Livy: conjunction


Civis Illustris
What makes you think there should be an et?


New Member
It seems to be (though I may be wrong) that there are two different objects: Profugi adorti Hannibalem and Profugi turbaverunt agmen. So, I would put a conjunction to join both ideas. Is it wrong?


Staff member
Adorti is a participle, "having attacked". It is not a finite verb, "they attacked", which would be adorti sunt (unless there was an ellipsis of sunt, as can happen, but it isn't the case here).


Sīmia Illustris
Rule of thumb, Gabriel:

anytime the original/Roman* Latin you read seems wrong, it's 95-99% probable the error is not in the text but, in fact, in your mind.

Now, a really proficient Latinist, who has read with fluency many works, may spot some 'lacuna' or a place that both doesn't make sense AND is happens to be disputed across critical editions of the text in question. But, as a relative novice (albeit reading Livy), always believe that ultimately, the reader is always wrong, not the text :) Consider the text you read as "sacred" as it being practically impossible that you could of your own volition either add or remove a word to make it better.

It is true that once a upon a time (in a very different age), Latin words would be written together, almost no if any spaces used in the text, neither any kind of interpunction, so the sentences or paragraphs looked like a giant infinite word: and there one had to wonder where a new clause begins etc, but you can trust me that is almost never the case with texts you come in contact today.

*often times, the same rule will apply though even with medieval or later Latin, if done by some reputable authors, at least; they are often indeed smarter than you/the reader ;P