Terentii Andria - Simpliciter Illustrata (Actus I, Scaena I)

[Deleted member 13757]

Terentii Andria - Simpliciter Illustrata (Actus I, Scaena I)

SIMO (dominus) et SOSIA (servus) prope domum, nuptias praeparantes.

SIMO:
Vos, abite! Sed tu Sosia, ades dum! Puacis te volo.

* ades dum! = mane; noli discedere;
* paucis te volo = tibi volo aliquid dicere; tecum loqui volo;

SOSIA:
Quid est?

SIMO:
Hae nuptiae verae non sunt.

SOSIA:
Cur simulas igitur?

* Cur igitur facis has nuptias?

SIMO:
Omnia tibi a principio narrabo: de ephebo meo, de eius vita,
et quid velim te facere.

* ephebus = puer; iuvenis;

SOSIA:
Bene. Tibi ausculto.

* tibi ausculto = te ausculto

SIMO:
Puer iste, mediocriter vitam agebat. Semper probus erat. Tamen, abhinc tres annos, mulier quaedam ex Andro huc commigravit. Pulchra erat illa.

* puer iste = de filio suo loquitur

SOSIA:
teneo.

SIMO:
In viculo nostro Appellabant eam Chrysidem. Primo, ista pudice ac probe vitam suam agebat. Tunc, unus amoris plenus accessit ad eam, deinde alter. Et hoc modo, invitans pecuniosos amatores, gradatim gradatim puella coepit impudenter pecuniam facere, corpore suo.

Quodam die, isti amatores, filium meum, Pamphilum, secum perduxerunt illuc. Nam erant amici Pamphili.

* corpore pecuniam facere = meretricem esse
* illuc = ubi habitabat Chrysis

SOSIA:
Quid dein?

SIMO:
Deinde, puer una cum istis, coepit domum Chrysidis frequenter visitare. Sed probus erat, modo illic cenabat, nihil aliud. Saltim hoc putabam, et propter hoc, gaudebam.

* probus erat = non erat inter Chrysidis amatores;

SOSIA:
Perge!

SIMO:
Uno die, visitatum venit ad me Chremes quidam vicinus. Voluit enim filiam suam, unicam, Pamphilo uxorem dare. Dotemque summam secum adtulit.
Hoc mihi valde placuit et libenter despondi. Hic dies, dictus est nuptiis.

SOSIA:
Capio, sed dixisti mihi antea, has nuptias non esse veras. Cur?

SIMO:
Scies! Pro dolor, paucos post dies, Chrysis moritur. ita, istae, quam visitabat filius meus una cum suis amicis.

SOSIA:
Tibi placuit?

SIMO:
Certe pol placuit! Sed, scisne quid accidit? Filius meus, una cum istis, fecit ei funus, et valde tristabar. Hoc haud intellegebam. Rogabam me ipsum, quid si ipsemet eam amavisset? Sed nihil etiam mali suspicans ad funus ivi.

* ipsemet = Pamphilus

SOSIA:
Perge!

SIMO:
Illic, aspicio unam adulescentulam. Quam pulchra erat haec, voltu ac sua forma. Tam venusta ut nihil supra.
Pedisequas rogavi quae esset. Dixerunt mihi eam esse sororem Chrysidis.
Tum conspicio miseram eam lacrimare, tam perdite ut, adimpleat totum mare.
Pergimus ad sepulchrum. Coprus Chrysidis inpositum est in ignem. Ritus enim noster est. Subito, puella ad flammam accessit, sicut sese inicere morique vellet.

Pamphilus meus hoc videns, salvatum cucurrit, eamque complexus est. "Mea Glycerium" inquit, "quid facis?". Tum illa, audiens filum meum, reiecit se in istum, pergens flere. Tam familiariter se in eum reiecit, ut certe scires amorem esse inter eos.

Tunc post funus, reveni domum. Meme rogavi, quid si Chremes hoc vidisset? Et certe, venit ille postridie, clamitans.
Et negavit filiam suam Pamphilo in uxorem dare. Non placuit mihi.

Nunc scis cur faciam has falsas nuptias. Filium meum obiurgandi causa. Nunc, Chremi mi persuadendum est, ut
vertat animum. Tibique, Sosia, has nuptias adsimulare est officium.

* Meme = me

Voice Recording is attached. [I'm not a performer so voice recording feels weird for me, But it's good to listen instead of reading ]

 

[Pacifica]

ista pudice ac probe vitam suam agebat.

The possessive is superfluous and probably unnatural there.

voltu ac sua forma

Same here.

Dixerunt mihi eam fuisse sororem Chrysidis.

Better esse. "That she was her sister", not "that she had been".

puella in flammam incessit sicut mori voluit.

Just as if she wanted to die: Sicut mori vellet. Ad rather than in, because she just got very close to the fire, but didn't enter it (thank god! Or rather Pamphilus ).

Pamphilus enim hoc videns

Enim seems misplaced to me there. Why do you need a "for/indeed..." there?

quid facias?

You don't need the subj. Don't you mean "what are you doing" rather than "what would you do"?

Tam familiariter se reiecit, ut scias amorem esse inter eos.

Reiecit: past tense; so ut scires.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

The possessive is superfluous and probably unnatural there.
Same here.
Better esse. "That she was her sister", not "that she had been".
Just as if she wanted to die: Sicut mori vellet. Ad rather than in, because she just got very close to the fire, but didn't enter it (thank god! Or rather Pamphilus ).
Enim seems misplaced to me there. Why do you need a "for/indeed..." there?
You don't need the subj. Don't you mean "what are you doing" rather than "what would you do"?
Reiecit: past tense; so ut scires.

superfluous possessive:
This is colloquial. They are never superfluous I will post a recording in a few.

