Answer Key To A Latin Exercise Book na5t

Copyright © 2021, Sarah van der Pas. All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-304-92971-6

Cover photograph by Graham Hobster from Pixabay.

Answer Key to

A Latin Exercise Book

Chapter 1

A)

Lupus agnum vorat. Agnus lupum vorat. Puella vigilat. Puella magistrō dat tabulās. Puella bella mālum vorat.

Puella bella mēnsam dominō parat. Magnī lupī agnōs parvōs vorant. Puella puerō librum dat. Puella bellum puerum amat. Puerī multa puellīs dōna dant.

Note 1: Latin word order is rather flexible. While English relies heavily on word order, especially to differentiate a subject from an object (e.g. "The wolf devours the lamb" vs. "The lamb devours the wolf"), in Latin that function is fulfilled by case endings. Consequently, lupus agnum vorat in any order (agnum lupus vorat, vorat lupus agnum, lupus vorat agnum, agnum vorat lupus) will always mean that the wolf devours the lamb, while lupum agnus vorat in any order (agnus lupum vorat, vorat lupum agnus, etc.) will always mean that the lamb devours the wolf. The difference between the various possible word orders is one of emphasis, or sometimes merely style or euphony. While anything isn’t permissible or desirable, in such simple sentences as the ones above any order is acceptable, even though not all will be equally suited to every context. Do not worry too much if your word order differs from mine; concentrate on getting the word endings right. Nevertheless, you should avoid the pitfall of always using the same order as in English: even though it can’t be called wrong in any given individual sentence, writing that way all the time will make you sound un-Latin, since Latin has very different word-order tendencies than English.

Note 2: "The girl gives the boy a book" is the same as "The girl gives a book to the boy". In both sentences, the boy is the indirect object and translates to the dative in Latin. The same goes with "the girls" in "The boys give the girls many gifts" and "The boys give many gifts to the girls". When faced with a sentence that has two objects, like "The girl gives the boy a book", and unsure which object is the direct and which is the indirect one, rephrase it using "to": the word that can follow "to" without changing the meaning of the sentence is the indirect object, as in "The girl gives the boy a book" =

"The girl gives a book to the boy".

B)

The teacher (or: schoolmaster) gives a gift to the boy (or: gives the boy a gift). Boys love girls. The boy loves the lamb. The pretty boy gives a big gift to the girl (or: gives the girl a big gift). Many boys devour apples. The wolf devours many lambs. The boy loves many girls. The boy prepares the table. The boys prepare the table for the girls. The girl gives big books to the boy (or: gives the boy big books).

Chapter 2

A)

Magistrī sumus.

Lupī sunt. Bonus es magister. Dominus dat rosam puellae. (OT—see Preface to the Exercise Book for what this means.) Puellae puerīs dōna bella dant. (OT) Rosae parva dōna sunt. Parvae puellae estis. Magistrī puerīs puellīsque multōs librōs dant. (OT) Puella sum. Puerī cēnam parant.

Note 1: Sum does not take a direct object. Instead, it takes a predicative complement that describes the subject (saying who or what it is—Julius, a teacher, a girl, etc.—or ascribing some quality to it—big, small, good, etc.) and thus must usually agree with it in the nominative.

Note 2: If you got the cases in 5 and 8 wrong, see again Answer Key, Chapter 1, Note 2.

Note 3: Latin does not have compound tenses with "be" + present participle like in English. "I do something" and "I am doing something" translate to the same Latin tense: the present tense. Thus, "The boys are preparing dinner" in Latin is the same as "The boys prepare dinner": Puerī cēnam parant.

B)

The boys and girls are preparing (or:prepare) dinner for the good master. (OT) The girl gives the boy a small gift. Or: The girl gives a small gift to the boy. (OT) I am a small boy. The boys/children give a book to the teacher. Or: The boys/children give the teacher a book. (OT) The boys/children devour (or:are devouring) the apples. (OT) The master devours (or:is devouring) the good dinner. (OT) The boy loves the pretty girl. (OT) You are a pretty girl. You are good teachers. The boys/children are awake. (OT)

Chapter 3

A)

Rosa puellae bella est. Magistrī liber magnus est.

Puer puellae magistrī librum dat. Puellae dat rosās et māla et librōs./Puellae dat rosās, māla, librōs./Puellae dat rosās, māla librōsque. (OT) Dominus multōs librōs habet. Magister puellae fōrmōsus est. Fēmina rosam tenet. Māla vorātis. (OT) Puerī nōn rubent. Puer bellus bellam puellam videt.

Note 1: If you got the case of bella in 1, magnus in 2, and fōrmōsus in 6 wrong, see again Answer Key, Chapter 2, Exercise A, Note 1.

Note 2: If you got the cases of the objects in 4 wrong, see again Answer Key, Chapter 1, Note 2.

Note 3: The word order that I used in puer bellus bellam puellam, where the word order of the first phrase puer bellus is inverted in the second phrase bellam puellam, is a figure of speech called chiasmus, where the construction of a phrase is mirrored (i.e. similar but inverted) in another. Latin authors are relatively fond of it. That does not mean that another order is wrong or that you need to do this all the time; but once in a while is nice—it’s just a little artful touch.

B)

The master’s dinner is not good. Roses are red. The boy is holding the girl’s book. He/She gives a gift to the boy. (OT) I have a big book. The woman sees a big wolf. You (pl.) prepare dinner for the boys/children. (OT) The girl sees the schoolmaster. The boy gives great gifts to the girl. (OT) The girl sees the boy and blushes.

Note 1: Since nominative personal pronouns (I, you, he, she, etc.) are most of the time omitted in Latin, being implied in the verb, when you see a sentence like 4 where no word is likely to be the subject (dōnum could theoretically be nominative and therefore the subject, but "the gift gives to the boy" makes little sense) you must rely on the verb to tell you the person of the subject. Here, you can see that dat is third person singular, so the subject must be "he", "she" or "it". The last of these being unlikely, you’re left with "he" or "she". In a normal situation, the context would usually tell you which one it was, but in a contextless sentence like this there is no way to tell.

Note 2: I have said earlier that Latin word order is flexible. One implication of this is that if an adjective is separated from a noun by one or more words,

like magnum from lupum in 6 and magna from dōna in 9, that does not mean that the adjective cannot refer to the noun. The decisive factor is the word endings: does the adjective appear to agree with the noun and, furthermore, is there nothing else that it can agree with? If it appears to agree with the noun and there is nothing else that it can agree with, then it does refer to that noun. If there is something else that it could agree with, then it will be referring to what it makes the most sense for it to refer to in the context.

