pugio bruti xxx

[john abshire]

Aliquid feminae dixit, tum ad Terentiam rediit. Consedit in una e sellis et terentiam intuens rogavit: "Age dic, in qua re te adiuvare possum?"
"Pugio," inquit Terentia, "mihi ablatus est; eum recperare volo."
"Cur putas me posse te adiuvare?"
"Me parva," inquit, "patrem in ancilla reperienda adiuvisti, itaque putavi te et alia reperire posse."

He said something to the woman, then returned to Terentia. He sat in one of the chairs and gazing at Terentia he asked: "Come on I say, in which affair am I able to help you?"
"Terentia said, "My dagger was stolen from me; I want to recover it."
"Why do you think that i am able to help you?"
She said, "You helped me and my father in finding the small servant, therefore I thought you would be able to find other (things).
??
I am mainly apprehensive about the words and sentences in bold type.

 

[Pacifica]

I say

Dic doesn't mean "I say". That would be dico.

in which affair am I able to help you?

That's pretty much correct, but you can translate it more fluidly as "In what (matter) can I help you?" or even "How can I help you?"

You helped me and my father in finding the small servant

Me parva is an ablative absolute: "me (being) little", i.e. "when I was little".

therefore I thought you would be able to find other (things).

"other things too (= et)"

 

[john abshire]

Dic doesn't mean "I say". That would be dico.

That's pretty much correct, but you can translate it more fluidly as "In what (matter) can I help you?" or even "How can I help you?"

Me parva is an ablative absolute: "me (being) little", i.e. "when I was little".

"other things too (= et)"

me parva = “with me having been (or being) small”; doesn’t there need to be a verb, with the 4th part in ablative?

 

[Pacifica]

me parva = “with me having been (or being) small”

Being, not having been.

doesn’t there need to be a verb, with the 4th part in ablative?

Sum has no participle in classical Latin, therefore that participle is necessarily left "implied" in ablative absolutes. If there were a participle, though, it would be a present active one, so not a 4th part.

 

[john abshire]

Clodius exclamavit: “Patrem tuum! Filia es Terentia Aetu! Te me iam ante videsse sciebam! Profecto te in pugione reperiendo adiuvare possum. Res enim reperire optime scio. Nihil est quod reperire non possim.
“Ain’ tu?” respondit Terentia. “Num repperisti ancillam patris? Eam enim nusquam vidi postea.”

Clodius exclaimed: “your father! You are the daughter of Terentius Altus! I knew already I had seen you before!
Certainly I am able to help you in finding the dagger. For I know the best (way) finding things. There is nothing which I am not able to find.
“Really?” Terentia responded. “You did not find the servant of my father did you? For afterward I saw her nowhere.”
??

 

[Pacifica]

I knew already I had seen you before!

Your translation here is a little ambiguous but it looks as if perhaps you thought that iam modified sciebam. In fact it modifies vidisse, just like ante. Iam ante is a unit, if you will. So it's more like "I knew I had already seen you before", but just "before" without "already" is enough in English.

Certainly I am able to help you in finding the dagger.

That's essentially correct, but a better wording perhaps would be "I can certainly help you find the dagger".

For I know the best (way) finding things.

"I know very well how to find things" (or even "I'm very good at finding things").

 

[john abshire]

Your translation here is a little ambiguous but it looks as if perhaps you thought that iam modified sciebam. In fact it modifies vidisse, just like ante. Iam ante is a unit, if you will. So it's more like "I knew I had already seen you before", but just "before" without "already" is enough in English.

That's essentially correct, but a better wording perhaps would be "I can certainly help you find the dagger".

"I know very well how to find things" (or even "I'm very good at finding things").

“I knew I had seen you before” was what I wanted to write, leaving out iam, but just because it sounded like a common phrase that would follow “I knew”. Te me iam ante vidisse sciebam, I was thinking could have been just as easily been translated as; “I knew you have seen me before, (already).” Is this correct?

 

[Pacifica]

I was thinking could have been just as easily been translated as; “I knew you have seen me before, (already).” Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct (well, "I knew you had seen me before"). Only the context makes it clear that it's the other way round.

 

[john abshire]

Yes, that is correct (well, "I knew you had seen me before"). Only the context makes it clear that it's the other way round.

