Apud Helvetios

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

Virtute is ablative (an ablative of respect) and you've translated it correctly from the start. What you need to deal with now is omnibus. The verb superare in this context means "to surpass". When used in that sense, it takes a dative object. Omnibus is dative. So how do you think that might translate?
They surpassed everyone in virtue. (I think this must be)
And the translation I have is out of the book. I am trying to understand it.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

Yes.

It is not very good. At any rate, "they all excelled" is clearly a mistake. Is this the same book that eiscum came from?
No, this is Caesar’s Gallic Wars, with translation.
Praestarent they excelled (is what it says). My dictionary says to stand before, to be outstanding.
The other, eiscum, was Wheelock’s.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
No, this is Caesar’s Gallic Wars, with translation.
Well, be aware that translators can make mistakes, some more than others. The short excerpt you've shown doesn't make me inclined to trust this particular translator very much, though I should give them the benefit of the doubt: it could be that they were just being distracted or having a bad day at that particular point and that the rest of their work is good.
Praestarent they excelled (is what it says). My dictionary says to stand before, to be outstanding.
Several translations are possible: to be outstanding, excell, surpass (+ dat.), be better than (+ dat.)—and the like. It also has a wholly different meaning: to give, provide (+ acc. of thing given and dat. of the person it's given to).
 
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
Varsovia
The literal meaning of that is "to stand before", or something like that.
 

DucuntFata

Member

"Praestare" is not an easy word sometimes. I just read this apud Seneca, and I must admit I am not quite sure how it is used, or why it is used, although I get the meaning - kings are safe from iniuria.

Regum nobis induimus animos; nam illi quoque obliti et suarum virium et imbecillitatis alienae sic excandescunt, sic saeviunt, quasi iniuriam acceperint, a cuius rei periculo illos fortunae suae magnitudo tutissimos praestat.
 
Last edited:

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

Yes.

It is not very good. At any rate, "they all excelled" is clearly a mistake. Is this the same book that eiscum came from?
Is the main mistake that the author used omnibus for the subject vs the direct object? E.g. “they all excelled ……”, vs “they surpassed everyone…. “?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Is the main mistake that the author used omnibus for the subject vs the direct object? E.g. “they all excelled ……”, vs “they surpassed everyone…. “?
Yes. "All" (or "everyone") should be the direct object in English.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
"Praestare" is not an easy word sometimes. I just read this apud Seneca, and I must admit I am not quite sure how it is used, or why it is used, although I get the meaning - kings are safe from iniuria.

Regum nobis induimus animos; nam illi quoque obliti et suarum virium et imbecillitatis alienae sic excandescunt, sic saeviunt, quasi iniuriam acceperint, a cuius rei periculo illos fortunae suae magnitudo tutissimos praestat.
The greatness of their position makes them very safe.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

Well, be aware that translators can make mistakes, some more than others. The short excerpt you've shown doesn't make me inclined to trust this particular translator very much, though I should give them the benefit of the doubt: it could be that they were just being distracted or having a bad day at that particular point and that the rest of their work is good.

Several translations are possible: to be outstanding, excell, surpass (+ dat.), be better than (+ dat.)—and the like. It also has a wholly different meaning: to give, provide (+ acc. of thing given and dat. of the person it's given to).
I can understand verbs like impero + dative. I gave an order to. Even though iubeo doesn’t take the dative. What is the reasoning behind praestare?
And, the same question for potior, except maybe “to take possession of”? Is the reason it takes the dative? (My dictionary doesn’t say it takes the dative, but it must, imperio.)
 
Last edited:
Top