Note 3: The word order in 9 puts significant emphasis on magna. It is being stressed that the gifts given the girl by the boy are decidedly great. In some contexts and in a fancy style, you could even translate the sentence as "Great are the gifts that the boy gives the girl".

Chapter 4

A)

Mārcus gladiō pugnat. Agnī lupōs timent; lupī enim agnōs vorant. (OT) Mārcus Claudiae magnam rosam dat. (OT) Templum Diānae prope est. (OT) Dominum linguā vulnerās. Fēmina mālum puerī secat cultrō bellō. Mārcus Pūbliō multam dēbet pecūniam. (OT)

Coquus cēnam dominō magnā (cum) cūrā parat. Fēmina magnā (cum) laetitiā cantat. Puer parvō digitō rosam dēmōnstrat.

Note 1: The Latin genitive translates both the English possessive case (as in "Diana’s temple") which itself is historically a genitive, and the construction with "of" (as in "the temple of Diana"). Indeed, both of these English constructions denote possession, as does the Latin genitive (among other, by and large related, meanings, as you will see later).

Note 2: Since prope is an adverb and not an adjective, it does not decline or agree with anything. Adverbs basically answer the questions How? Where? When? whereas adjectives attribute a certain quality (like "good", "small", "big", etc.) to a person or thing. (Some ideas can be expressed by either an adjective or an adverb, but you should not concern yourself too much with this finer point at this stage.)

Note 3: Latin does have words for the possessives "my", "your", etc. but, unlike in English, where the grammar often requires such possessives to be used even if you could guess without them who the owner was, they can often be omitted in Latin as long as it isn’t important to specify or stress who the owner is. Possessives are often omitted with body parts when these belong to the subject, for instance, as it tends to be obvious from the context that that is whom they belong to. In sentence 5 here, for example, the addressee would be unlikely to be wounding his master with someone else’s tongue. Or, for another example, take the English sentence "close your eyes": oculos claude, which word for word is just "close eyes", is a sufficient Latin translation. It’s usually your own eyes that you close, so in this sentence they are understood by default to be yours. If they were someone else’s, then you would be likely to have some genitive or possessive to specify the owner; for instance if you were to close the eyes of a dead person (and

even then, context might sometimes make things clear enough to allow an omission of the genitive or possessive).

Note 4: An ablative of manner, as in 8 and 9, may be used with or without the preposition cum when it consists of a noun and an adjective. Cum (like other prepositions) is sometimes placed between the adjective and the noun, the adjective then usually (with many exceptions in poetry) coming first. When an ablative denoting manner is a noun alone, cum is generally present. An ablative of means, on the other hand, as in 1, 5, 6 and 10, never takes cum in classical Latin.

B)

I am afraid of wolves, for wolves devour boys and girls. (OT) Marcus wounds Publius’s finger with the knife. We do not devour boys and girls, for we are not wolves. (OT) Publius is afraid of Marcus, for Marcus is holding a sword. (OT) Publius prepares dinner with great joyfulness. Marcus fights with Publius. The boy prepares a good dinner together with the girl. The temple of Diana is big. (OT) You (pl.) are afraid of Marcus’s sword. (OT) The master does not give much money to the boy. (OT)

Note: In 6 and 7, the ablatives with cum denote accompaniment (although the context in 6 also implies competition and hostility). They are not, of course, ablatives of manner. Manner however is merely an extension of this. When you say that someone does something "with great care", that denotes the manner in which they do it, but in a way it means that they are metaphorically "accompanied" in their action by great care.

Chapter 5

A)

Fēmina mediā nocte mālum vorat. Dīlūculō agnus lupum videt. Fēmina cum dominō saltat. (OT) Fēmina capillum aquā puteī lavat. (OT) Magnōs magistrī librōs videō. (OT) Multa māla vorās. (OT) Crepusculō ancilla mēnsam magnā (cum) cūrā lavat. Ancilla dominum amat quod est fōrmōsus et argūtus et benignus. (OT) Puer magistrum timet quod sevērus est. (OT) Dominus ōstium baculō pulsat. (OT)

B)

The boys and girls dance with the teachers. (OT) At dawn, the maidservant cuts an apple with the master’s knife and devours it. Publius fights the wolf with his walking stick. (Literally "fights with the wolf". The repetition of "with" is awkward, however; that is why I chose to make the wolf the direct object of "fights" in the translation, since the English verb "fight" its that construction. Latin pugnō, on the other hand, cannot take the person or thing fought against as a direct object.) (OT) The water of the great well is good. (OT) You (pl.) love good women. (OT) We dance at midnight. The girl is holding a small rose. (OT) I have Marcus’s sword. (OT) I give Marcus’s sword to Claudia. (OT) The girl washes her hair with great care. (OT)

Note: It is common in Latin, when two or more verbs have the same object, for this to be understood without a need for the object to be repeated in the form of a pronoun. This is what is happening in 2. Mālum is the object of both secat and vorat. English requires you to repeat the object by using the pronoun "it" in the second part, but there is no such requirement in Latin. In fact, a single word can serve as the object of two or more verbs in English too: take for instance the sentence "She cuts and devours the apple". However, this is usual in English only when the object follows both or all the verbs, whereas in Latin it also is when the object precedes one or more of

them.

Chapter 6

A)

Nūllōs hīc lupōs, sed agnōs multōs videō. (OT) Aquam quaerunt. Librum dominī quaeritis. Claudia Pūblium aquā cōnspergit. Pūblius Mārcō Claudiaeque magnam pecūniae summam dēbet. (OT) Dīlūculō surgis. Rosās carpunt et dant puellīs. Māla parva magnīs cultrīs secāmus. (OT) Dominī togam vīnō cōnspergimus. Vōs amāmus; bonī enim magistrī estis. (OT)

B)

You (pl.) are looking for good women.

You (pl.) are sprinkling the books of the teachers with water. We pick roses and apples for the girls. You (sg.) are holding a pretty rose. (OT) I rise and wash my hair with water from the well (with the water of the well). Marcus is looking for Publius, for Publius owes Marcus money. Claudia is not beautiful but she is witty. (OT) Publius loves Claudia because she is witty. (OT) They sprinkle the table with wine. The master is looking for Marcus and Publius.