Yes, I meant ‘excepting context’.
But there was a problem hidden inside. I had written videsse, not realizing the mistake, it should have been vidisse. (Corrected now) Still, sciebam vidisse. “I knew he was seeing/ saw” or, “I knew he had seen”? When the primary verb is imperfect, and the infinitive “past”, is the secondary tense perfect or pluperfect? Do you have a choice, depending on context?

 

[Pacifica]

It is pluperfect.

The perfect infinitive means that the action it denotes took place before that of the main verb.

 

[john abshire]

It is pluperfect.

The perfect infinitive means that the action it denotes took place before that of the main verb.

Do both imperfect and perfect main verbs have a secondary translated as pluperfect when the infinitive is “past”?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes.

 

[john abshire]

Yes.

No wonder.
Thanks

 

[john abshire]

page xxxi
“Volo” respondit illa.
Clodius terentiae adnuit et Terentia de nocte proxima narravit. Clodius manum ventri magno imposuit et Terentiae narranti, “quid,” inquit, “malum, narras?! Fuistne in caupona ‘Asina’?! Est periculossima. Scelesti soli ad eam eunt. Quid tu ibi noctu agebas?”

“I want to” replied Terentia (the former).
Clodius nodded to Terentia and Terentia told him about the previous night. Clodius placed a hand on his large belly and saying to Terentia,; “what?” He said, “What are you saying?” He said “were you in the Asina inn?! It is very dangerous. The crooked alone go there. What were you doing there at night?”
??
Edits

 

[Pacifica]

“I want to” replied the former.

"She" is probably a more likely translation than "the former", but what's the context?

Terentia talked concerning the closest night.

Better: "Terentia told (him) about the previous night".

Clodius placed a hand on his large belly and on Terentia saying;

Lol, no. "Clodius placed a hand on his large belly and said to Terentia as she told (her story): ..."

“what evil are you speaking of?”

Malum after an interrogative word emphasizes the question, as you would say in English "what on earth...?" or the like.

the inn Asina’?!

Not too bad, but you'd usually say it the other way round: "the Asina inn".

The crooked and alone went there.

- There is no "and".
- Check the tense of eunt.

What did you do there at night?

Better: "What were you doing there at night?"

 

[john abshire]

"She" is probably a more likely translation than "the former", but what's the context?

Better: "Terentia told (him) about the previous night".

Lol, no. "Clodius placed a hand on his large belly and said to Terentia as she told (her story): ..."

Malum after an interrogative word emphasizes the question, as you would say in English "what on earth...?" or the like.

Not too bad, but you'd usually say it the other way round: "the Asina inn".

- There is no "and".
- Check the tense of eunt.

Better: "What were you doing there at night?"

Edits are in bold.
Is the sentence “the crooked go there alone.” Correct?

 

[Pacifica]

saying to Terentia

This is not correct. You can see that narranti agrees with Terentiae, not with Clodius.

"Clodius placed a hand on his large belly and said to Terentia as she told (her story): ..."

“What did you say?”

Check the tense of narras. You had it right the first time although you got other things wrong.

Is the sentence “the crooked go there alone.” Correct?

No. It's more like "the crooked alone go there", "only the crooked go there".

 

[john abshire]

This is not correct. You can see that narranti agrees with Terentiae, not with Clodius.


Check the tense of narras. You had it right the first time although you got other things wrong.

No. It's more like "the crooked alone go there", "only the crooked go there".

Clodius manum ventri magno imposuit et Terentiae narranti, “quid”, inquit, “malum, narras?!”
Clodius placed a hand on his large belly and saying to Terentia “what”, he said “what are you saying?!”
I made corrections in bold again.
If “saying to Terentia” is right, how can it be? Narranti is an adjective modifying Terentia, shouldn’t Terentia be the one “saying”?

 

[Pacifica]

Narranti is an adjective modifying Terentia, shouldn’t Terentia be the one “saying”?

Terentia is "telling (her story)", narranti. And Clodius "says", inquit, something to Terentia while she is telling her story.

 

[john abshire]

Terentia is "telling (her story)", narranti. And Clodius "says", inquit, something to Terentia while she is telling her story.

I am still confused
Clodius placed a hand on his large belly and saying to Terentia, “what?” he said “What are you saying?”
Is this correct?
Or/
“to Terentia telling her story, clodius put his hand on his large belly and said, “what.......”
?