longer translations (51 and 52). I'd be grateful for any corrections or suggestions.
1. They informed the general that hostages would be given by all states
Imperator certior factus est fore ut obsides ab omnibus civitatibus darentur.
8. They were so terrified that they did not see that the enemy were charging.
Tam erant perterriti ut non animadverterent hostes impetum iam facere.
An old man used to complain to his wife in these words. He used to say that he went to the fields every day, and returned home in the evening tired with work; but that she sat at home idle. The wife replied that she did not wish to be idle, and promised that she would go to the fields the next day. The husband accordingly stayed at home to prepare the supper, but not being skilled in such things he prepared nothing which they could eat in the evening; and in the morning he said he would rather work and eat than sleep and be hungry. Se he went to the fields himself.
Senex quidam cum uxore his verbis querebatur. Se cotidie in agros adire, deinde labore defessum vesperi domum reverti, eam autem domi sedere. Uxor negavit se domi sedere velle, et pollicita est se postero die in agros ituram esse. Itaque vir domi mansit ut cenam compararet, sed, harum rerum imperitus, nihil paravit quod vesperi edi posset. Postero die mane dixit se operatum edere quam dormire esurientem malle. Ipse igitur in agros profectus est.
It was told Philip that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men to throw his treasuries into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men who saw him say he was like a madman. He declared that the passes had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would punish the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum of money for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
Philippus certior factus est Romanos adesse. Se proditum esse clamitans in forum cucurrit et alios ad thesaurum in mare deiciendum, alios ad naves incendendas misit. Qui eum videbant ferunt eum furentem esse. Saltos a suis ducibus de industria relictos esse denuntiavit, seque sceleratos puniturum. Ipso tempore promisit se multam pecuniam pro singulis Romanis in suo regno interfectis daturum esse.
Why not just use "imperatorem certiorem fecerunt" to be more literal to the English?
For "like a madman", you could also say "similem furenti", I think.
"saltus" meaning "pass" is 4th declension.
For "at the same time" "eodem tempore" sounds better to me.
A few more things:
I think it would be better to say queri solebat, to make it clear that it was something habitual. With querebatur and nothing more to clarify the context, I would naturally take it as being about one specific occasion when a man was complaining to his wife.
This seems a bit weird to me. Did you mean abire?
I can see no particular reason not to stick closer to the original and keep the "and".
The perfect tense would feel better to me here.
There are two problems with ferunt eum furentem esse: the idea of "like" isn't rendered at all, and esse is in the wrong tense. It means "they say he is mad", not "they say he was like a madman".
To be honest, the English version feels a bit weird to me, starting with "a man used to complain to his wife" and then going on with the wife replying on once specific occasion, without any sort of transition like "one day the wife replied" or so. But well, the English being as it is, the translation should follow and the "used to" idea be rendered.
Many thanks for your advice, Dantius and Pacifica.
I thought of that, however I hadn't come across the impersonal "they" in Latin, so I thought it might be better rendered by the passive form.
The impersonal "they" exists in Latin, but its uses are a bit less extensive than in English and I don't think it would be used here. I don't think Dantius was taking the "they" of the English as impersonal (neither was I). Now of course in a contextless sentence it's hard to be sure what was meant.
From Exercise 61 (Dative Verbs):
5. A man who is angry with his friends without a cause does himself more harm than them
My take: "Qui amicis nulla causa irascitur plus sibi quam iis nocet". The answer key has "magis" instead of "plus". Which one do you think sounds better in this context? I thought "plus" was more appropriate in this case when comparing the degree of harm.
I think both are possible.
Exercise 66 asks to translate "When the king was told of this, he sent an officer with 150 soldiers to take the robbers and bring them to him". If I write "Rex de hoc certior factus centurionem cum centum et quinquaginta militibus misit qui latrones captos ad se adduceret", does it render the meaning of the sentence correctly? That's what I had originally written, but then I changed it, since it could be taken to mean that the robbers had already been caught by someone else. However the book's answer key also has "qui latrones captos".
It's fine. Such uses of participles are perfectly regular.
Our Latin forum is a community for discussion of all topics relating to Latin language, ancient and medieval world.
Separate names with a comma.