Chapter 7

A)

Yes. The -iō verb has an i before the -ō ending, while the "regular" thirdconjugation verb does not. Compare quaerō and capiō. No, the two types of verbs do not differ here. E.g. quaeris and capis. No, the conjugation does not differ here. E.g. quaerit and capit. The conjugation is the same here too. E.g. quaerimus and capimus. It is the same here as well. E.g. quaeritis and capitis. Yes, there is a difference here: -iō verbs have an i before the -unt ending, while

"regular" third-conjugation verbs do not. E.g. quaerunt vs. capiunt. The present active indicative conjugation of -iō verbs differs from that of other third-conjugation verbs only in the first person singular and third person plural, where they have an extra i before the ending.

B)

Puella fugit quod lupum timet. The girl flees because she is afraid of the wolf. Magistrum multī puerītiment. Many boys/children are afraid of the teacher. (OT) Lupī agnōs capiunt. Wolves seize lambs. Pūblius cultrōmālum/māla secat. Publius cuts an apple/apples with a knife. (OT) Claudia ānsamquaerit. Claudia is looking for an opportunity. (OT) Claudia Pūbliusque māla carpunt. Claudia and Publius are picking apples. (OT) Nōn pecūniam quaerimus, sed glōriam. We seek not money, but glory. (OT) Agnōs nōn capitis, nōn enim lupī estis. You do not seize lambs, for you are not wolves. Culter Pūbl(i)ī Mārcumlaedit. Publius’s knife hurts Marcus. (OT) Convīvae vīnum bibunt. The guests are drinking wine. (OT)

Note 1: Some of the sentences have other, less obvious but possible solutions; e.g. 10 could be Convīvae vīnum bibimus, "We guests are drinking wine" or "(When we are) guests, we drink wine".

Note 2: The ending of second-declension nouns in -ius or -ium is sometimes contracted into one long i in the genitive singular, so that for example the genitive singular of Pūblius can be either Pūbliī or Pūblī.

Chapter 8

A)

Quotannīs tibi dōnum dō. Ego dominus sum. Dominus mē amat. Claudia nōbīs pecūniam dēbet. Sine nōbīs cēnant. Nōs magistrī (sumus), vōs discipulī estis. Tū cottīdiē cēnam dominō parās. Cum vōs vidēmus, gaudēmus. Lupus nōs nōn terret. Rosās mihi saepe dās.

Note 1: Nominative personal pronouns are used only when the person is being emphasized, often in situations where in English we would put extra stress on the pronoun in speech, and sometimes italicize it or otherwise

highlight it in writing. The emphasis of the Latin nominative personal pronoun can also serve where in English we would add extra words to convey the emphasis; e.g. in some contexts, sentence 7 could also be expressed in English as "You are the one who prepares dinner for the master every day". Moreover, a situation where two different subjects are being opposed or compared, as in 6, tends automatically to entail some emphasis on the subjects, therefore the Latin personal pronouns are almost always present in that kind of sentence. They are also used, generally, when there is a change of subject.

Note 2: When pronouns are unemphatic, they tend in classical Latin to come second in their clause. This is not an absolute rule, but a tendency.

Note 3: When two or more forms of the same verb would be used in close succession, like in 6, it is common to keep only one of them and leave the other(s) implied. That is why sumus is in parentheses. It is not grammatically wrong to have it, but the sentence is stylistically better without it. Do not count your translation as wrong if you did include sumus.

B)

I am not giving the rose to you, but to Claudia. The teacher frightens me, for he is strict. I am preparing dinner without you. They are picking roses for you (pl.). Boys and girls fear us because we are strict. I am often looking for you.

I am not afraid of the wolf. You are afraid of the wolf, I am afraid of the teacher. Marcus frightens us with his sword. You (pl.) dance at midnight without us.

Chapter 9

A)

Mīlitēs gladiōs vibrant. Dominus caput canis mulcet. Ingentī tē (cum) gaudiō videō. Gladiī mīlitum in terrā iacent. Claudia dulcī vōce canit. Parentēs magistrō praestantī libenter commendant liberōs. Muscam in magistrī capite videō. Lībertātis amor hominibus innātus est. Simulācrum rēgis ingēns faciunt. Flūmina quīnque terribilia in silentī Plūtōnis regnō fluunt.

B)

The boy sees a frightful wolf and flees. The girl’s voice is sweet. Parents seek outstanding teachers for their children. The woman prepares dinner for the handsome soldier. People seek freedom. The voice of frightful wolves frightens us at dusk. The king gives huge gifts to outstanding soldiers. The dog drinks the water of the river with great joy. Soldiers fight with swords. You are fighting with an outstanding soldier.

Chapter 10

A)

Lupus ēsurit et praedam in silvā quaerit. Hominēs in lupī silvam veniunt. Rēx audit dulcem fēminae vōcem.

Mediā nocte fessī dormiunt servī, dominus sollicitus vigilat. Puer lapillōs in flūmen iacit. Crepusculō iam dormīs. Lupōs nōn audīmus. Cum ēsurītis, saepe in culīnam Claudiae venītis et cibum petitis. Mīles fessus in terrā cum gladiō dormit. Omnēs puerī puellaeque in culīnā sunt cum Claudiā.

B)

No mistakes here. Translation: The king gladly dines with the soldiers. (OT) No mistakes here. Translation: I do not sleep at dusk. Correction: Puerī ēsuriunt et cibum petunt. Ēsuriō is fourth conjugation and cibus needs to be in the accusative because it is the direct object of petunt. Translation: The boys/children are hungry and asking for food. No mistakes here. Translation: The statue of the king is lying on the ground. Correction: Pūblius mālum ingēns cultrō parvulō secat.Cum is not used with the ablative of means. Translation: Publius cuts a huge apple with a tiny knife. (OT) No mistakes here. Translation: We hear the voices of many girls. Correction: Cēnam petō, ēsuriō enim. Petō is a regular third-conjugation verb; it is neither fourth conjugation nor -iō third conjugation; therefore, no i. Translation: I am asking for dinner, for I am hungry. No mistakes here. Translation: We are preparing food for you (pl.). (OT)

Correction: Flūmen magnum vidētis. Flūmen is a neuter noun. All neuter nouns and adjective are identical in the nominative, accusative and vocative (in both singular and plural). *Flūminem would be a masculine or feminine accusative form. Translation: You (pl.) see a great river. (OT) No mistakes here. Translation: I see the frightful head of a wolf. (OT)

Chapter 11

A)

Puer, quia/quod lupum timet, in silvam nōn it. Magister noster benignus est. Librum meum quaerō. Frater meus vir bonus est. In cubicula vestra ītis. Rosae hortī tuī magnae pulchraeque sunt. Saepe īs in agricolae agrum. In oppidum dīlūculō cum amīcīs tuīs īmus. In oppidum pedibus eunt. Equus meus ē flūmine bibit.

