I had a few questions about some passages/sections in DBG. Most of them are focused on grammatical minutiae. Any help (even partial) is appreciated.
4.24 -- navibus egredi prohibebant involves an ablative of place whence rather than separation, correction, given the motion involved in egredi? The textbook I assigned to my students has "abl. of separation," but this seems very wrong to me.
4.27 -- cum ad eos oratoris modo Caesaris mandata deferret: is modo here an ablative of accordance? Is it an idiomatic use of the ablative of manner? modo has perplexed me more than once given the stringently defined constructions of the ablative of manner in general.
4.29 -- facultas administrandi: facultas typically introduces an objective genitive given the relationship to facio, correct? I assume that is how administrandi is best explained.
4.33 -- genus pugnae: Gildersleeve labels this kind of genitive an explanatory/epexegetical genitive (§361). Has this terminology been superseded by another?
4.34 -- quanta praedae faciendae...facultas: same questions as for 4.29.
5.25 -- fuerat usus: This seems to me to be a variant of erat usus, given that if usus were a noun it would be a dative of purpose. I am aware that the pluperfect passive in later Latin was often constructed with the pluperfect of esse. Is that was is happening here? I suppose the main point is that I am confused and surprised not to see erat usus.
5.27 -- ne quā legio: is quā necessarily adverbial, or could it also modify legio as (ali)qua legio?
5.30 -- "neque is sum," inquit, "qui gravissime ex vobis mortis periculo terrear." I am comfortable with the literal meaning and the grammar, but I still fail to see what this actually is meant to signify in context. I have not found a translation that makes it clear.
5.34 -- rursus se ad signa recipientes insequatur: Ambiorix orders the Gauls to follow the Romans retreating back to their standards. I assume that se here refers to the Romans, which prompted the question of whether this is only because se recipere is an established idiom, or whether se is properly used when the object of a participle is also the noun being described by it.
5.35 -- sin autem locum tenere vellent, nec virtuti locus relinquebatur etc. -- why are future more vivid conditions thrown into the past (A&G 516 f.) subjunctive in the protasis? I have Woodcock in my office (I am on break for the summer), so a reference thereto would be sufficient.
5.40 -- ut ultro militum concursu ad vocibus sibi parcere cogeretur. I am having real problems resolving the ultro in this clause. There was a forum post somewhere that presented a compelling interpretation, but my main issue is that it is an adverb that the few online translations I have found have construed with concursu, which I am having a hard time accepting given that it would seem to also apply to vocibus, which has even less of a direct verbal meaning. The interpretation by the poster was that it meant "beyond [expectation]," but that meaning was not explicitly attested by L&S. I remain uncertain and would appreciate clarification.
5.41 -- addunt etiam....causa. This section I understand literally but do not understand in context. What should we reasonably assume was told to Cicero? The death of Sabinus certainly makes sense, but how does Ambiorix fit in? Is Ambiorix literally present? If not, how could the mention of how he defeated Sabinus and Cotta persuade Cicero given that the Nervii are attempting to deceive him in the same way Ambiorix did Sabinus and Cotta? I am not sure how to interpret this section or how literally ostentant should be taken.
6.13 -- genus eorum hominum: As in 4.33, is this commonly labeled an explanatory/epexegetical genitive?
6.13 -- numerus adulescentium: My post history will reveal a similar question previously asked: should adulescentium be considered a genitive of the whole, a genitive of material, or something else entirely? If the focus of some phrases affects our labeling of the case uses (e.g. initia belli -- possessive or objective?), is numerus here defining a subset of maturing men or a group of certain size made up of maturing men?
6.18 -- in reliquis vitae institutae hoc fere ab reliquis different, quod...: Caesar uses this ablative-of-cause-followed-by-quod construction with some regularity, sometimes with re. Is quod here a simple conjunction ("because")? If so, is there contemporary or anterior precedent? The construction seems odd to me, perhaps because I expect an ut instead of quod and am more familiar with the conjunctival quod meaning "that" or equivalent in later Latin.
6.19 -- quantas pecunias ab uxoribus dotis nomine acceperunt: is nomine here a standard ablative or purely idiomatic? None of the standard categories seems to fit.
6.19 -- vitae necisque habent potestatem: I am labeling the genitives as objective given the verbal overtones of potestatem. Is that accurate?
