Pugio Bruti XVII

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Terentia, cum Lucium asinum paulisper intuita esset, perrexit. De pugione ablato rursus cogitabat: Nesciebat quid faceret, sed aliquid faciendum esse sciebat.

Terentia followed, while for a little while she watched the ass of Lucius. She was thinking about the ___________ dagger again: she did not know what was done, but she knew something was to be done.
??
Help!
Iuva!
edit no.1
 
Last edited:

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
intuita esset is pluperfect, so the "cum" is not "while", but "after she had...".
"Lucium" is not genitive.
"perrexit" better "continued (on)" than "followed", I think.
"ablato" is from "aufero" (to take away/steal). It follows the pattern of "fero".
You should look back a couple threads ago at the discussion regarding the deliberative subjunctive for "quid faceret".
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
ablato is the past passive of aufero
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
intuita esset is pluperfect, so the "cum" is not "while", but "after she had...".
"Lucium" is not genitive.
"perrexit" better "continued (on)" than "followed", I think.
"ablato" is from "aufero" (to take away/steal). It follows the pattern of "fero".
You should look back a couple threads ago at the discussion regarding the deliberative subjunctive for "quid faceret".
I can’t find quid faceret.
What is the meaning?
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member

Review the discussion of "quo iret" here.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

Review the discussion of "quo iret" here.
I made the corrections in my notes, but didn’t get them checked.
Previous post-
Viam ingressa est, sed nesciebat quo iret
She entered the road, but she didn’t know where she should go.

Applied to the first half of this sentence-
nesciebat quid faceret, sed aliquid faciendum esse sciebat.
She did not know what she should do, but she knew something was doing (but she knew that something had to be done)

I’m sure the second half is wrong, but I am lost.
edits in red
 
Last edited:

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Viam ingressa est, sed nesciebat quo ire
She entered the road, but she didn’t know where she should go.
quo iret

Applied to the first half of this sentence-
nesciebat quid faceret, sed aliquid faciendum esse sciebat.
She did not know what she should do, but she knew something was doing.
I’m sure the second half is wrong, but I am lost.
... that something had to be done.
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus
...watching the ass of Lucius ... sounds saucy :D
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
...watching the ass of Lucius ... sounds saucy :D
I thought so too (I was trying to see if anyone was paying attention)
Seriously, I couldn’t come up with anything different (except maybe Lucius’s ass).
Lucius and the ass maybe? Since they are both accusative, if lucium is not genetive, but there should be an et in there or equivalent. So what is the translation?
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
presumably Lucius is the ass/donkey's name.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
this is synonymous with "something had to be done". They're two ways of expressing the same thing.
Oh! You are treating sed aliquid faciendum esse sciebat as an indirect statement, accusative infinitive, aliquid esse? Then esse is the same tense as sciebat ?
This is not a “too obvious” question, for a couple of reasons. I have not yet seen a gerundive used where it means its raw definition “to be verbed” , and it is not clear that faciendum is a gerund or a gerundive, and for all I know “gerund esse” has some meaning I am not yet aware of.
So, is my above analysis correct?
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
presumably Lucius is the ass/donkey's name.
Like in Apuleius's Metamorphoses.

And, indeed, if you want to avoid unfortunate associations, you can simply say "donkey" instead of "ass".
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
You are treating sed aliquid faciendum esse sciebat as an indirect statement, accusative infinitive, aliquid esse?
Aliquid faciendum esse is an indirect statement. Sciebat is the verb that this indirect statement depends on.
Then esse is the same tense as sciebat ?
It's no very clear what you mean there, but if you mean that both are things happening at the same time, then yes.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
how do you get “something had to be done” from faciendum esse?
Oh! You are treating sed aliquid faciendum esse sciebat as an indirect statement, accusative infinitive, aliquid esse? Then esse is the same tense as sciebat ?
I'm pretty sure you've asked all of these questions before MULTIPLE times. There is a point where it gets really tiresome.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Aliquid faciendum esse is an indirect statement. Sciebat is the verb that this indirect statement depends on.

It's no very clear what you mean there, but if you mean that both are things happening at the same time, then yes.
That is what I meant. I was trying to get “was to be done” from faciendum esse. Esse became “was” from the tense of sciebat.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
tum intellexit se ibi olim fuisse cum patre. Pater Terentiae cum brevi viro ibi locutus erat. Una enim e patris ancillis fugerat: Pater ad virum brevem cum Terentia filia statim ierat et hominem brevem rogaverat ut ancillam sibi reperiret. Terentia nihil aliud de hac re sciebat.

Then she realized she was there once with her father. The father of Terentia had followed there with a short man. For one man had fled from the servants of her father: The father had gone to the short man with the daughter of Terentia and had asked the short man that he find the servant for him.
Terentia knew nothing else concerning this affair.

My translation doesn't really make sense. There must be something wrong somewhere.
the part in bold type, from sibi, I tried to get "to himself" to fit and couldn't, settling on "for him". Is this correct?
 
Top