Note: The possessives meus, tuus, suus, noster and vester are adjectives whose endings agree with the thing possessed, not with the possessor. Thus, meus, tuus, suus, noster or vester modifying the form magister will always be nominative masculine singular, in agreement with magister, whatever the gender and number of the possessor. Noster and vester (and sometimes suus) refer to plural possessors, but their form is singular if the thing possessed is singular. They take plural endings only if the thing possessed is plural (e.g. Magistrōs nostrōs amāmus = We love our teachers).

B)

The master strokes his dog. The farmer does not go into town, because he is afraid of people. I go into the forest; I do not go into town: for I am not afraid of wolves, but of people. Claudia and Publius owe your (pl.) brothers much money. You are cutting your apples with my knife. The girls do not go into the forest, for they are afraid of the wolf. Claudia is looking for her book. My bedroom is small but pretty. A frightful soldier is sleeping in my bedroom. Publius is looking for his (dear) Claudia.

Note: In general, the third-person possessive suus translates "his/her/its/their" when the owner is the subject of the sentence. When the

owner is not the subject, something else is used (the genitive of a demonstrative pronoun).

Chapter 12

A)

Librum meum sūme, puer, et lege. Quaesō, domine, venī hūc. Parā mihi, ancilla, cēnam! Gaudēte; amīcī enim vestrī adsunt. Īte in oppidum et emite cibum. Lavā, Pūblī, aquā calidā vestēs meās/vestem meam. Equitā, fīlī, in oppidum oppidānōsque meīs verbīs salūtā. Frātris (tuī) litterās mihi ostende, puella. Dormīte, puerī. Librōs vestrōs, puellae, nōbīs ostendite.

Note 1: Second-declension nouns ending in -ius, like Pūblius and fīlius, do not have a vocative in -e like other -us second-declension nouns; instead, they drop their -us and lengthen the preceding i.

Note 2: Rather than first or last in the clause as is often the case in English, Latin vocatives tend to come after the first word or couple of words. Once again, this is a tendency, not an absolute rule.

B)

Dine, friends, drink and rejoice! Your friend is here, Marcus. Listen (sg.) to the words of a friend. Hold (sg.) my book. Fear the wolf, children/boys; for the wolf gladly devours children/boys. Go (pl.) (in)to the kitchen and prepare food. I am not happy, brother; for my friends are not here. See (pl.): our town is small. Be happy, sing (sg.)! Your teacher is a good man, son.

Note: It is sometimes acceptable or even preferable to translate in + acc. as "to" instead of the literally closer equivalent "into", because in English we sometimes say "to" when an "into" motion is in fact implied. The rule of thumb is: choose what sounds better or more natural.

Chapter 13

A)

Pūblius Claudiam vidēre semper cupit. Vidēte: in parvā casā habitāmus (or: parvam casam habitāmus) nec/neque multam habēmus pecūniam, itaque nōn possumus tantum tribūtum pendere. Līberī parentibus pārēre dēbent. Nōn soleō aliōs rīdēre. Mīlitēs tantae famī resistere nōn possunt. Imperātor mīlitēs fessōs iubet hostibus resistere. Mē vincere nōn potes. Sī librōs nostrōs legere potestis, virī doctī estis. Agnus lupum vorāre nōn potest. Magister puerōs paulisper pilā lūdere sinit.

Note: Līberī means children in relation to their parents, like sons and daughters. Since there is no reference, whether direct or implied, to any parents in Sentence 10, it would be incorrect to use the word līberī there. Indeed, Magister līberōs paulisper pilā lūdere sinit would by default (in the absence of any reference to another parent) be understood as "The teacher lets his children (= his own sons and daughters) play ball for a little while". What is meant by "children" in the sentence "The teacher lets the children play ball for a little while" is very young human beings rather than a certain person’s sons and daughters. Puerī is more fitting for the former meaning. (While puer is masculine and often translates to "boy", the plural

can include children of both genders. Latin as a rule defaults to the masculine when referring to human beings of unknown, unspecified or mixed gender.) To sum up: if, in a given sentence, replacing the word "children" with "(one’s) sons and daughters" sounds fine, you probably should translate it with līberī. If it sounds wrong, you probably shouldn’t.

B)

The general orders us to sleep with our swords. A soldier ought to obey his general. The master’s son wants to see the wolf, so he rides into the forest and looks for the frightful wolf. Resist, soldiers! (For) you oughtn’t fear the enemy. I cannot go into the forest, for the wolf scares me. We are hungry and we cannot buy food. I do not have a sword, and I cannot resist the enemy’s swords with a knife. We ought to seek neither money nor glory, but freedom. Soldiers are wont to seek glory with their swords. When I am there, you are usually glad.

Note: Enim, like some other Latin particles, can sometimes be left untranslated. Latin particles tend, overall, to be more frequent than their English translations. In English, the relationships that the particles mark between statements are, on average, left implicit a little more often than in Latin.

Chapter 14

A)

Belgae omnibus Galliae populīs virtūte praestant. Dā, agricola bone, cibum nōbīs. (OT) Dominus nōn corpore, sed mente aeger est. Mīles crūre saucius est. Nostrī mīlitēs fortēs sunt et vīribus vēlōcitāteque praestantēs. Tibi nec pecūniam nec oboedientiam dēbeō. (OT) Dominus meus tuō benignitāte praestat. Dormīre nōn possum cum lupus ululat vōce tam terribilī. (OT) Nēmō in oppidō doctrīnā praestat magistrō nostrō. Puerī in hortō cum Pūbliō Claudiāque lūdunt. (OT)

Note: that common nouns like agricola, even though they belong to the mostly feminine first declension, are masculine by default. They are feminine only when applied to someone known to be female. When they are masculine by default, they consequently take masculine adjectives, like in 2.

B)

Claudia digitō/digitīssaucia est. Claudia is wounded in the finger(s). Potest discipulus magistrō doctrīnā praestāre. A student can be superior to his teacher in learning. In bellō gladius cultrōpraestat. In war, a sword is better than a knife. (OT) Mīlitibus vīribus vōs, puerī, nōn praestātis. You do not sur soldiers in strength, boys. Crepusculō mīlitēs sauciī in terrā iacent. At dusk, the wounded soldiers lie on the ground. (OT) Puella mīlitem crūre saucium videt. The girl sees a soldier wounded in the leg. Tū saltārepotes; ego nōn possum: crūre enim saucius sum. You can dance; I cannot, for I am wounded in the leg. Puer bonus es; parentibus enim pārēs; immō puerīs omnibus oboedientiā praestās. You are a good boy, for you obey your parents; in fact, you sur all boys in obedience. Mīles, quod gladium nōn habet, hostibus resistere nōn potest. Because he does not have a sword, the soldier cannot resist the enemy. (OT) Capite, Claudia, aegra es. You are sick in the head, Claudia.

