Questions about Menaechmi

[kizolk]

Thank you!

It seems to be a corrupt passage. See the cross here just before datum.

I'm using this version because it conveniently has a facing translation (though the translation isn't very good, which is why I tend to use another one when I need precision), but I've noticed there were some differences with another version I've checked. It doesn't have a cross or any other sign, which is probably not a good idea.

Just "Is it possible for you to stay quiet?" or, very literally: "Is it possible that you stay quiet?"

I'm mostly used to two uses of ut (e.g. "ferōx ut leō" and "clamat ut vigilem"), but this one is neither, right? How does it work exactly?

 

[Pacifica]

It starts a substantive clause denoting a potential fact, like "that one should do so and so"/"for one to do so and so".

 

[kizolk]

There could be an implied subject of voluisse and the meaning could be something like "to which I as much believe that (he/she/they) wanted (something) to be given"... but I'm not sure what sense that would make or whom it would be about. I don't know much of the context, though.

Coming back to this one: this is actually pretty close to one of the theories I had. Could "to which" refer to "ego", "something" to "prandium", "(he/she/they)" being the people who organized the dinner? "(I,) to whom I as much believe they wanted that meal to be given"?
For reference, here's what some translations say:

If so it had been, this say [sic] I shouldn't have lost my breakfast; to which I deemed myself as much accustomed, as to see myself alive.
If they did that then I wouldn't have missed my lunch today. Besides, I'm sure he wanted me to have it with him.
Si les choses étaient ainsi réglées, je n'aurais pas perdu aujourd'hui un dîner (prenant un ton d'ironie) auquel on avait bonne intention de m'admettre, aussi sûr que je jouis maintenant de la vie.

It seems 1 and 3 take "quoi" as refering to the meal, while 2, to "ego", but I'm not sure. Not sure what 1 means by "accustomed" either.

Also more generally, is that volitive verb + passive construction common in Latin? E.g. to say "I want this to be given to you", would "hoc tibi datum volō" be a decent solution or are there better ways to say it?

 

[Dantius]

Also more generally, is that volitive verb + passive construction common in Latin? E.g. to say "I want this to be given to you", would "hoc tibi datum volō" be a decent solution or are there better ways to say it?

It's not as common as "hoc tibi dari volo," but also certainly not uncommon. I remember seeing it fairly often in the early books of Livy.

 

[kizolk]

It's not as common as "hoc tibi dari volo," but also certainly not uncommon. I remember seeing it fairly often in the early books of Livy.

"Dari", of course :/ It's not uncommon for me to overlook the obvious.

That said, I would've had the same doubt about "dari volo"; there's something about volitive+passive in general that I find confusing. Thanks!

 

[Pacifica]

Could "to which" refer to "ego", "something" to "prandium", "(he/she/they)" being the people who organized the dinner?

Yes, I guess that would make a bit more sense.

 

[kizolk]

Here are my questions for the rest of the play.

Non te pudet prodire in conspectum meum, flagitium hominis, cum istoc ornatu?

Is is that genitive (maybe the quote being from Plautus is an indication):

A poetical genitive occurs rarely in exclamations, in imitation of the Greek (Genitive of Exclamation).

Dī immortālēs, mercimōnī lepidī! (Pl. Most. 912)
Good heavens! what a charming bargain!

Only thing I could think of before finding out about that bit of grammar, was "you disgrace of a man", but that's not the kind of things that should transfer well between languages.

abducam, qui hunc hinc tollant, et domi devinciant, priusquam turbarum quid faciat amplius.

"Turbarum", partitive genitive triggered by "quid"?

Qui te Iuppiter dique omnes, percontator, perduint.

Is it that "qui":

(indefinite, with hercle, edepol, at, quippe, ut) somehow, surely

Spectamen bono servo id est, qui rem herilem procurat

"A sign of a good servant"? Why dative? (unless it's ablative, in which case, same question)

 

[Pacifica]

Is is that genitive (maybe the quote being from Plautus is an indication):

No. As you can see, in the example you found of the Grecism, both words are in the genitive. It's the Grecian equivalent of the normal Latin exclamatory accusative. In the Plautus phrase, the single genitive word hominis modifies flagitium (which is vocative in the context).

Only thing I could think of before finding out about that bit of grammar, was "you disgrace of a man"

And you were right.

"Turbarum", partitive genitive triggered by "quid"?

Yes.

Is it that "qui":

I would rather say this:

"A sign of a good servant"? Why dative? (unless it's ablative, in which case, same question)

It's dative. The OLD has this quote under the definition "distinguishing characteristic, criterion" for spectamen, so if that's correct the dative is merely a dative of possession: "a good servant has this characteristic..." or "the characteristic of (lit. for) a good servant is this", similar to the mihi nomen est construction.

 

[kizolk]

Thank you!