vel tuendis vel protrabendis

TJ AS Jones

New Member
This is phrase from one 18th Ct. letter, with which I have serious problems. Any help is welcome. thx in advance: ''...dum in dioecesum confiniis vel tuendis, vel protrabendis altercarentur, pacis ordine perturbato''
 

Araneus

Umbraticus Lector
Has to be protrahendis, not protrabendis...
I understand it as something like this: "while they argued about whether to guard or protract (?) the confines of the districts, the order of peace (was) disturbed"

Not the easiest one. I might be quite off...
 

TJ AS Jones

New Member
Thanks for this try Aranevs. I had the same idea, but I am not sure whether is it correct. Something still just doesn't fit yet. There are some other examples where protrabendis has been used, and they are all from 17th-18th centuries, so, maybe it is some corruption from that period.
 

Araneus

Umbraticus Lector
Might surely be a corruption. I thought that if you are working with an actual manuscript, it may be an h that is curved so that it may be mistaken for a b. I have no idea what protrabendis is supposed to mean, though, but I guess its a gerundive ablative plural.

I'm not really familiar with dioecesum either... I can't remember having encountered that in any classical texts - yet. But I guess it's genetive plural of dioecesis, which is a province or a district.

Let's wait for some of the others to weigh in on this :)
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
In a Christian Latin text I would suspect dioecesum means diocese.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I understand it as something like this: "while they argued about whether to guard or protract (?) the confines of the districts
For that you'd normally need utrum... an... and finite verbs.
the order of peace (was) disturbed"
Ordine perturbato is an ablative absolute, so it doesn't make a main clause as your translation would make it look like.

...dum in dioecesum confiniis vel tuendis, vel protrahendis altercarentur, pacis ordine perturbato...

It's literally something like: "...as they were quarreling in either preserving or enlarging the boundaries of the dioceses, the order of peace having been disturbed..."

It isn't even a complete sentence, and it would be difficult to give a more polished translation, or to be sure all the correct nuances are rendered, without seeing the context.
 

Araneus

Umbraticus Lector
For that you'd normally need utrum... an... and finite verbs.
I know... Thought it was a bit weird with vel -vel.
Ordine perturbato is an ablative absolute, so it doesn't make a main clause as your translation would make it look like.
Reading it as a complete sentence, I took it to be a Tacitus-style clause. I have no idea whether that is likely in this text, but if it were, I thought it made some sense.

...so we need to find out whether this is a complete sentence or a cut-out.
 

TJ AS Jones

New Member
No, it is definitely a cut-out. Complete sentence is quite large one, but, here it is: ''Perniciosa quidem exshibit Albanae genti diuturna Episcoporum disceptatio, qui, dum in dioecesum confiniis vel tuendis, vel protrahendis altercarentur, pacis ordine perturbato discordiaeque fluctibus agitati ipsas periclitantium Fidelium calamitates augebant, magna inter dissidia majora pericula intendentes''.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Reading it as a complete sentence, I took it to be a Tacitus-style clause.
Tacitus has a very sharp style with many ellipses, but his sentences are complete; that bit, having no main clause, couldn't possibly be a complete sentence.

Perniciosa quidem exstitit Albanae genti diuturna Episcoporum disceptatio, qui, dum in dioecesum confiniis vel tuendis, vel protrahendis altercarentur, pacis ordine perturbato discordiaeque fluctibus agitati ipsas periclitantium Fidelium calamitates augebant, magna inter dissidia majora pericula intendentes.

Disastrous indeed for the Alban people was the long dispute of the bishops. As they were quarreling about either keeping or extending the boundaries of the dioceses, the order of peace having been disturbed, the bishops, tossed about by the billows of discord, were aggravating the very misfortunes of the endangered faithful, bringing the threat of greater dangers in the middle of their great dissensions.
 

Araneus

Umbraticus Lector
Seems you have it figured out, Pacifica :)
Now, I'm just wondering... Can a sentence with an ellipsis - lacking a finite verb for instance - be called complete? I'm thinking about such as "Hic Suebiae finis" and "Sordes omnium ac torpor procerum". Both examples from Germania, para 46.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I suppose it can be discussed, but in my view, they are complete because even if there's an ellipsis of est or sim., it's still implied, the sense is understood, so the thought is complete.
 

Araneus

Umbraticus Lector
I suppose it can be discussed, but in my view, they are complete because even if there's an ellipsis of est or sim., it's still implied, the sense is understood, so the thought is complete.
That makes sense. And in most cases its some form of sum that is subject to ellipsis.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
So, when I said Tacitus' sentences, unlike the bit posted by the OP, were complete, I meant they expressed complete thoughts, in spite of the ellipses; whereas if someone did write dum in dioecesum confiniis vel tuendis, vel protrahendis altercarentur, pacis ordine perturbato, alone (not even as an answer to a previous question like "When?", say), that wouldn't be a complete thought, as there isn't even any main thought (= main clause) in there, but only two temporal/circumstantial/adverbial thoughts.
 

Araneus

Umbraticus Lector
Sure, I follow you now :) I misconceived the whole thing upon inferring it was supposed to be a complete sentence.

...so remember always to serve us the entire sentence (and context if possible), even though the issue is in a smaller phrase. Better to have to much to work with than to little ;)
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Yes, indeed. That is actually one of the rules of the forum, that translation requesters should provide context. There are good reasons for that rule; one word or phrase can translate differently depending on context, etc., etc., so you can't be sure to get the best translation, or even a translation at all accurate, if you provide only a fragment.
 

Etaoin Shrdlu

Civis Illustris
That is actually one of the rules of the forum, that translation requesters should provide context.
Where, exactly? I've just gone to the Latin to English forum, pretending that I was a newbie with a query, and there are a bewildering number of pinned posts. I'm not sure why the top one is pinned at all, and the others seem to be in a strange order. But it's not in the READ THIS BEFORE POSTING IN THIS FORUM thread, where you'd expect it. (Also, the link to the English to Latin forum in that thread is dead.)
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
Fixed the link, unstuck the first sticky. I found the rule hidden away carefully. Many of these things have evolved, so if you have any ideas on how to improve it, we can do so.
 

Etaoin Shrdlu

Civis Illustris
Giving more prominence to forum rules would help. But that forum is a bit of a mixed bag in any case, with a lot of material that might be more appropriate for archives, if there were archives here.

There must be some way of grabbing the attention of the visitors most likely to do something they wouldn't do if they were aware that they shouldn't, apart from use Google Translate. For the ones who want something translated into Latin, it's the recurring phrases and the dreams problem; for those who have a text, it's context and a link to the original if possible. Something very short, and impossible to miss, because one-off visitors aren't likely to read long lists.
 
Top