Note: When the subject of a subordinate clause is the same person or thing as that of the main clause, the subject tends to come before the subordinate clause, like mīles in 9.

To explain more fully:

A main clause is a clause that makes complete grammatical sense by itself, like Mīles… hostibus resistere nōn potest, "The soldier cannot resist the enemy". A subordinate clause is a clause that does not make full grammatical sense on its own but only complements another clause. Quod gladium nōn habet, "because he does not have a sword", is such a clause. Subordinate clauses are often introduced by little words (subordinating conjunctions and relative pronouns) like "when", "if", "because", "since", "who", "which", etc. Now in this particular sentence about the soldier without a sword, the subject of the subordinate clause is the same person as the subject of the main clause, namely the soldier. What often happens in English in such a situation is that the noun representing the subject is put either within the subordinate clause ("Because the soldier does not have a sword, he cannot resist the enemy") or after it ("Because he does not have a sword, the soldier cannot resist the enemy"). In Latin, on the other hand, the noun tends to come first in the whole construction, so that you have the literal equivalent of "The soldier, because he does not have a sword, cannot resist the enemy". That is a correct sentence in English too, but in Latin, unlike in English, that word order is the preferred/default one. While the other two word orders ("Because the soldier does not have a sword, he cannot resist the enemy" and "Because he does not have a sword, the soldier cannot resist the enemy") are not impossible in Latin, they are not quite as usual, especially the first.

Chapter 15

A)

Auxilium ā nōbīs petere nōlunt. Mīles pugnāre iam nōn vult; dormīre māvult. Ā cane discēdere nōn vīs. Nōlumus verba tam stulta audīre. Vōs ex aedibus exturbāre volunt quod puerōs terrētis.

Pecūniam glōriamque vultis neque bellī labōrēs timētis. Parentēs līberōs docēre bonōs mōrēs volunt. Cāra ad tē amīca scrībit nec vīs rescrībere? Claudia librōs quam rosās māvult (or: librōs rosīs māvult). Saltāre mālumus quam dormīre.

Note: While a different word order would not be wrong, my placement of ad tē in 8 is in accordance with the tendency (mentioned in Answer Key, Chapter 8, Exercise A, Note 2) for unemphatic pronouns to come second in their clause. When the pronoun is the object of a preposition, the prepositional phrase forms a syntactic and prosodic unit, the whole of which then tends to come second (here, for instance, second after the first word, cāra).

"Dear to" is expressed with cārus + dat., not ad, so there is no ambiguity (no risk of the sentence being interpreted as "A friend dear to you writes and…"). If I had used the dative, there would have been a slight ambiguity, at least with this word order (less so with e.g. Cāra amīca tibi scrībit).

B)

If you want glory, soldiers, resist the enemy! I prefer to dance with Claudia. I prefer a teacher outstanding in learning to a stupid soldier. Marcus is not stupid but outstanding in both strength and learning.

If you want a rose, pluck it. The frightful soldier doesn’t want to frighten children. Give me the book, please; (for) I want to read. Because the girl rises at dawn, she often sleeps at dusk. Learned men prefer books to swords. Pick roses or, if you prefer, apples.

Chapter 16

A)

Lupī ab agnīs nōn vorantur. Rīdeor quod pugnāre nōn valeō. Folia ventō agitantur. Mīles validus ab imbēcillō/imbēcillī sene vincī nōn potest. Aquā frīgidā cōnspergī nōlumus. Pūblius ā Claudiā vult amārī. Segetēs grandine vehementī dēlentur. Āfricae sōlitūdinēs sōle torrentur. Barbarī gladiō caedī nōlō.

Ingenium dīligentiā saepe vincitur.

Note: While the term "inanimate agent" is handy, it can be a little misleading, because an inanimate thing (like wind or a sword) does not really have agency. An inanimate agent is in fact closer to an instrument; that is why it is expressed by the bare ablative, like an ablative of means. The preposition ab is used in classical Latin in the context of agents of ive verbs only before what is seen as having true agency, most of the time a person or people, but animals are sometimes regarded as true agents too.

B)

Farmers want their crops neither to be scorched by the sun nor to be destroyed by hail. We want to love and be loved. The teacher can be beaten with a sword, but he is superior to soldiers in intellect; for he has a weak body but a strong mind. If the teacher is listened to by the students, he is happy. A knife is brandished by the soldier, for the soldier does not have a sword (is lacking a sword). I am owed a large sum of money (a large sum of money is owed to me). We are often beaten by you (pl.) when we fight. You (pl.) are listened to and not laughed at. You are loved by many servants/slaves, (my) lord/master.

Roses are picked by the girls.

Note: In English, the indirect object of an active verb can become the subject of the same verb in the ive. For instance, "You owe your friend a large sum of money" (= "You owe a large sum of money to your friend") becomes "Your friend is owed a large sum of money". This does not happen in Latin. In Latin, only the direct object of the active verb (here, the sum of money) can become the subject of the ive one. So if you want to say in Latin "I am given this or that", "I am told so and so", "I am owed such and such a sum", and the like, you will usually have to translate them literally as "This or that was given to me", "It was said to me that…", "Such and such a sum is owed to me". The only exceptions will be when you use a Latin verb that does not take an indirect object in the first place (e.g. doceō, which takes two accusatives).

Chapter 17

vultis posse noctis corpora timēminī eunt quaereris or quaerere dulcēs or dulcīs

tibi capiunt audīs dulcēs nōlle ī īmus sōlitūdinum vehementia cape carpitur rīdēs mīlitī bonā vehemēns amāminī mē tē terribile mīlite māvīs

capī magistrīs carpī adsumus audīmur este rīdē īs estis segetibus hominem

Note: Although not mentioned in all beginners’ courses, -īs is a common alternative masc./fem. accusative plural ending in third-declension adjectives and some third-declension nouns (those that belong to a class called i-stem nouns). Similarly, -re is a common alternative ending for -ris in second person singular ive verb forms.

Chapter 18

Yes. The preposition cum may be added to an ablative of manner like magnō gaudiō. Such is not the case with the ablative of means.