Thank you again for any help!
4.24 -- navibus egredi prohibebant involves an ablative of place whence rather than separation, correction, given the motion involved in egredi? The textbook I assigned to my students has "abl. of separation," but this seems very wrong to me.
4.27 -- cum ad eos oratoris modo Caesaris mandata deferret: is modo here an ablative of accordance? Is it an idiomatic use of the ablative of manner? modo has perplexed me more than once given the stringently defined constructions of the ablative of manner in general.
4.29 -- facultas administrandi: facultas typically introduces an objective genitive given the relationship to facio, correct? I assume that is how administrandi is best explained.
4.33 -- genus pugnae: Gildersleeve labels this kind of genitive an explanatory/epexegetical genitive (§361). Has this terminology been superseded by another?
4.34 -- quanta praedae faciendae...facultas: same questions as for 4.29.
5.25 -- fuerat usus: This seems to me to be a variant of erat usus, given that if usus were a noun it would be a dative of purpose. I am aware that the pluperfect passive in later Latin was often constructed with the pluperfect of esse. Is that was is happening here? I suppose the main point is that I am confused and surprised not to see erat usus.
5.27 -- ne quā legio: is quā necessarily adverbial, or could it also modify legio as (ali)qua legio?
5.30 -- "neque is sum," inquit, "qui gravissime ex vobis mortis periculo terrear." I am comfortable with the literal meaning and the grammar, but I still fail to see what this actually is meant to signify in context. I have not found a translation that makes it clear.
5.34 -- rursus se ad signa recipientes insequatur: Ambiorix orders the Gauls to follow the Romans retreating back to their standards. I assume that se here refers to the Romans, which prompted the question of whether this is only because se recipere is an established idiom, or whether se is properly used when the object of a participle is also the noun being described by it.
5.35 -- sin autem locum tenere vellent, nec virtuti locus relinquebatur etc. -- why are future more vivid conditions thrown into the past (A&G 516 f.) subjunctive in the protasis? I have Woodcock in my office (I am on break for the summer), so a reference thereto would be sufficient.
5.40 -- ut ultro militum concursu ad vocibus sibi parcere cogeretur. I am having real problems resolving the ultro in this clause. There was a forum post somewhere that presented a compelling interpretation, but my main issue is that it is an adverb that the few online translations I have found have construed with concursu, which I am having a hard time accepting given that it would seem to also apply to vocibus, which has even less of a direct verbal meaning. The interpretation by the poster was that it meant "beyond [expectation]," but that meaning was not explicitly attested by L&S. I remain uncertain and would appreciate clarification.
5.41 -- addunt etiam....causa. This section I understand literally but do not understand in context. What should we reasonably assume was told to Cicero? The death of Sabinus certainly makes sense, but how does Ambiorix fit in? Is Ambiorix literally present? If not, how could the mention of how he defeated Sabinus and Cotta persuade Cicero given that the Nervii are attempting to deceive him in the same way Ambiorix did Sabinus and Cotta? I am not sure how to interpret this section or how literally ostentant should be taken.
6.13 -- genus eorum hominum: As in 4.33, is this commonly labeled an explanatory/epexegetical genitive?
6.13 -- numerus adulescentium: My post history will reveal a similar question previously asked: should adulescentium be considered a genitive of the whole, a genitive of material, or something else entirely? If the focus of some phrases affects our labeling of the case uses (e.g. initia belli -- possessive or objective?), is numerus here defining a subset of maturing men or a group of certain size made up of maturing men?
6.18 -- in reliquis vitae institutae hoc fere ab reliquis different, quod...: Caesar uses this ablative-of-cause-followed-by-quod construction with some regularity, sometimes with re. Is quod here a simple conjunction ("because")? If so, is there contemporary or anterior precedent? The construction seems odd to me, perhaps because I expect an ut instead of quod and am more familiar with the conjunctival quod meaning "that" or equivalent in later Latin.
6.19 -- quantas pecunias ab uxoribus dotis nomine acceperunt: is nomine here a standard ablative or purely idiomatic? None of the standard categories seems to fit.
6.19 -- vitae necisque habent potestatem: I am labeling the genitives as objective given the verbal overtones of potestatem. Is that accurate?
Thank you again for any help!
