Qui via appia

[john abshire]

In Italia multi pastores. Qui via Appia Roma Brundisium it multos pastoros videt in campis.

In Italy there are many shepherds. He saw many shepherds on the plains which he saw on the Appia Way from Rome to Brundisium.
?
Edited; meaning of qui changed to “which”

 

[kizolk]

In Italia sunt multi pastores. Qui via Appia Roma Brundisium it multos pastores videt in campis.

I think it's not the first time I've said it, but when you ask for help with a text, make sure you're quoting the passage faithfully, even if it takes you one or two proofreadings before posting. Especially when it's so short.

saw

Are you sure this is the best translation for videt?

Also, what about it in the original Latin? Your translation doesn't seem to take it into account.

Quī here can be translated to "he who". There should be no "which" in your translation.

 

[Notascooby]

I don't know what the original was but sunt isn't really required for the meaning to be clear. Omitting the verb in such instances is common so it may have been quoted correctly. Though if it wasn't it needn't matter.

 

[kizolk]

I don't know what the original was but sunt isn't really required for the meaning to be clear. Omitting the verb in such instances is common so it may have been quoted correctly. Though if it wasn't it needn't matter.

I thought the same, but "sunt" is indeed in the original text (LLPSI).

 

[john abshire]

I think it's not the first time I've said it, but when you ask for help with a text, make sure you're quoting the passage faithfully, even if it takes you one or two proofreadings before posting. Especially when it's so short.


Are you sure this is the best translation for videt?

Also, what about it in the original Latin? Your translation doesn't seem to take it into account.

Quī here can be translated to "he who". There should be no "which" in your translation.

Qui via Appia Roma Brundisium it multos pastores videt in campis.
He sees many shepherds on the plains, who are traveling (going) on the Appian Way from Rome to Brundisium.
(As you pointed out, I missed “it”)
Assuming this is right, the word “qui”;
The sentence leads with qui. Does this mean that you (always) look in the previous sentence for the antecedent?

 

[kizolk]

Does this mean that you (always) look in the previous sentence for the antecedent?

No. As you can see, it is singular, while pāstōrēs in the previous sentence is plural, so it can't be the antecedent of quī. The antecedent is implied : (is) quī.
There should be no plural verb in your translation of this sentence.

 

[john abshire]

No. As you can see, it is singular, while pāstōrēs in the previous sentence is plural, so it can't be the antecedent of quī. The antecedent is implied : (is) quī.
There should be no plural verb in your translation of this sentence.

Qui via Appia Roma Brundisium it multos pastores videt in campis.
He sees many shepherds on the plains (1-as he is going/traveling) (2-while traveling) on the Appian Way from Rome to Brundisium.
?

 

[kizolk]

He sees many shepherds on the plains (1-as he is going/traveling) (2-while traveling) on the Appian Way from Rome to Brundisium.

This isn't a bad translation meaning-wise, but if you wanted to stick more to the Latin, you could start it with "he who goes/travels".

 

[john abshire]

This isn't a bad translation meaning-wise, but if you wanted to stick more to the Latin, you could start it with "he who goes/travels".

I see. So this is what you meant by Qui
interpretted as (is)qui ?
when you say “stick more to the Latin", do you mean translating in the order it’s written? And is this
Preferable? I hope so, as it seems easier than searching for the correct order to convey the meaning. Example; Qui via Appia Roma Brundisium it multos pastores videt in campis.
He who is traveling on the Appian Way from Rome to Brundisium sees many shepherds on the plains.

 

[Dantius]

when you say “stick more to the Latin", do you mean translating in the order it’s written?

Not necessarily, but it does mean translating in a way that actually reflects what the Latin sentence is conveying. If you write "He sees many shepherds while traveling" it seems like a sentence describing a specific person (the "he"), which doesn't make sense in context. The Latin is a sentence about a general experience that many people could have, essentially "anyone who travels along the Appian Way sees many shepherds."

 

[john abshire]

Not necessarily, but it does mean translating in a way that actually reflects what the Latin sentence is conveying. If you write "He sees many shepherds while traveling" it seems like a sentence describing a specific person (the "he"), which doesn't make sense in context. The Latin is a sentence about a general experience that many people could have, essentially "anyone who travels along the Appian Way sees many shepherds."

I understand the meaning, e.g. “qui it”in this case could be “one that travels ..” “a person traveling..” , etc., but specifically is it correct to say “anyone” for qui? Isn’t that reserved for quis, of quis/ quid?

 

[Dantius]

quis means "who?" In some contexts it can mean "anyone" (e.g. si quis hoc faciet... for "if anyone does this"), but quis on its own would never mean "anyone who". Similarly qui never means just "anyone," but in the context of a general statement "he who does [x]" can mean "anyone who does [x]." If an author really wanted to emphasize how indefinite the statement is, they could use quicumque or quisquis (the "indefinite relative pronouns") for qui.