Those whose nominative singular does not end in -us (most of which end in -er like magister, but you also find the oddity vir) and those whose nominative singular ends in -ius. The former stay the same in the vocative as in the nominative (e.g. Ō magister!); the latter drop their -us and lengthen the preceding i (e.g. Ō fīlī!). Those nouns are masculine by default, and feminine only when referring to someone known to be female. Accordingly, they take masculine adjectives by default and feminine ones when they refer to a female. The infinitive (present active in this particular sentence). Only the direct object of the active sentence can become the subject of the ive one. When it precedes the animate agent of a ive verb. In + abl. denotes location in a place whereas in + acc. denotes motion into a place. No. Some English verbs that take direct objects have Latin translations that take another case than the accusative. For instance, while "obey" and "lack" take direct objects, pāreō takes the dative and careō takes the ablative or genitive. Some Latin verbs even take a prepositional phrase where their English equivalents could take a direct object, e.g. "to fight the enemy" = cum hostibus pugnāre. The ablative. Yes. On the other hand, the form ē is never used before vowels or h.

Chapter 19

A)

Ā puellīs rīdēbāris/rīdēbāre quod librum Graecum legere nōn poterās. Equō dominus, Claudia autem et Pūblius pedibus ībant. Virī saccōs gravēs frūmentī portābant. Vīnum dominī bibēbāmus. Annō proximō dīlūculō surgēbātis (or: surgere solēbātis). Multae ovēs ā lupīs rapiēbantur. Puerī omnēs gaudēbant cum aderat Claudia. Cēnam amīcīs (meīs) parābam. Domina carmen dē excidiō Carthāginis scrībēbat. Petasī ventō rapiēbantur.

B)

Saccī ā virīs validīsportābantur.The sacks were being carried by strong men. Fēminae cum/sine virīs saltābant. The women were dancing with/without the men. Saccōs in culīnam portābāmus. We were carrying the sacks into the kitchen. Pugnāre nōn poterāmus; imbēcillēs enim erāmus. We could not fight, for we were weak. Saccōsgravēs/gravīsportāre solēbātis. You used to carry heavy sacks.

Dominus dormiēbat, servīautem saltābant. The master slept and the servants danced. Mīlitēs/Hostēs, quodvīribus/gladiīs/imperātōre carēbant, resistere nōn poterant. Because the soldiers/enemy lacked strength/swords/a general, they were unable to resist. Dominus dominae/dominaque carmina et legere et scrībere multa solēbant. The master and mistresses/mistress used to both read and write many poems. Ego tē, ō mīles terribilis, nōn timeō. I am not afraid of you, O frightful soldier. Pūblius Mārcō/nēminī pecūniam dēbet/dēbēbat. Publius owes/owed money to Marcus/no one.

Chapter 20

A)

Meum contemnis cōnsilium et in silvam īre vīs? Ī igitur et ā lupō vorāre. Ancilla interdum dīcere solēbat (or: interdum dīcēbat), "Cibe, coquere!" vel "Domus, pūrgāre (or: Aedēs, pūrgāminī)!" sed neque coquēbātur neque pūrgābātur (or, if aedēs is used: pūrgābantur) nisi ipsa coquēbat vel pūrgābat. Manūs lavāte, puerī, antequam cēnātis! Neque imperātor sine exercitū neque exercitus sine imperātōre bellum feliciter gerere potest. Vestēs suās suīs manibus cōnficere solēbant (or: cōnficiēbant). Plācāminī, dī (or: diī/deī), sacrificiō nostrō!

Puer parvam manum ad crustum porrigit. Legiōnēs quīnque fortēs adduntur exercituī (or: exercitū). Suspendiminī, fūrēs! Imperātor parvam partem exercitūs in castrīs manēre iubet.

Note: -ū is an alternative ending for the dative singular of fourth-declension nouns.

B)

In our army, no one is hungry. Be appeased, master! (For) we are willing to obey you. I say to the dinner, "Dinner, be prepared!" but it is not prepared unless I prepare it. The soldier is wounded in the hand. A great part of the house was cleaned (used to be cleaned, would be cleaned) every day. The old man is cold and rubs his knees. If an army lacks valiant men, it is laughed at and defeated by the enemy. Listen and be taught. I am the general of five armies. I see a small but beautiful house.

Note: The majority of fourth-declension nouns are masculine. There are, however, a few feminine ones like domus and manus and a few neuter ones like genu and cornu. (Note that the final u of the nominative in the neuter forms may have been long, but it is uncertain.)

Chapter 21

A)

Nimis tibi placēs. Mīlitēs sē ad pugnam parābant. Pūblius in nūbibus faciem deī videt. Fēstīs diēbus hominēs labōrāre nōn solent. Dīlūculō servī, dominus merīdiē surgit. Or: Dīlūculō servī surgunt, dominus merīdiē. Magnam diēī partem in agrīs agitis. Philosophī causās rērum investīgant. Mīles sē in flūmen dat/iacit praecipitem. Cum mē aspiciō, virum fōrmōsum videō. Vergilius rēs gestās Aenēae nārrat.

Note 1: The adjective praeceps in 8 refers to the direct object sē: the "himself" whom he throws is in a headlong position; he puts himself in that position (he makes himself headlong, so to speak) while throwing himself. That is why it is in the accusative.

Praeceps also exists as an adverb, in which case it of course would not decline, but it is more frequent as an adjective.

Note 2: Dō, dare literally means "to give" but it is sometimes used where we would say "throw" in English. Dare praecipitem, for instance, is a common expression for "to throw headlong".

B)

Look at you (or: yourself)! You are handsome. Tell us the exploits of our soldiers. The girl hurts herself with a knife. We are making clothes for ourselves. The woman sees the handsome face of the wounded soldier. You sur me in many things/respects. The night succeeds the day. Prepare yourselves, soldiers; for the enemy is here. When the frightful soldier sees (or looks at) himself, he frightens himself.

They are preparing themselves dinner (preparing dinner for themselves).

Chapter 22

A)

Cēnam parābam cum tinniit tintinnābulum. Claudia mālum secuit et dīmidium Pūbliō dedit. Caesar ā coniūrātīs iuxtā/ad simulācrum Pompē(i)ī est interfectus. Hostēs sermōne terrēre temptā(vi)stī; at/sed bellum gladiīs, nōn verbīs geritur. Praecipitēs in mare sunt datī/iactī. Discipulī numerābantur cum irrūpērunt/irrūpēre mīlitēs magnīs (cum) clāmōribus et armōrum strepitū. Ovēs ad flūmen dēductae sunt. Puella hastā mīlitis sauciāta est. Vōs puellae ā stultō puerō fugātae estis. In silvam iimus nec lupum vīdimus.

