Hercules sent the men away so that they might learn nothing about his plans

[New2Latin]

I have to write the following sentences in Latin. Below each sentence is my attempt. Please give me a hint if you spot any errors so I can try again.

1. Hercules sent the men away so that they might learn nothing about his plans.
Hercules viros abire iussit ne quid de consiliis (suis) cognosceret.

I wasn't sure how to say "sent the men away" so I said "ordered them to leave". Can you write something like "viros abhinc misit"?

2. They sent scouts to learn if they could cross the river secretly.
Exploratores miserunt ut discerent num flumen clam transire possent.

There's an indirect question within the purpose clause. I'm not sure if I've handled it correctly.

3. He fled secretly so that he might never be captured.
Clam fugit ne umquam caperetur.

4. We perceive that these envoys are trustworthy and careful; therefore, they are being sent to advise the allies not to lay down their arms.
Sentimus hos legatos esse fideles diligentesque; itaque (ei) mittuntur ut socios arma non deponere moneant.

I'd also like to ask if, when you're writing in Latin, you use macrons on the vowels, as most textbooks do.

Thanks.

 

[Iáson]

I wasn't sure how to say "sent the men away" so I said "ordered them to leave". Can you write something like "viros abhinc misit"?

No. abhinc is an adverb of time, not space. And I don't think that even if you use illinc instead it would work; mittere doesn't seem to be attested in this sense. dīmittere would work fine, though. abīre iubēre is also idiomatic.

There's an indirect question within the purpose clause. I'm not sure if I've handled it correctly.

It seems fine to me.

itaque (ei) mittuntur ut socios arma non deponere moneant.

'advise the allies not to lay down their arms' is an indirect command, and might be better translated using a subjunctive clause, although moneō does sometimes use accusative + infinitive.

I'd also like to ask if, when you're writing in Latin, you use macrons on the vowels, as most textbooks do.

Yes. I find it difficult to remember the vowel quantities otherwise.

 

[New2Latin]

itaque (ei) mittuntur ut socios arma non deponere moneant.​

'advise the allies not to lay down their arms' is an indirect command, and might be better translated using a subjunctive clause, although moneō does sometimes use accusative + infinitive.
--------------------
So if I use a subjunctive clause, would the following be correct?
"itaque (ei) mittuntur qui socios moneant ne arma deponant"

Dumb question, how do you include the macrons when your typing?

Thanks for your help

 

[cinefactus]

Dumb question, how do you include the macrons when your typing?

It depends on your operating system. On a Mac you can just hold the key down and it will give you options.

Can you please give each thread a title specific to your request, such as the one I have changed this thread to?

 

[Dantius]

"itaque (ei) mittuntur qui socios moneant ne arma deponant"

It's correct, however, for some reason, I feel like the phrase mittuntur qui... would more often occur when the antecedent is indefinite, like "people are sent to...". Perhaps an ut clause would be better: itaque mittuntur ut socios moneant ne arma deponant. I'm not 100% sure though.

On a Mac you can just hold the key down and it will give you options.

It's a lot quicker, in my opinion, to use the keyboard "ABC - Extended". That way, you can just press "Alt + A" and then type a vowel, and the vowel will come out with a macron.

 

[New2Latin]

It's correct, however, for some reason, I feel like the phrase mittuntur qui... would more often occur when the antecedent is indefinite, like "people are sent to...". Perhaps an ut clause would be better: itaque mittuntur ut socios moneant ne arma deponant. I'm not 100% sure though.



It's a lot quicker, in my opinion, to use the keyboard "ABC - Extended". That way, you can just press "Alt + A" and then type a vowel, and the vowel will come out with a macron.

Thanks Dantius, I thought about using "ut" as you suggested, but I originally wrote the phrase "ut arma deponant" and thought it would be weird to have two "ut"s so close together. Then I realized "ne arma deponant" was correct and didn't bother to change the "qui" to "ut".

If the sentence was "they are being sent to advise the allies to lay down their arms" is "itaque mittuntur ut socios moneant ut arma deponant" correct? This is what I wasn't sure about. I guess I haven't encountered a phrase that requires "ut" within a clause that also requires "ut".

 

[Dantius]

It's possible to have nested ut clauses, yes.