Andria vs. 164 - 171

[Matthaeus]

SI. rogas?
mala mens, malus animu'. quem quidem ego si sensero . .
sed quid opust verbis? sin eveniat quod volo, 165
in Pamphilo ut nil sit morae, restat Chremes
cui mi expurgandus est: et spero confore.
nunc tuomst officium has bene ut adsimules nuptias,
perterrefacias Davom, observes filium
quid agat, quid cum illo consili captet. SO. sat est: 170
curabo. SI. eamu' nunciam intro: i prae, sequar.

SI. You ask? A wicked mind, an evil soul. To be sure, if I ever get wind of him ... but what need is there of words? If however it turns out how I wish, that there be no delay in Pamphilus (wthell does that mean?), Chremes remains to whom I will have to excuse Pamphilus from blame, and I hope that this will happen. Now it is your duty to feign this wedding well, to terrify Davos thoroughly, to watch what my son is up to, and what plot he's hatching with him.

SO. That's enough, I will take care of that.


SI. Let us go inside now. Go first, I will follow.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

in Pamphilo ut nil sit morae, restat Chremes
cui mi expurgandus est: et spero confore.
delay in Pamphilus (wthell does that mean?)

There is a better reading

"In Pamphilo ut nil sit morae restat Chremes,
Qui mi exorandus est et spero confore"

Possible understanding (I had difficulty as well):

"In Pamphilo restat Chremes, ut nihil sit morae.
Chremes mihi exorandus est et spero confore."
in aliquo restare = be against someone
mora = impedimentum
ut nil sit morae = description of how "restat Chremes". Nothing impedes him, in other words nothing persuades him to change his mind.

"Chremes is still against Pamphulus, for there is nothing that would suade him otherwise, so I'll go and do just that and I hope that it will all work out".

 

[Deleted member 13757]

quem quidem ego si sensero . .

sensero is the difficult for me. Is it of the sense:

"I will punish him" or "I will change his mind"

EDIT:

Ok I think it's the sense of "change his mind, affect him".

"quem quidem ego si sensero . .
sed quid opust verbis? sin eveniat quod volo..."

Whom indeed if I persuade... but alas what else is there to say? "But what if it does not happen as I want?..."

 

[Matthaeus]

Since when did the verb sentio mean anything like "to punish"? Unless I'm mistaken... you'll have to do better than that, lol.

 

[Pacifica]

I'd rather say it's something like this:

Quem quidem ego si sensero (quid conari quod mihi non placeat, verberabo).

Sentire doesn't mean "to punish" or "to persuade" as far as I know.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

Since when did the verb sentio mean anything like "to punish"? Unless I'm mistaken... you'll have to do better than that, lol.

It doesn't mean to punish or to persuade. Those are derived from context.

I *really* do not understand that verb in the context. Something is missing...

The only definitions of sentio I know are; to sense, to feel, to hear*

Now, you have to step up and explain what you understand by sensero fut. perf. Give me the most literal translation you have.

EDIT*: even the definition "to hear" I do not understand. I have not encountered sentio in any other context apart from it's straightforward usage "to feel/to sense". I also do not know of any idiomatic uses of "to hear" with that verb. So if you can show examples would be good.

 

[Pacifica]

It is "to feel" by any of the senses. It can be to hear, as well as to see, etc. Look here.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

It is "to feel" by any of the senses. It can be to hear, as well as to see, etc. Look here.

That, does not help. I know what the definition is

Do you really understand "eum sensero fut. perf"? Please explain. "I will finish feeling him in the future" quid malum?

EDIT:
Unless it was used for "to understand". "te sentio" - I understand you. Which I was not familiar with. Only if it is "to understand" the fut. perf. would make sense. "If only I will have understood him"

Pacis puella Matthaeus

 

[Pacifica]

It's a future condition, and the future perfect is common in future conditions. It's just that he didn't finish his sentence, so we can just guess what's implied. Personally I think it sounds like a threat, and I think it may be something like this:

If I feel (lit. "if I'll have felt") that he... (is doing something bad, then I will....!).

 

[Deleted member 13757]

It's a future condition, and the future perfect is common in future conditions.

The difficulty is not with future conditionals. But with fut. perf. of sentio. I cannot comprehend the perfective sense of future sentio.

If I feel (lit. "if I'll have felt") that he... (is doing something bad, then I will....!).

Yeah. It feel like there is a long form idiom of the some kind with a different verb, which he adapted and changed to sentio.

 

[Matthaeus]

The difficulty is not in parsing that word but in the semantics of it, lol
Once we find a meaning, the grammar will fall into place...
but for now we're at at a loss...

 

[Deleted member 13757]

but for now we're at at a loss...

Poets are weird....

 

[Matthaeus]

Take it up with Terence.

 

[Pacifica]

Well, I feel it's like I said "If I'll have felt (= seen, discovered, etc...) that he's trying to do something (to impede Simo's plans...)" But it's only a theory of course.

But I don't get what you mean by "I cannot comprehend the perfective sense of future sentio". What's different from any other verb? If he'll have felt that... then.

 

[Aurifex]

Well, I feel it's like I said "If I'll have felt (= seen, discovered, etc...) that he's trying to do something (to impede Simo's plans...)" But it's only a theory of course.

You're right. The rhetorical failure to finish the sentence like this is known as aposiopesis, and examples can be found in both verse and prose.

 

[Matthaeus]

Well, I feel it's like I said "If I'll have felt (= seen, discovered, etc...) that he's trying to do something (to impede Simo's plans...)" But it's only a theory of course.

Yes of course, it's a conditional statement (albeit incomplete), with only the protasis stated, after which he trails off or changes his mind and says "what the hell am i even talking about here"! So your train of thinking here is plausible. We don't even know what the main verb of the apodosis could have been, so we should be fine with "Really, if I'll have discovered that he .... " and that's it!

 

[Pacifica]

Exactly!

 

[Deleted member 13757]

You're right. The rhetorical failure to finish the sentence like this is known as aposiopesis, and examples can be found in both verse and prose.

This is understood. Common in a lot of languages.

But am I the only one having difficulty with "eum sensero"? OK, there are verbs that would naturally allow a perfective sense with or without context.

id faciam -- I will be doing. The futurity of the process.
id fecero -- It will be done. The futurity of the thing.

But fut. perf. eum sensero with a person as object? Changes the meaning? If I take aliquem sentio as "to feel somone/to put your self in their shoes" ok then "If only I will ever be in a state to have felt what he is feeling"...
if I take "aliquem sentio" as "to feel someone with a physical sense/touch" my dirty mind might create a rape scenario. I can go on... Maybe I am having a big brain fart.

 

[Pacifica]

I think that even the protasis isn't complete. There would have been an inf. going with eum to form an acc-inf. Like, say, si sensero eum aliquid facere.

I still don't see what the problem is with the perfective aspect. It makes as full a sense to me as with any other verb. If he feels that he's doing something, after having felt (= discovered by any of his senses) it (when the action of "feeling/discovering" is completed, hence the future perfect), then he will...

 

[Matthaeus]

Yes, the protasis itself isn't complete, its main verb is missing, like PP has implied.