Note: -ēre is an alternative third person plural perfect active indicative ending. It is slightly more archaic or poetic than -ērunt.

B)

We were defeated; for the enemy were valiant and strong and had good weapons, while we were hungry and sick and lacking swords. You (pl.) have written beautiful poems about our war. You (sg.) have drunk all my wine. The boy scared the girl with a great shout. My hat was snatched away by a strong wind. A war was waged last year. The soldiers picked roses and gave them to the girls. The boy burst from the garden into the kitchen. The students were reading a Vergil poem (a poem of Vergil) with their teacher when a noise of weapons and soldiers’ shouts were heard. I counted the sheep: the wolf has taken none.

Chapter 23

A)

Istud carmen nōn intellegō. Huius (virī/hominis) fīlia amat illum mīlitem.

Haec pictūra mihi nōn placet; illam mālō. Iste gladius mē terret. Hoc illī puerō dā. Hī sunt fortēs mīlitēs. Illīus philosophī librōs omnēs lēgī. Audīvī istōs philosophōs. Ad puteum iimus quod hās vestēs lavāre volēbāmus. Hīs pārēte; parentēs enim vestrī sunt.

Note 1: The masculine singular of these pronouns can stand on its own to refer to a male person; e.g. hic = "this man/boy". The feminine singular can stand on its own for a female; e.g. haec = "this woman/girl". The neuter singular can stand on its own for a thing of unspecified grammatical gender; e.g. hoc = "this (thing)". Naturally, the masculine and feminine can also be used this way to refer to a grammatically masculine or feminine thing that has been named or implicitly identified shortly before. That is happening with illam in 3.

The plurals work similarly; e.g.: hī = "these people (either male or of mixed or unspecified gender)"; hae = "these women"; haec = "these things".

Note 2: Hic is sometimes called the demonstrative of the first person, iste the demonstrative of the second person, and ille the demonstrative of the third person. That is because, most typically, hic refers to something close to the speaker, whether literally or figuratively, much like "this" in English; iste refers to something close to the addressee, whether literally or figuratively,

like "that of yours", "that thing which you own", "that which you’re talking about"—broadly, "that thing which has something to do with you"; and ille refers to something that is particularly close to neither the speaker nor the addressee, but could potentially be closer to a third person, like "that over there". There is some flexibility in the use of these adjective pronouns; for instance, iste does not carry a second-person reference absolutely every time it occurs, and it does not become wrong to refer to someone as ille just because your addressee has been talking about him; but it is good to know the basic distinction between those adjective pronouns. This little illustration may help you to it:

Imagine that you are sitting with two friends, and each of you is holding a book. You say to one of your friends: "I'll first read this book (pointing to yours—the book of the first person), then that/this one (pointing to the book of the friend you're talking to—the book of the second person), and finally that one (pointing to that of your other friend—the book of the third person)." In Latin, it would be very natural in this context to say: Primum hunc librum legam, deinde istum, denique illum. (Legam = I will read.)

Finally, note that these demonstratives are sometimes used in contexts where we could simply use third-person personal pronouns (he, she, etc.) in English.

B)

You (pl.) have given him/her/this person many gifts. I don’t like that hat (of yours). I love this woman/girl. I wrote this book last year.

Wash (sg.) your hands with this water. The general of those soldiers is sick. I teach these children. He/That man sures us in learning. I want to devour that big apple. No one has seen that wolf (of yours).

Chapter 24

A)

Miser ille mīles nōn sōlum ēsuriēbat, sed etiam gladium āmīserat. Gladium ubīque quaesīverat/quaesierat nec reppererat, et ante tabernāculum maestus sedēbat, cum ecce fēmina fōrmōsa/pulchra accessit et spatham magnam porrēxit gemmīs ōrnātam. "Accipe," inquit, "et vince. " Tū gladium āmīserās; ego autem hanc spatham iuxta corpus hostis reppereram. Nimis biberātis, itaque saltābātis et stultē rīdēbātis. Modo cēnā(ve)rāmus cum ululātus lupī audītus est. Cārus amīcus (in) illā pugnā caesus/interfectus erat. Amīcī quīnque sauciātī erant.

Ad tē dē imperātōre suō scrīpserant. Cibum ā Claudiā petīverāmus/petierāmus et crustum nōbīs dederat.

B)

Because they had resisted the enemy without swords, the general loved those soldiers. Many enemies had been killed by us. (By) then/at that time, I had already received this broadsword from the beautiful woman. Publius was tired, for he had risen at dawn and it was already midnight. No one had been able to find that book. I was tired because I had danced too much. We had gone into the camp and we were sitting before the general’s tent. Because I had drunk nothing, I was not laughing with them (those people). Marcus had not been killed. They had not picked the apples.

Chapter 25

A)

Populōrum Galliae (or: Ē populīs Galliae) fortissimī sunt Belgae. Mārcus Pūbliō est validior. Stultius rīdēbant. Librum scrīpsistī Aenēide pulchriōrem. Ex hīs pōmīs optima lēgērunt/lēgēre. (Hominī) tē meliōrī maledīxistī. Aqua flūminis frīgidissima est. Fortiter, immō fortissimē pugnā(vi)stis cum hostibus quam vōs erātis īnstrūctiōribus. Or: Fortiter, immō fortissimē pugnā(vi)stis adversus/adversum/contrā/in hostēs quam vōs erātis īnstrūctiōrēs. Or:Fortiter, immō fortissimē pugnā(vi)stis adversus/adversum/contrā/in hostēs vōbīs īnstrūctiōrēs. It is also allowable to leave "than you were" implied: Fortiter, immō fortissimē pugnā(vi)stis cum hostibus īnstrūctiōribus or Fortiter, immō fortissimē pugnā(vi)stis adversus/adversum/contrā/in hostēs īnstrūctiōrēs. The following is also possible although, stylistically, it may not be the best: Fortiter, immō fortissimē pugnā(vi)stis cum hostibus vōbīs īnstrūctiōribus. What is stylistically dubious in this version is the combination of the two ablatives hostibus… īnstrūctiōribus and vōbīs. Dēlector Mārcī litterīs, sed tuās maiōre etiam (cum) gaudiō accipiō. Vīdistis facta mīlitum vōbīs fortiōrum.

Note: Comparatives do not only mean "more…" but in some contexts also "rather…", "somewhat…" or "too…". Superlatives do not only mean "most…" but also "very…", "extremely…", and the like.

