pugio bruti p.xxxvii

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Clodius ministrum ita rogavit: "hac nocte femina cum ancilla sua hic fuit. Vinum illi super tunicam effusum est, tum pugio illi ablatus est. Vidistine adulescentem qui haec fecit?"
Minister adnuit.
"hunc adulescentem, nostin'?"
Minister adnuit sed nihil respondit. Clodius eum intuitus est. Tum sacculum prompsit ex quo aperto nummum prompsit. Nummum ministro dedit. Minister subrisit et nummo sumpto abiit. Codius iratus ministro clamavit: "Accede huc, sceleste! Hoc quod te rogo mihi responde!"


Clodius asked the servant thus: "This night the woman was here with her slavegirl. Wine was spilt over her tunic, then a dagger was stolen from her. Did you see the young man who did these (things)?"
The servant nodded.
"Do you know this young man?"
The servant nodded but replied nothing. Clodius looked at him. Then he took out a small sack, opened it, and took out a coin. He gave the coin to the servant. The servant smiled, took the coin and went away. Angry Clodius shouted to the servant: "walk up here, crook! Answer me this which I ask you!”


Please review and point out my errors.
[the sentence in bold red has been reviewed already.]
thanks.
Edits are in bold
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
"Did you learn of this young man?"
"Do you know this young man?"

We've talked about novi before, remember. It usually translates as present, "I know".
out of which having been opened he took out a coin.
You've got the literal meaning right. If you want it in better English, you can say "opened it and took a coin out of it".
The servant smiled and with the coin having been taken up he went away.
Similarly here you could say "took the coin and went away".
crookedly!
This sceleste isn't an adverb but an adjective in the vocative.
This because I ask you respond to me!"
Literally "answer me this which I ask you", i.e. "answer my question".
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
"Do you know this young man?"

We've talked about novi before, remember. It usually translates as present, "I know".

You've got the literal meaning right. If you want it in better English, you can say "opened it and took a coin out of it".

Similarly here you could say "took the coin and went away".

This sceleste isn't an adverb but an adjective in the vocative.

Literally "answer me this which I ask you", i.e. "answer my question".
I do remember novi, and went from my notes to translate, I just missed present tense.
sceleste = “crook!” ?
Edits are in bold. (I think what I have is close enough now, thanks)
 
Last edited:

john abshire

Well-Known Member
"Do you know this young man?"

We've talked about novi before, remember. It usually translates as present, "I know".

You've got the literal meaning right. If you want it in better English, you can say "opened it and took a coin out of it".

Similarly here you could say "took the coin and went away".

This sceleste isn't an adverb but an adjective in the vocative.

Literally "answer me this which I ask you", i.e. "answer my question".
Vinum illi super tunicam effusum est, tum pugio illi ablatus est.
Wine was spilt over her tunic, then a dagger was stolen from her.
illi ?
(macron over the i)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Your translation is correct. Illi is the dative singular of ille, identical for all three genders.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
In the second part, it corresponds to "from her". In the first part I guess you can say that it very loosely corresponds to "her" but that's a bit misleading. Have you read the link I gave you the other day regarding this very sentence? The use of the dative found in Vinum illi super tunicam effusum est is explained there.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
In the second part, it corresponds to "from her". In the first part I guess you can say that it very loosely corresponds to "her" but that's a bit misleading. Have you read the link I gave you the other day regarding this very sentence? The use of the dative found in Vinum illi super tunicam effusum est is explained there.
Yes, I did read it then; and I reread it just now.
(Apparently, I needed to reread it.)
Still, (or but) the spilling was done “by her”, not “to her”.
vinum illi super tunicam effusum est, tum pugio illi ablatus est.
Wine was spilt by her over her tunic, then the dagger was stolen from her.
So, Both of the illi would be better as illa, I.e. ablative (seems to me) and I miss the connection to the link, illi as dative of possession. The second illi, the dagger is hers, but there is not a confusion, I.e. there is not a need to clarify this. The first illi the sentence would be more clear to leave it out or use illa, as said earlier.
?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
The spilling was done to her. Maybe it was also done by her, but that isn't stated in this sentence. Note that "by her" would be ab illa, not illa alone.

As for the stealing of the dagger, verbs of stealing, taking away and such often take the dative whereas English would use a prepositional phrase with "from". After all, the stealing was also something that was done to her.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
The spilling was done to her. Maybe it was also done by her, but that isn't stated in this sentence. Note that "by her" would be ab illa, not illa alone.

As for the stealing of the dagger, verbs of stealing, taking away and such often take the dative whereas English would use a prepositional phrase with "from". After all, the stealing was also something that was done to her.
It makes sense now.
[you explain things very well.]
Thank you
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Aww, thank you. :)
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
The spilling was done to her. Maybe it was also done by her, but that isn't stated in this sentence. Note that "by her" would be ab illa, not illa alone.

As for the stealing of the dagger, verbs of stealing, taking away and such often take the dative whereas English would use a prepositional phrase with "from". After all, the stealing was also something that was done to her.
What is the reason for the first illi? Is it needed in the Latin understanding?
In the English, it is apparent that the spilling was done to her, since it was spilt on her tunic.
?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Illi could be omitted, but then it wouldn't be explicit whom this had happened to. You would have to deduce it from the context.

Basically, Latin and English use two different ways to make it clear who is concerned. Latin tells us it happened to her (illi) while English tells us it was her tunic.
 
Top