De Bello Gallico
- Thread starter CMatthiasT88
- Start date
You can find good free commentaries on google books.
Thank you, however I would like to get an edition of the English in print if possible. I’m looking at translations from Warrington and Brooks, if either those ring a bell.
Also only a minor point:
Also only a minor point:
I‘d thought the subject was Dumnorix, singular.
Last edited:
Here I'm wondering how to parse minimum and plurimum. I would say they are both neut. acc. substantives. And also that gratia would be ablative instrumental.
Last edited:
Yes, the objects of posset (they could also arguably be regarded as adverbial).
Yes.
Thank you, here ac Bibracte looks to be in the ablative, but it seems like it aught to be in the accusative: ac Bibractem.
Last edited:
Thank you, wondering here how you would understand the phrase: recusaturos quo minus perpetuo.
Last edited:
(neque) recusaturos = (nor) going to refuse
quominus = very literally "by which less"; i.e. "with the result that not"; can be translated slightly less literally in this case as "that" or, optimally, by just turning quominus . . . essent into an infinitive as that translator did.
perpetuo = forever
quominus = very literally "by which less"; i.e. "with the result that not"; can be translated slightly less literally in this case as "that" or, optimally, by just turning quominus . . . essent into an infinitive as that translator did.
perpetuo = forever
Thank you, so you would have perpetuo as an adverb then. Is quominus...essent a substantive clause of recusaturos?
Last edited:
Thank you, my literal attempt is: "neither were they [the Haedui] about to refuse in order that they [the Haedui] be anything less than perpetually under their [the Sequanis'] sway and command."
I'm wondering if the sense would be any different if ut, quin, or quo were substituted for quominus.
Last edited:
It's more like "nor about to refuse by which [i.e. with the result that] they would less/not (minus is literally "less" but virtually just means "not" here) be perpetually under..."
Quin would produce the same meaning. Ut could also possibly be used, but it would be much less common. I don't think quo (without minus) could possibly work.
If recusaturos weren't negated, ne would be the most normal conjunction to use. When a verb that would otherwise take a ne clause is negated, ne is typically replaced by quin or quominus.
Yeah, the way I learned ne, quominus and quin after verbs of prohibiting/hesitating/refusing is that you can only use ne when the main verb is not negated, and you can only use quin when it is negated, but you can use quominus in place of either (but more often in place of quin).
Thank you, would pellerentur and transirent be part of a substantive clause from esse? Also why would those two verbs be in the imperfect? And with conferendum I would expect it to agree with agro.
More accurately the clause is introduced by futurum esse (uti) — "he said that it would be the case that everyone would be expelled"; this is a standard way to do the future passive infinitive if you don't want to do dixit omnes ... pulsum iri. They're imperfect because dixit is perfect, so the entire thing is in secondary sequence. Supply agrum after Gallicum; agro is the object of cum: "neque conferendum esse [dixit] Gallicum agrum cum agro Germanorum."
