De Bello Gallico

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
No.

Facultates ... magnas is the direct object of comparasse.

Ad largiendum is a gerund phrase describing what the facultates are for.
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
You can find good free commentaries on google books.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
No, there's no object. It's just "they had gathered great faculties for bribing."
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
Oops, I didn't see Pacifica had already replied.
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
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:
"they had gathered great faculties for bribing."
I‘d thought the subject was Dumnorix, singular.
 
Last edited:
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
Yes, it is — I just didn't read the full line.
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
[Dumnorix dixit] scire se illa esse vera, nec quemquam ex eo plus quam se doloris capere, propterea quod, cum ipse gratia plurimum domi atque in reliqua Gallia, ille minimum propter adulescentiam posset.


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:

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
a Bibracte, oppido Haeduorum longe maximo et copiosissimo, non amplius milibus passuum XVIII aberat, rei frumentariae prospiciendum existimavit: Iter ab Helvetiis avertit ac Bibracte ire contendit. -B.G. 1.23
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:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Bibracte is neuter, therefore the accusative is Bibracte (identical to the nominative as in all neuter nouns; here it also happens to be identical to the ablative).
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
[Diviacius dixit Haeduos] coactos esse Sequanis obsides dare nobilissimos civitatis et iure iurando civitatem obstringere sese neque obsides repetituros neque auxilium a populo Romano imploraturos neque recusaturos quo minus perpetuo sub illorum dicione atque imperio essent. -B.G 1.31.7

they were now compelled to give the chief nobles of their state, as hostages to the Sequani, and to bind their state by an oath, that they would neither demand hostages in return, nor supplicate aid from the Roman people, nor refuse to be forever under their sway and empire.
Thank you, wondering here how you would understand the phrase: recusaturos quo minus perpetuo.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
(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
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
Thank you, so you would have perpetuo as an adverb then. Is quominus...essent a substantive clause of recusaturos?
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
A substantive clause object of recusaturos, yes.
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
neque recusaturos quo minus perpetuo sub illorum dicione atque imperio essent.
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:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
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."
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..."
I'm wondering if the sense would be any different if ut, quin, or quo were substituted for quominus.
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.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
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).
 

CMatthiasT88

Member

Location:
Mandan, ND, USA
[Diviciacus dixit] futurum esse paucis annis uti omnes ex Galliae finibus pellerentur atque omnes Germani Rhenum transirent; neque enim conferendum esse Gallicum cum Germanorum agro neque hanc consuetudinem victus cum illa comparandam.-B.G 1.31 


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.
 
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
in orbe lacteo
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."
 
 

Matthaeus

Vemortuicida strenuus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
Varsovia
Futurum esse ut/uti... is usually shortened to fore uti...
 
Top