Cicerone consule, uxor mea et ego advenerunt Romam...

[Nooj]

Cicerone consule, uxor mea et ego advenerunt Romam cum filiis et filio nobis. Quamvis invisus esset, tamen Clodium amicum virum esse inveni et immo tam amiciter fuit ut invitaverit nos cenare cum se. Mensa parata, colloquium fit. Si Cicero suum filium ad Galliam non miserit, ille dixit, certe post unam noctem res publica periverit. Post cenam, uxor et ego saltaverunt sub luce Lunae. Uxor risit per lacrimam suam. Rogavi ei quid res esset, atque dixit, re publica ante pedes nostros perita, reliquum tempus breve nobis esse.

This is what it's supposed to mean:

When Cicero was consul, my wife and I arrived at Rome with our daughters and our son. However hated he might be, I found Clodius to be a friendly man, and indeed he was so friendly that he invited us to dine with him. Once the table had been set, conversation arose. If Cicero had not sent his son to Gaul, he said, the republic would certainly have fallen in the space of one night. After dinner, my wife and I danced beneath the light of the moon. She smiled through her tears. I asked her what the matter was, and she said that, with the republic falling before our feet (this is required to be constructed as abl. abs.), our remaining time was brief.

This is a homework question, so I'd appreciate it if you could be as vague as possible when pointing out areas where I may be wrong. I will get better at this if it's the last thing I do.

 

[Bitmap]

Re: translation attempt

Cicerone consule, uxor mea et ego advenerunt Romam cum filiis et filio nobis.

I would just write filiis and spare out the "et filio", because you can't tell from that word that daughters are meant, anyway.
nobis is wrong. it should be nostris. You can leave out the possessive pronoun in that sentence altogether though.

Quamvis invisus esset, tamen Clodium amicum virum esse inveni et immo tam amiciter fuit ut invitaverit nos cenare cum se.

I don't know if "I found him to be" should be constructed with invenire. I'd prefer something like "putavi", "iudicavi" or "duxi" here

amiciter should be amicus
I would generally use a different adjective for "friendly" here, though. Amicus sounds like a friend of yours. Maybe benignus?

"invitaverit" should be "invitaret" to obey the sequence of tenses.

cenare should be "ad cenandum"

cum se should be secum

Si Cicero suum filium ad Galliam non miserit, ille dixit, certe post unam noctem res publica periverit.

Since this is an irrealis, it should be misisset and peri(vi)sset.

Use Nisi instead of si non

Uxor risit per lacrimam suam.

in your English text, tears is plural.

Rogavi ei quid res esset, atque dixit, re publica ante pedes nostros perita, reliquum tempus breve nobis esse.

rogare goes with accusative: rogavi eam.

perita should be pereunte

nobis -> nostrum

 

[Imber Ranae]

Re: translation attempt

[quote="NoojI would just write filiis and spare out the "et filio", because you can't tell from that word that daughters are meant, anyway.

If he wants to keep the distinction he can use filiabus et filio.

 

[Nooj]

Re: translation attempt

I would just write filiis and spare out the "et filio", because you can't tell from that word that daughters are meant, anyway.

If he wants to keep the distinction he can use filiabus et filio.

I should have read this thread first. Filiabus it is.

nobis is wrong. it should be nostris. You can leave out the possessive pronoun in that sentence altogether though.

Ah. I used a dative here because I remember using a dative to indicate possession in instances like 'nomen mihi est'.

"invitaverit" should be "invitaret" to obey the sequence of tenses.

cenare should be "ad cenandum"

cum se should be secum

in your English text, tears is plural.

rogare goes with accusative: rogavi eam.

perita should be pereunte

nobis -> nostrum

Silly mistakes that I should have picked out, thank you.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Re: translation attempt

The dative of possession is only used with esse. In certain instances possession can be implied by the verb in conjunction with a dative of reference, like mihi in conspectum venerunt "they came into sight for me" i.e. "they came into my sight". But it doesn't work in your sentence.

 

[Damoetas]

uxor mea et ego advenerunt Romam....
uxor et ego saltaverunt sub luce Lunae.

This thread is more than a year old, but I'll just point out one more thing for the sake of completeness (and because I'm bored): these sentences need first-person plural verbs: advenimus, saltavimus.

 

[Nooj]

Thanks! Such a silly mistake...

 

[cinefactus]

Since the thread has been revived...

Does per lacrimam suam work in Latin, or should we use a different construction, such as lacrimans?

 

[Imber Ranae]

uxor mea et ego advenerunt Romam....
uxor et ego saltaverunt sub luce Lunae.

This thread is more than a year old, but I'll just point out one more thing for the sake of completeness (and because I'm bored): these sentences need first-person plural verbs: advenimus, saltavimus.

I'm surprised both I and Bitmap missed this. But yes, Damoetas is absolutely correct: when persons are mixed, first person takes precedence over second person, as here, and second person takes precedence over third, as in the famous salutation: Si tu exercitusque valetis, bene est. Ego quoque valeo.

Since the thread has been revived...

Does per lacrimam suam work in Latin, or should we use a different construction, such as lacrimans?

I tend to think a participle would be better here, though Juvenal does have ut per lacrimas effundere bilem cogaris "so that you are forced to vent your spleen through tears".