Pugio Bruti- pg. xx

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Terentia domi diu sedebat cum ei in mentem venet esse vinum super tunicam suam! Nesciebat essetne ancilla domi, sed surrexit et, dum tunicam exuit, clamavit:

Terentia was sitting at home a long time when it occurred to her (that) wine was on her tunic! She did not know that the servant might not be at home, but she rose up and while she took off her tunic, she shouted:

essetne =might not be? If so
Why not “Non esset“, and why doesn’t the -ne make the sentence a question?

dum exuit— the dictionary says verbs following “while” most always are present indicative. This is the way I translated it to start with (while taking off (her tunic)) because it sounds right, but then changed it to perfect tense, “while she took off”. Is this, and the rest of the dum translating, right?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Terentia was sitting at home a long time
The imperfect tense with an expression of duration like diu has a meaning that would be conveyed in English by "had been [verb]ing".
She did not know that the servant might not be at home
-ne is an interrogative particle. You've got an indirect question there. "She did not know if the (maid)servant was at home."
dum exuit— the dictionary says verbs following “while” most always are present indicative. This is the way I translated it to start with (while taking off (her tunic)) because it sounds right, but then changed it to perfect tense, “while she took off”. Is this, and the rest of the dum translating, right?
"While taking off her tunic" and "while she took off her tunic" are both correct translations. Neither of them is literal: the literal translation of the present tense is "takes off" or "is taking off", but these wouldn't make for correct English here.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
-ne is an interrogative particle. You've got an indirect question there. "She did not know if the (maid)servant was at home."
So, the subjunctive (esset) is to designate an indirect question?, and not for an interpretation of "might be"?
How would you say "might not be" in the sentence above; i.e. where you wanted a subjunctive meaning in the indirect question, but were already using a subjunctive verb to designate an indirect question? would you have to re-word it?

Is -ne added to the verb to make the sentence an indirect question, or is it added to the second word of the sentence, as with a direct question?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
So, the subjunctive (esset) is to designate an indirect question?, and not for an interpretation of "might be"?
That's right. Indirect questions in Latin take the subjunctive, as a rule.
How would you say "might not be" in the sentence above; i.e. where you wanted a subjunctive meaning in the indirect question, but were already using a subjunctive verb to designate an indirect question? would you have to re-word it?
In general, when "may" or "might" conveys a statement of possibility much like "maybe that's the case", you do not use the bare subjunctive anyway, not even outside of an indirect question. "May" or "might" in that sense can often translate to a form of possum, or sometimes a wording with fortasse or so.
Is -ne added to the verb to make the sentence an indirect question, or is it added to the second word of the sentence, as with a direct question?
In both direct and indirect questions, -ne is most often added to the first word in the question (though there are exceptions). Which word the first word is depends on what word is emphasized in the question. In a fairly neutral situation it will usually be the verb.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Quamquam nolebat, ad cauponam in qua proxima nocte fuerit rediit. Ad cauponam venit, ad ianum accessit, sed non intravit.
Although she was unwilling, she returned to the inn in which it had been near night. She went to the inn, approached the door, but did not enter.
??
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member

john abshire

Well-Known Member
I believe that should say fuerat.

Also ianuam further on.

Proxima nocte means the nearest night, i.e. in this context the previous night. The subject of course is "she" rather than "it".
in which she had been the previous night.
?

Also, I thought in which was just qua, not in qua.
?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Top