Oxford Latin Grammar
- Thread starter Manus Correctrix
- Start date
An imperator, literally ‘commander’, was a general. It’s my understanding that it only became the normal term for an emperor in quite a late period. Augustus started hogging imperator for himself, but the idea was still that he had the credit for military victories.
Right from the start, civilian power was claimed by appropriating the Republican title of princeps senatūs.
Right from the start, civilian power was claimed by appropriating the Republican title of princeps senatūs.
The second one is supposed to say ‘could see’ in the question.Cursor Nictans dixit:
It all looks fine to me. Except...
For odierint read oderint
While this was going on in Rome...
... the camera moves to the consuls, who were -- aha! -- in the middle of war-operations
... the consuls began to wage war
or do we just ignore it as insignificant -- say on the grounds that 'dum haec aguntur' had become such a fossilized phrase, virtually equivalent to 'meanwhile', that no-one thought much about the logic of using the present tense.
No agenda here, just don't know.
The job of clarifying that cum is concessive, is naturally done by tamen, so using nihilominus feels strange, overemphatic.Cursor Nictans dixit:
For odierint read oderint
No criticism here: it's just got me wondering. The way you've translated it sounds like the original Latin should have had 'agebantur' (for co-extensive events). Since it has 'aguntur' (for longer events in the course of which other things happened), how do we understand the imperfect 'gerebant'? Or to put it another way: is there a way of translating it to show that the war-waging is a shorter-term event than the background events at Rome?Cursor Nictans dixit:
While this was going on in Rome...
... the camera moves to the consuls, who were -- aha! -- in the middle of war-operations
... the consuls began to wage war
or do we just ignore it as insignificant -- say on the grounds that 'dum haec aguntur' had become such a fossilized phrase, virtually equivalent to 'meanwhile', that no-one thought much about the logic of using the present tense.
No agenda here, just don't know.
The problem may be that the regime (particularly in the early stages, particularly for the benefit of the ruling class) was so coy, and used euphemisms or decoy-words to express the idea of the man we all know really runs things. In modern times we refer to the 'princeps', as an acknowledgement of this coyness and evasion; though it is not necessarily the default word the Romans themselves used. Possibly the only consistent word, at least for the period I know anything about, was "Caesar".Matthaeus dixit:
Although the Rome stuff is presented as the context, and the Liguria stuff as the main action, I suspect that the former actually occurred in the course of the latter. It’s not the ‘exactly as long as’ meaning, requiring the tenses to match. So what tense ought to be used in that situation?
OK, I've got some confirmation from Woodcock that ubi can be used for repeated actions, and a quote: illi qui moenia defensabant, ubi hostes pugnam remiserant, intenti proelium equestre prospectabant (Sall. Jug. 60.3) = Whenever the enemy slackened the fight, those who were defending the walls eagerly watched the cavalry-battle.Cursor Nictans dixit:
(context indicates that the slackening occurred repeatedly)
As for the dum question,
...the sentence is an adaptation of Livy (39.1), where, yes, the war with the Ligurians has been going on for a while; the events at Rome have not been going on for longer than the Ligurian war. And Livy is by definition 'right'. But I'll have to get back to you about what to make of this.Cursor Nictans dixit:
Oxford dixit:
- Although the Romans were tired from the journey, they went on to meet the enemy.
- Wasn’t Aristides ostracised precisely because he was just beyond measure?
- However troublesome you may be, I shall never concede that you are evil.
- Here we must make a stand, soldiers, as though we were fighting before the walls of Rome.
- Quintus is sorry for hurting your feelings.
- I’ve never seen such a great storm before.
- Valde gavisa sum quod maritus mortuus erat.
- Quamquam cito ambulabam, molestum illum vitare non potui.
- Quamvis cito ambules, me non effugies.
- Laudatus est quod rem publicam servavisset; re vera autem Cicero id fecit.
- Laudatus est non quod rem publicam servavisset sed quia bona carmina scribebat.
- Quasi æger videbatur, sed re vera iratus erat.
B
Bitmap
Guest
this sounds like it would fit into a poem of Horace ... I think the ibam forte via thing ... could it be? :>Cursor Nictans dixit:
you're being sexist ;P
nothing wrong with that ... but while I'm writing a response, anyway: It occured to me that you can do away with the autem + id in elegant fashion by using a relative thingy thing (not clause but the other thing ... uhm, don't know what it's called in English, sorry... in a way you could also take it for a relative clause here
quod re vera Cicero fecit (in this version it must not have the autem, though)I found this one a bit puzzling because I would have written serva(ve)rat, but that would require him really to have saved the state as an actual fact which is known to (and written from the view-point of) the author. Now, servavisset reflects the point of view of those praising him and the opinion they have about him rather than an actual fact. is that right?
I don’t know what a thingy thing is.
rejected reasons go with non quod or non quo + subjunctive;
alleged reasons go with quod + subjunctive;
real reasons go with quod or quia + indicative.
The book says:Bitmap dixit:
rejected reasons go with non quod or non quo + subjunctive;
alleged reasons go with quod + subjunctive;
real reasons go with quod or quia + indicative.