For in ignem, I chose to make it stronger in sense, then "ad". She threw herself into the fire. Also changed it to "in ignem iniecit" ...

The rest were just typos or mistakes. Fixed. Thanks Great eyes! Aquila.

 

[socratidion]

superfluous possessive:
This is colloquial. They are never superfluous

I shouldn't stick my nose in here, but what do you mean?

 

[Deleted member 13757]

I shouldn't stick my nose in here

No, what do YOU mean? We are all connected here by something in common. Sticking our noses is what we do. You see how I snuck in a possessive there. Joking.

RE: This is colloquial. They are never superfluous. What do you mean?

Difficult to give an answer in a forum reply. I'll try to highlight some points.

The colloquial registers are always different then prose ... If in prose, a possessive produces a force, e.g. to clarify something ambiguous, in coll. it does not. In coll. it's always casual. When in prose it might feel superfluous, it's quite the opposite in speech, a noun for example when spoken aloud feels empty and naked without some attribute. The opposite is also true, when in speech you convey something by a change in intonation, in prose you have to spell things out. Is style subjective? Sure. Yet the difference in registers is important.
Why do audio books always suck with a straw? because they are written in a different register. Is the above a good example of coll., absolutely not. It is written to explain the play as simply as possible for anyone trying to read the original. You read the original first. You don't understand something, then you read a simple version. Then you read the original again. Then you study if you still don't understand. I am an antichrist when it comes to translations. I hate them. Translations don't help you learn the language. It's different skill set all together.
It's great that this conversation started, I'll put more thought into it for the next scene.

 

[Pacifica]

superfluous possessive:
This is colloquial. They are never superfluous I will post a recording in a few.

Ok, maybe. It's not ungrammatical anyway, but just felt unusual to me there.

For in ignem, I chose to make it stronger in sense, then "ad". She threw herself into the fire. Also changed it to "in ignem iniecit" ...

But that's completely changing the story. In the original, she just approached the fire too close. Now you're saying that she threw herself into the fire. The rest of the story has to be changed as well to make sense, then. She throws herself into the fire, he throws himself into it as well to take her back; they both go out of the fire burning, then either they die or other people manage to extinguish them and they both find themselves with third-degree burns. Ok, then in ignem is right - you just need to modify the story a little.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

But that's completely changing the story. In the original, she just approached the fire too close. Now you're saying that she threw herself into the fire.

Not "completely" , but I see your point. changed it a bit.

 

[Matthaeus]

Nunc scis cur facio has falsas nuptias.

faciam

 

[socratidion]

OK, LCF, what you say is a plausible enough position to take. It's true that colloquial Latin, to the extent that we have any to analyse (so I guess we're talking Plautus, Terence, then jumping to Petronius, with only bits and pieces between) -- hmm, perhaps we'd better call that 'colloquial styled' Latin -- does seem a lot happier to use 'redundant' possessives than 'literary' Latin. I was a bit worried by your saying they were never superfluous -- but I see that you are arguing that, though not strictly required for the meaning, possessives are necessary as markers of the style, the register, and without them one might begin to lose one's bearings.

In a cautionary way, I hesitate to conclude that we have carte blanche to use possessives wherever, whenever. I wonder what restrictions there are, if any. Analogously, I expect there's a much freer colloquial use of pronouns, but surely there are some situations where you would say 'da', or 'da mi', rather than 'id mihi da'. Sorry, that's probably a banal observation. But prompted by 'never'.

 

[Pacifica]

Vitam agere is such a common and well-set expression as such, that vitam suam agere looked weird and improbable to me.

Now I've done a little search in the Latin library, and I found one example with the possessive - not in an especially colloquial register (I only looked for vitam suam, I didn't take time to look for all possessives, nor for all possible word orders):

Sed haec de his libertinis hodie dicenda sunt qui in civitatem Romanam pervenerunt, cum nec sunt alii liberti, simul et dediticiis et Latinis sublatis, cum Latinorum legitimae successiones nullae penitus erant, qui licet ut liberi vitam suam peragebant, attamen ipso ultimo spiritu simul animam atque libertatem amittebant, et quasi servoram ita bona eorum iure quodammodo peculii ex lege Iunia manumissores detinebant.

 

[Deleted member 13757]

Vitam agere is such a common and well-set expression as such, that vitam suam agere looked weird and improbable to me.

Now I've done a little search in the Latin library, and I found one example with the possessive - not in an especially colloquial register (I only looked for vitam suam, I didn't take time to look for all possessives, nor for all possible word orders):

Sed haec de his libertinis hodie dicenda sunt qui in civitatem Romanam pervenerunt, cum nec sunt alii liberti, simul et dediticiis et Latinis sublatis, cum Latinorum legitimae successiones nullae penitus erant, qui licet ut liberi vitam suam peragebant, attamen ipso ultimo spiritu simul animam atque libertatem amittebant, et quasi servoram ita bona eorum iure quodammodo peculii ex lege Iunia manumissores detinebant.

Unfortunately, it simply not enough to just do quick search on LL and call something proper or improper. Each writer has to be analyzed as a whole for his style. This concerns not only possessives or demonstrative etc... But everything else as well. As learners, in the beginnings, we jump through so many authors, styles and epochs and sentence fragments just to perfect the grammar that we neglect register differences. But after things settle a bit, the real work must begin. Shaping your style, bettering it. Understanding deeper senses of words and expressions which would of course differ from epoch to epoch. A life time journey. A life time of fun and enjoyment.

 

[Pacifica]

True - but sometimes a quick search helps to check if a certain construct you've personally never seen yet was ever used or not.