I think you're far too concerned about the fact that the translation is not literal. As AoM mentioned, most translations are not going to stay close to the text.
Definitely. I think it's better to always focus on the Latin, resolving problems with a dictionary or commentary, and only checking a translation as a last resort.I have lately noticed that it is better to read a Latin text in Latin and not in a translation. The translations seem to be slightly different. I prefer to read the original version if possible. What do you think?
You're misinterpreting Servius. He writes: "rite repertvm carpe: 'rite carpe', {⁴³id est cum observatione,}⁴³ non 'riterepertum'." What he's saying is that the adverb rite should be taken with the verb carpe, rather than with the participle repertum. Of course, repertum is the direct object of carpe.6:145-6:146 Vergilius wrote "Ergo alte vestiga oculis et rite repertum carpe manu". The Late antique grammarian Maurus Servius Honoratus commented that the imperative singular verb carpe refers to the adverb rite and not to repertum. Can the imperative carpe refer to a adverb? Why not to an object in a sentence like the singular accusative repertum?