Pugio Bruti XL

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Ianua egressus Clodius ventre suo magno offendit adulescentem parieti similem tantus erat. Clodius cecidit, adulescens magnus non constitit sed perrexit.
Clodius exclamavit: “Abi in malem rem, sceleste!”
Tum adulescentem intuitus est. Capillo nigro erat et tunicam flavam gerebat!
Clodius surrexit, sed, cum multum vini bibisset, vix surgere poterat.


Having gone out the door, Clodius bumped with his big belly into a young man similar to a wall, he was so big. Clodius fell. The large young man did not stop but continued on.
Clodius shouted: “Go to hell, crook!”
Then he looked at the young man. He had black hair and was wearing a yellow tunic.
Clodius got up, but since he had drank much wine he was barely able to stand up.

The first sentence doesn’t seem right at all.
Please read and advise.
Edits in bold.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
out (by means of) the door
I would have taken it as an ablative of separation rather than means but I guess it's arguable. It probably doesn't really matter anyway, as long as you get the meaning, namely that he went out the door.
Clodius ran into the young man with his big belly so big it was similar to a wall.
Similem agrees with adulescentem, not with ventre. Note the grammatical cases.

Also, "so big that..." would require a result clause, like tantus ut..., of which there isn't any.
He was with black hair
That's essentially correct, however you could say in better English "he had black hair" or "he was black-haired".
when he drank much wine
This cum clause is causal: "since he had drunk much wine."
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
I would have taken it as an ablative of separation rather than means but I guess it's arguable. It probably doesn't really matter anyway, as long as you get the meaning, namely that he went out the door.

Similem agrees with adulescentem, not with ventre. Note the grammatical cases.

Also, "so big that..." would require a result clause, like tantus ut..., of which there isn't any.

That's essentially correct, however you could say in better English "he had black hair" or "he was black-haired".

This cum clause is causal: "since he had drunk much wine."
Clodius erat tantus
is clodius the subject of erat?
and, does tantus describe clodius?
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
No.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Yes, tantus refers to the young man.

You've got the meaning right, but you could smoothe things out a bit by adding some punctuation and such:

"Having walked out the door, Clodius bumped with his big belly into a young man who was like a wall, so big was he."
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Yes, tantus refers to the young man.

You've got the meaning right, but you could smoothe things out a bit by adding some punctuation and such:

"Having walked out the door, Clodius bumped with his big belly into a young man who was like a wall, so big was he."
Tantus is sing, masc, nominative, and only clodius matched this, but clodius tantus didn’t make sense. But the subject of erat could be “he” (it finally occurred to me), and he and tantus together could go together and make sense. This is a first, for me, where I found the home for a mystery adjective to be the implied subject of the verb.
Edits are in bold
Thanks
 
Last edited:

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Adulescenti abeunti, “mane!” clamavit.
Adulescens se non convertit sed perrexit. Celeriter ibat. Celerius quam clodius currebat. Aliam post aliam viam ingressus est. Clodius secutus est. Circum maximum praeteriit, tum aliam viam ingressus est. Clodius secutus est.
Subito clodius rursus cecidit. Adulescens pugno eum percusserat. Clodium humi iacentem intuitus est et iratis oculis, “quid, malum,” inquit, “me vis?” Cur me sequeris?”
Pugionem Clodio ad oculum tenebat. Clodius manus sibi ventri imposuit ubi pugno percussus erat. Pallidus erat.


He shouted “stay” to the young man going away.
The young man did not turn himself around but continued on. He was going quickly. He was running quicker than clodius. He entered one road after another. Clodius followed. He went around in a big circle, then entered another road. Clodius followed.
Suddenly clodius fell again. The young man had struck him with his fist. He looked at clodius laying on the ground and with angry eyes said, “what do you want from me? Why are you following me?”
He was holding a dagger to the eye of clodius. Clodius placed his hands on his belly where he had been struck by (the young man’s) fist. He was pale.

please review
The bold print I am sure is troublesome.
Thanks
Edits in bold
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
He went around the greatest,
This circum isn't the preposition but the noun circus in the accusative.
The young man had stabbed him in a fight.
Pugna means "fight". Pugno can't be a form of this. It's a different word.
was watching
That would be a translation for an verb in the imperfect, which intuitus est isn't.
Clodius placed his hands on his belly where he was (having been) stabbed by the dagger.
Was having been = had been.

You managed to misinterpret pugno twice in two different ways. It isn't a form of pugio, either. (The ablative of pugio is pugione.)
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
This circum isn't the preposition but the noun circus in the accusative.
Pugna means "fight". Pugno can't be a form of this. It's a different word.
That would be a translation for an verb in the imperfect, which intuitus est isn't.
Was having been = had been.
You managed to misinterpret pugno twice in two different ways. It isn't a form of pugio, either. (The ablative of pugio is pugione.)
Corrections in bold
Thank You
 
Top