Pugio Bruti xxxii

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Vinum” inquit Terentia, “bibibam”
Clodius adnuebat sed Terentiam mentitam esse putabat.

Shouldn’t this be mentientam?
“clodius nodded but he was thinking Terentia was lying”
?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I take it you mean *bibebam and *mentientem.

More literally, it's saying "he thought Terentia had lied". Maybe you're not aware that mentior is a deponent verb and this further confused you.

Also, "he thought Terentia was lying" would be Terentiam mentiri putabat, not mentientem esse. The Latin present participle is not used like the English one to form progressive tenses like "she was lying".
 
Last edited:

john abshire

Well-Known Member
I take it you mean *bibebam and *mentientem.

More literally, it's saying "he thought Terentia had lied". Maybe you're not aware that mentior is a deponent verb and this further confused you.

Also, "he thought Terentia was lying" would be Terentiam mentiri putabat, not mentientem esse. The Latin present participle is not used like the English one to form progressive tenses like "she was lying".
Yes, you read my mind, and my mistakes, as usual; bibebam and mentientem.
I did realize mentior is deponent, and the perfect participle is “having lied”.
I just couldn’t get from Terentiam putabat esse mentitam to “He thought Terentia had lied”. I got “he thought Terentia was having lied.” Is this what I was supposed to morph into “had lied”? Or is there a pluperfect clue here I missed?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Noctu foris romae esse periculosum est! Nemo est qui nesciat!
“It is dangerous to be outside at night in Rome! There is no one who I don’t know!”

I don’t know anyone?? Or/ I know everyone??
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Look again at the person of nesciat. And at the case of qui, for that matter.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Yes.
 

Clemens

Member
Why is nesciat in the subjunctive?
Nihil est qui nesciat.
Wouldn’t nesciet work just as well?
The subjunctive is used in relative clauses when the antecedent is indefinite or general, especially in negative sentences, as here. If you say there is no one who doesn't know, you're referring to non-existent persons, and therefore only potentially existing.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
"rogas"?!" inquit, "pugionem recuperare volo quod meus est!"
"at pugio est tantum. Sunt alii pugiones. Cur hunc ipsum recuperare vis?"


"you ask!?" she said, "I want to recover the dagger because it is mine!"
"But the dagger is only a dagger. There are other daggers. Why do you want to recover this particular one itself?"

bold print is inserted. Is this correct?
in particular, a dagger. In English, a dagger would be repeated. In Latin is the repeated word omitted this way? (I've noticed in other instances, repeated verbs are omitted, but I've not yet seen nouns in the same sentence omitted.)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
bold print is inserted. Is this correct?
in particular, a dagger. In English, a dagger would be repeated. In Latin is the repeated word omitted this way? (I've noticed in other instances, repeated verbs are omitted, but I've not yet seen nouns in the same sentence omitted.)
In English just as in Latin, you can simply say "It's just a dagger". No need to say "dagger" twice.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
In English just as in Latin, you can simply say "It's just a dagger". No need to say "dagger" twice.
I did not see a way to translate at pugio est tantum as "It's just a dagger",

but, i see now I could translate at pugio est tantum as "but it is only a dagger."
(I bet that is what the author intended.)
thanks!
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Of course at means "but". I didn't include it in my post because I was focusing on the most relevant part.

For the rest, there is no difference in meaning between "it's just a dagger" and "it is only a dagger".
 

Clemens

Member
I did not see a way to translate at pugio est tantum as "It's just a dagger",

but, i see now I could translate at pugio est tantum as "but it is only a dagger."
(I bet that is what the author intended.)
thanks!
The author meant, at pūgiō est tantum. Sentences in other languages aren't composed with a view to how they might be expressed in English.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Of course at means "but". I didn't include it in my post because I was focusing on the most relevant part.

For the rest, there is no difference in meaning between "it's just a dagger" and "it is only a dagger".
No, I was not saying that at, “but”, was significant. I put “but” in italics just to introduce the (English) sentence, like someone normally would when writing English. The issue for me was working in tantum , “only”. I could translate pugio est tantum as “the dagger is only_____” but was stuck. I could fill in the blank with “a dagger” or rephrase it as “it is only a dagger”. I did not think at the time that “just” and “only” are interchangeable. Thanks
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member
Cui illa: “Audi: intuenti pugio meus videtur lineas habere quae soli similes lucent. Adiuvabisne me an non?”
To which she (said): “Listen: Looking at my dagger, it seems to have lines which shine similar to the sun. Will you help me or not?”
??
The last sentence, an non. Literally this is “whether no”, according to the index in back. Secretly non means “not “ to me, but if I were to say “or not” in Latin, it would be aut non.
Is the translation correct?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
No, I was not saying that at, “but”, was significant. I put “but” in italics just to introduce the (English) sentence, like someone normally would when writing English. The issue for me was working in tantum , “only”. I could translate pugio est tantum as “the dagger is only_____” but was stuck. I could fill in the blank with “a dagger” or rephrase it as “it is only a dagger”. I did not think at the time that “just” and “only” are interchangeable. Thanks
Your problem is that you mistook pugio for the subject of est when it is in fact its predicative complement and the subject is a third-person "it" implied in the verb est. It isn't "the dagger is..." but "it is..."
Rather "to whom".
Looking at my dagger, it seems to have lines which shine similar to the sun.
This conveys the message well enough, but you could have better grammar with "When you look at my dagger, it seems to..."

On the other hand, in a totally literal (but not very fluid) way it is "to (someone) looking [at it], my dagger seems to..."
The last sentence, an non. Literally this is “whether no”, according to the index in back.
Really? Didn't you rather look up both words separately? An can mean "whether" in some contexts, but not here. This an non means plainly "or not".
if I were to say “or not” in Latin, it would be aut non.
No. Latin has several sorts of "or". An is used for "or" between two options in a question. Aut can't be used that way.
 
Last edited:
Top