B
Bitmap
Guest
Oh, I'm starting to remember now.Cursor Nictans dixit:
It might be worth signalling the point of the subjunctive 'esset', "because, people said, he was just beyond measure". But I admit it might be a bit heavy-handed. "On the grounds that..." could do it.Cursor Nictans dixit:
I stumbled over this one too, reasoning that the rejected reason was (like the real reason) not stated, so not part of virtual oratio obliqua. But it seems you are right. The idea being: they praised him not, (as you might suppose) because he had saved the state, but (in fact) because he wrote good poems.Cursor Nictans dixit:
Evidently that's where the idea comes from. But I don't think Horace ever actually used a word for 'bore', except garrulus. Actually, why not garrulus?Bitmap dixit:
Oxford dixit:
- It mustn’t be doubted that there were poets before Homer.
- Death does not deter a wise man from caring for the State at all times.
- I can’t help sending you letters every day.
- I am nothing short of absolutely miserable.
- He stopped his wife from going to see her lover.
- Haud multum afui[t] quin ridendo morerer.
- Quis me impedire quominus Roma exeam potest?
- Facere non poteram/potui quin carmina tua admirarer.
- Per me stat ut tam dives sis.
- Nemo est quin Homerum fuisse summum poetarum sciat.
I assume 'consulat' dropped off the end of the Latin (it's a quote from Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.91)Cursor Nictans dixit:
'in omne tempus' means 'for all time', not 'at all times' (i.e. the wise man makes provision (now) for the long-term well-being of the state).
Back to 'dum'
1) when the tenses are the same (e.g. dum te exspectabam, librum legebam), there is, as we know, a strong emphasis on the idea that the two activities are exactly the same length: indeed, the main clause is dependent for its duration on the dum clause. The whole time I was waiting for you, I was reading a book; I started when you left, and as soon as you came, I stopped. As long as I live, I will love you. They held out while they had the strength.
2) when the dum clause has the present tense, there is simply no such emphasis. The events coincide, more or less. One may happen during the other, or vice versa, or overlapping. They may or may not be interdependent.
So the Livy passage just doesn't care exactly how long the Ligurian war was in comparison with events in Rome. They just happen at roughly the same time.
(following this logic, "While Cicero was alive, the republic had long been in decline" would come out as
Respublica ipsa, dum Cicero vivit, iam diu occidebat.
Hmm, does that sound right?)
So here's my emended understanding of it:socratidion dixit:
1) when the tenses are the same (e.g. dum te exspectabam, librum legebam), there is, as we know, a strong emphasis on the idea that the two activities are exactly the same length: indeed, the main clause is dependent for its duration on the dum clause. The whole time I was waiting for you, I was reading a book; I started when you left, and as soon as you came, I stopped. As long as I live, I will love you. They held out while they had the strength.
2) when the dum clause has the present tense, there is simply no such emphasis. The events coincide, more or less. One may happen during the other, or vice versa, or overlapping. They may or may not be interdependent.
So the Livy passage just doesn't care exactly how long the Ligurian war was in comparison with events in Rome. They just happen at roughly the same time.
(following this logic, "While Cicero was alive, the republic had long been in decline" would come out as
Respublica ipsa, dum Cicero vivit, iam diu occidebat.
Hmm, does that sound right?)
Yeah, that would be OK. The book does say to use molestus ille though.socratidion dixit:
Ta. I had no idea what the expression meant, and just guessed.socratidion dixit:
Yep, that’s the reasoning I was following.socratidion dixit:
Oxford dixit:
- I’ve met a few with some skill in expressing themselves, but nobody truly eloquent.
- Someone came forward out of the common citizenry to give a speech.
- If anyone does so, they will be punished.
- So say I, and no one says otherwise.
- The good are somehow more pleasant than bad people are.
- Vtraque soror eundem puerum amat.
- Aliquando Romam venit. Mox autem hīc aliquandiu manebit.
- Imperator jussit decimum quemque interfici.
Imperator imperavit ut decimus quisque interficeret. - Quoquo iveris, nescioquem molestum non evitabis.
- Si senator aliqui queretur, de re iterum cogitabo.
Senatore aliquo questo, de re iterum cogitabo.
(In number 8, read 'interficeretur' of course)
Number 9 feels weird, with another negative coming after nescioquem. I find myself unable to justify this feeling technically, nor am I sure that 'aliquem' would be an improvement.
(So what's the point in me saying it? Well I haven't had a good kicking lately...)
Number 9 feels weird, with another negative coming after nescioquem. I find myself unable to justify this feeling technically, nor am I sure that 'aliquem' would be an improvement.
(So what's the point in me saying it? Well I haven't had a good kicking lately...)
B
Bitmap
Guest
I think the book wants you to write si quis senator. A form of aliquis with the ali after si is quite rare and not the most natural choice -- doesn't the book address that?Cursor Nictans dixit:
Do you find both temporal relationships acceptable? Your conditional clause has simultaneity, your abl. absolute has anteriority
that's puzzling indeed, but I wouldn't want to follow up aliquem with a negative here - then again, non evitare is actually a double negative, which makes it positive againsocratidion dixit:
 Tongue.gif "(1) Tongue out :p")
. I wonder what the book suggests for this kind of sentence
Ah, yes. This chapter is all about aliquis and suchlike, but for this sentence I should of course refer back to the chapter on conditionals.Bitmap dixit:
They both seem OK to me. Which one don’t you like?Bitmap dixit:
B
Bitmap
Guest
That wasn't meant to be a correctionCursor Nictans dixit: