Oratio obliqua to oratio recta

I'm trying to turn the following passage from Casaer BG; 13 from oratio obliqua into oratio recta.

is ita cum Caesare:
Si pacem Populus Romanus cum Helvetiis faceret, in eam partem ituros atque ibi futuros Helvetios, ubi eos Caesar constituisset atque esse voluisset; sin bello persequi perseveraret, reminisceretur et veteris incommodi Populi Romani et pristinae virtutis Helvetiorum. Quod improviso unum pagum adortus esset, cum ei, qui flumen transissent, suis auxilium ferre non possent, ne ob eam rem aut suae magnopere virtuti tribueret aut ipsos despiceret; se ita a patribus maioribusque suis didicisse, ut magis virtute contenderent, quam dolo aut insidiis niterentur. qua re ne committeret, ut is locus, ubi constituissent, ex calamitate populi romani et internecione exercitus nomen caperet aut memoriam proderet.

My attempt is as follows

Si pacem Populus Romanus cum Helvetiis faciet, in eam partem ibunt atque ibi erunt Helvetii, ubi eos Caesar constitueris atque esse volueris; sin bello persequi perseverabis, reminiscere et veteris incommodi populi romani et pristinae virtutis Helvetiorum. Quod improviso unum pagum adortus eras, cum ei, qui flumen transissent, suis auxilium ferre non possent, noli ob eam rem aut suae magnopere virtuti tribuere aut ipsos despicere; nos ita a patribus maioribusque suis didiceramus, ut magis virtute contendamus, quam dolo aut insidiis nitamur. Qua re noli committere, ut is locus ubi constituisses, ex calamitate populi romani et internecione exercitus nomen capiat aut memoriam prodat.

There are a few things in there which I am uncertain about. The line I've rendered as "ubi eos Caesar constitueris atque esse volueris" It seems that I need to highlight the subject, which I've done by using the vocative, not 100% on this though. Another problem area is the use of "noli" with the present infinitive, I'm sure this is correct but I have kept the intervening words rather than keep "noli" next to the infinitive, I think it may be better to keep "noli" next to the infinitive? There are probably a few other mistakes in their as well.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, cheers
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Quod improviso unum pagum adortus eras
Adortus es seems more likely.
qui flumen transissent
In direct speech, this no longer needs to be in the subjunctive.
suae magnopere virtuti
*tuae
nos ita a patribus maioribusque suis didiceramus,
*nostris
*didicimus

ut magis virtute contendamus, quam dolo aut insidiis nitamur.
You can probably make a case for didicimus as a resultive perfect followed by primary-sequence verbs... Still, secondary sequence would be more regular, I think.
constituisses
I can't see how the third person plural verb would become second person singular. It should be some person of the plural; I don't know enough context to tell which. The tense and mood should also be adapted to direct speech.

Also, there was a typo in the original: it should be constitissent.
The line I've rendered as "ubi eos Caesar constitueris atque esse volueris" It seems that I need to highlight the subject, which I've done by using the vocative, not 100% on this though.
It's fine either way. We know that Caesar is being addressed, so there's no absolute need for the vocative as far as clarity is concerned, but there's nothing wrong with using it, either.
Another problem area is the use of "noli" with the present infinitive, I'm sure this is correct but I have kept the intervening words rather than keep "noli" next to the infinitive, I think it may be better to keep "noli" next to the infinitive?
Noli needn't be next to the infinitive.
 
I didn't realise I'd posted such a wall of text, a bit cheeky of me to ask somehow to check it. Which makes me all the more greatfull for your help. So thank you. I'm going to do a but more revision of grammar before I try this type of exercise again.

A lot of this stuff I have few issues with when it comes to reading it but when it comes to translating or composing I seem to fall to bits.
 
Top