More fun with Ecce Romani Review

[smallkats]

I am particularly stumped by these, but I think I got the basic meaning across. Any help would be lovely.

1. When Titus had descended to the Campus Martius, he entered the Baths of Nero.
Cum Titus ad Campum Martium descendisset, in Thermas Neroneas inierunt.

2. There his friends asked him what had been done in the Senate today.
Ibi amici eius eum rogaverunt quid hodie in senatu actum esset.

3. Since he had been present in the Senate, he was able to tell everything.
Cum in senatu adfuissent, omnia narrare potuit.

4. When Titus was in the Palatine Baths yesterday, he saw a bald old man.
Cum Titus fuit in Balneis Palatinis heri, senex calvus vidit.

5. He did not know who the old man was.
Nescivit qui senex esset.

 

[Chamaeleo]

Number 4 needs attention.

 

[Matthaeus]

Numbers 1 & 3 need a subject - verb agreement.

 

[Imber Ranae]

1. When Titus had descended to the Campus Martius, he entered the Baths of Nero.

Cum Titus in Campum Martium descendisset, in Thermas Neroneas inivit.

2. There his friends asked him what had been done in the Senate today.

Ibi amici sui eum rogaverunt quid hodie in senatu actum esset.

3. Since he had been present in the Senate, he was able to tell everything.

Cum in senatu adfuisset, omnia narrare potuit.

4. When Titus was in the Palatine Baths yesterday, he saw a bald old man.

Cum Titus in Balneis Palatinis heri esset, senem calvum vidit.

5. He did not know who the old man was.

Nescivit quis senex esset.

 

[Bitmap]

Imber,

why amici sui in #2? I understand suus to be reflexive to the subject, which is amici in this sentence; I don't see what's wrong with eius.

in #4 fuit is fine

 

[Chamaeleo]

In no. 4, the ‘seeing’ happens during the ‘being’, so the ‘being’ needs to be in the imperfect.

I’m pretty sure it’s not one of those cases where ‘cum’ can use the indicative.

 

[Chamaeleo]

The sense surely requires an imperfect in the last one. It certainly does in all the Romance languages.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Imber,

why amici sui in #2? I understand suus to be reflexive to the subject, which is amici in this sentence; I don't see what's wrong with eius.

But suus doesn't necessarily require the grammatical subject to be its antecedent. It can't, for example, when the verb is impersonal and there is no subject. It would be better to say that it refers to the principal topic of the clause. This is also necessarily the case when suus modifies the subject itself, which would be an absurd construction otherwise. In such a construction the antecedent of the reflexive possessive is usually a direct or indirect object. See examples below.

Eius eum looks jarring to me, and I can't recall ever seeing such a juxtaposition in original Latin. But perhaps you have some references to similarly constructed sentences?

in #4 fuit is fine

I'd certainly agree that the indicative would be called for if heri were in the main clause, acting as an antecedent of time when. But as it is heri does not refer to a specific time but simply limits what seems to otherwise be a circumstantial clause. At least that's how I see it, but I won't say the indicative is necessarily ruled out.

Chamæleo may also have a point about it needing to be imperfect in that case. Yet whatever the tense and mood of the verb, it should come at the end of the clause regardless. In the original it's ambiguous which clause the adverbial and prepositional modifiers go with.

The sense surely requires an imperfect in the last one. It certainly does in all the Romance languages.

Nesciebam, you mean? That does seem a bit more natural, but I'm not sure why. When would you use the preterite tense of an equivalent verb of knowing in the Romance languages?



Suus with accusative antecedent:

Hunc pater suus concilium plebis habentem de templo deduxit. de Inventione

Hunc sui cives e civitate ejecerunt. pro Sestio

Sed illum ulciscentur mores sui. ad Atticum

Dein, quas sua virtus ac dii juvent, magnas opes sibi magnumque nomen facere. ab Urbe Condita liber I

Paucos nobilium superesse, quos nec sua conscientia, ut quicquam de se gravius consulerent, impulerit, nec victoris ira capitis damnaverit. ab Urbe Condita liber XXII

Sera et nepotibus demum nostris dies nota sit, qua illum gens sua caelo adserat! ad Polybium de Consolatione

And of course the famous biblical passage:

In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Evangelium secundum Ioannem 1.11

Suus with dative antecedent:

Quid? Autronio nonne sodales, non conlegae sui, non veteres amici, quorum ille copia quondam abundarat, non hi omnes qui sunt in re publica principes defuerunt? pro Sulla

Tantum sapienti sua quantum deo omnis aetas patet. Epistulae Morales liber VI

Nemo enim est cui felicitas sua, etiam si cursu venit, satis faciat. Epistulae Morales liber XIX

Lugebat domus otium domini senis nec finivit ante tristitiam quam labor illi suus restitutus est. de Brevitate Vitae

Placet ille meus mihi mendicus; suus rex reginae placet. Stichus

Sometimes the reflexive doesn't even modify the grammatical subject:

Sed ego Metello non irascor neque ei suam vacationem eripio, qua ille apud omnis utitur, ut nihil malitiose neque consulto
fecisse videatur. in Verrem II liber II

 

[Bitmap]

Thank you for your comprehensive explanation and the examples that you provided in abundance, Imber. To be honest, your suggestion did sound a bit more natural ... it's just that I've spent most of my recent time reading a medieval vita, in which the use of "suus/ejus" seems to be a bit different.

Thanks again for the insight

 

[Chamaeleo]

Nesciebam, you mean? That does seem a bit more natural, but I'm not sure why. When would you use the preterite tense of an equivalent verb of knowing in the Romance languages?

Verbs of knowing, thinking, believing, etc., indeed most verbs that refer to some sort of state rather than a physical action, tend to have very different meanings in the imperfect versus the perfect/preterite in the Romance languages. It is very often necessary to use an entirely different English verb to convey the meaning.

Here are a couple of examples in Catalan, using the verb ‘saber’ (‘to know’):

• ‘Aquella nit, jo ja sabia que la meva muller m’havia enganyat, així que la seva confessió no em va sorprendre.’ (imperfect)
  
  ‘That night, I was already aware that my wife had cheated on me, so I was not surprised by her confession.’
  
  
• ‘Aquella nit, vaig saber que la meva muller m’havia enganyat, i va ser un xoc increïble.’
  (periphrastic preterite)
  
  ‘That night, I found out / realised that my wife had cheated on me, and it was quite a shock.’

In French, using the verb ‘pouvoir’ (‘can’):

• ‘On m’a dit que je ne pouvais pas y entrer ; par conséquent je suis tout de suite rentré chez moi.’
  (imperfect)
  
  ‘I was told that I couldn’t come in. So, I went straight home.’
  
  
• ‘Je n’ai pas pu y entrer ; je suis enfin rentré chez moi.
  (perfect)
  
  ‘I failed to get in. Finally, I went home.’

In Italian, using the verb ‘pensare’ (‘to think’):

• ‘Ho detto che Nerone nacque a Napoli perché era ciò che pensavo, ma lei ha pensato che io fossi ignorante.
  (imperfect, then perfect)
  
  ‘I said that Nero was born in Naples because that’s the impression I was under, but she came to the conclusion that I was ignorant.

 

[smallkats]

Thanks everyone! Very helpful (as always)