B)

You write better poems than I (do). Claudia’s voice is sweeter than yours, Marcus. This maidservant prepared an excellent (or: the best) dinner for us. Our teacher is the best (of all). The enemy are better equipped, but we are more valiant. The enemy fight with better weapons, but we fight with greater courage. Nothing is more frightful than this soldier. You see the bravest (one) of our soldiers. That water will not do (I don’t like that water, I am not pleased with that water, that water does not please); I want (it) colder (I want colder water). Listen to the words of a more learned man.

Note: As noted above, the superlative can mean either "the most…" or "very/extremely…". In the absence of context, it is not always possible to rule out either option entirely. For example, in 3, while "an excellent dinner" seems a little more likely by default, "the best dinner" is not an impossible interpretation. However, to make it clear that one means "the most…" if the rest of the context does not already make it clear, one often adds the genitive omnium, "of all", like in 4. Magister noster optimus est could (and, in the absence of any context pointing to the other interpretation, would tend to) be interpreted as "Our teacher is very good/excellent"; but with the addition of omnium it can only be understood

as "Our teacher is the best of all", "Our teacher is the best".

Chapter 26

A)

Correct. He/she/it will love. Wrong. Correction: capiet. He/she/it will take/seize/capture. Correct. They will pick/pluck. Correct. I will do/make. Correct. I will prepare. Wrong. Correction: gaudēbō. I will rejoice/be glad. Correct. We will say. Correct. You (pl.) will drink. Wrong. Correction: ībimus. We will go. Correct. They will laugh.

B)

Heri ad cēnam nōn vēnistī, hodiē nōn vēnistī: certē crās veniēs. You didn’t come to dinner yesterday, you didn’t come today: surely you’ll come tomorrow.

Ego hōc gladiō vōs occīdam. I’ll kill you (all) with this sword. Nostrum vīnum istī nōn bibent. Those people (or: They) shall not drink our wine. Cēnam nōbīs, servī, optimam parābitis. You shall prepare us an excellent dinner, slaves. Hoc tū melius, Pūblī, facere nōn poteris. You won’t be able to do this better, Publius. Crās amīcī nostrī omnēs aderunt. Tomorrow our friends will all be there. Hodiē rīdēs, at crās minus rīdēbis. You’re laughing today, but you’ll be laughing less tomorrow. Ille mox dormīre volet. That one (that person, he) will soon want to sleep. Ī sī vīs; ego hīc manēbō. Go if you want; I will stay here. Dum vīnum bibitis, nōs hunc librum legēmus. While you (guys) drink wine, we will read this book.

C)

bibētur amābimur carpentur rīdēbor cōnficientur legar

capiēmur dabiminī occīdēris/occīdēre parāberis/parābere

Chapter 27

A)

Mārcus Tullius Cicerō, ōrātor praestantissimus, iussū Mārcī Antōn(i)ī interfectus/occīsus est. Ego rēgem ipsum vīdī. Hoc est simulācrum Salomōnis, rēgis Iūdaeōrum. Pūblius (ad) Gāium, amīcum patris, adiit. Fīlia agricolae eandem fābulam nārrat. Vestēs tuās, puella, ipsa lavā. Puerī hoc crustum ipsī fēcērunt (or fēcēre, but this somewhat high-brow form may feel a little incongruous in such a trivial sentence). Ipse/Ipsa ībō illūc et Claudiam rogābō, sī tū īre nōn vīs. Nōn pecūniam tuam, sed tē ipsum, virum bonum ac doctum, amō. Multōs librōs eiusdem scrīptōris lēgimus.

Note: In 9, the vocative vir bone ac docte instead of the accusative apposition virum bonum ac doctum would mean a slightly different thing. Compare:

Nōn pecūniam tuam, sed tē ipsum, virum bonum ac doctum, amō = I am not in love with your money, but with you yourself, a good and learned man.

Nōn pecūniam tuam, sed tē ipsum, vir bone ac docte, amō = I am not in love with your money, but with you yourself, (O) good and learned man.

B)

These young men hate each other because they love the same girl. Publius said, "I myself will write to my friend Gaius about the same matter." Publius came to me yesterday with Gaius, an outstanding teacher. The soldier does not want to fight anymore; he hates war now and wishes for peace, the hope of all soldiers tired from too much slaughter. (Literally: The soldier now does not want to fight, now he hates war, now he wishes for peace… The repetition of iam creates a common rhetorical effect.) That student is more learned than the teacher himself. My teacher, the most learned of teachers, writes very beautiful poems. We have the same hope, the same plan. I told the same kids, the general’s children, a frightful story about people

devoured by a wolf. We escorted the king into town at his own bidding (at the bidding of himself, at the bidding of that very king). This poet sures Vergil himself.

Note 1: Although this is not a rigid rule, in a construction involving an apposition, the generic word (the one that denotes the kind or function etc. of the person or thing referred to) tends to come second and thus be the apposition, even when the tendency would be opposite in English; e.g. Gāium amīcum meum vs. "my friend Gaius" in 2 or Alfrēdus rēx vs. "King Alfred".

Note 2: Caede nimiā in 4 may be called an ablative of cause (the soldiers are tired because of too much slaughter) but it is essentially not very different from an inanimate agent or instrument: the soldiers have been made tired by too much slaughter.

Chapter 28

A)

Domī. When a house is mentioned in its capacity as person’s home (rather than as a type of building, for instance) domus usually behaves like names of cities in expressions of motion and location. This includes the use of the locative case, without any preposition, where in + abl. would be used with most other nouns. Rūs. Rūs, rūris is one of the few common nouns that behave similarly to names

of cities in expressions of motion and location. Thus, when denoting a destination, it is put in the bare accusative, without preposition. Athēnīs. Athens is a city’s name, so it is put in the locative case, without any preposition, in contexts where in + abl. would be used with most common nouns. Rōmam. Rome is a city’s name, so it is put in the bare accusative, without preposition, when it denotes a destination/end of motion. Rōmae. Rome is a city’s name, so the locative case is used to express location within it. Domō. As stated in 1, domus, when viewed as a person’s home, behaves like names of cities in expressions of motion and location. This includes the use of the bare ablative where most other nouns would take the preposition ex. In oppidō. Oppidum is a "regular" noun, taking prepositions in the normal way. Although the noun means "town", it is a common noun, not the proper name of a town. It is proper names of towns, cities and small islands that behave peculiarly, not common nouns referring to them generically. Rōmā. This is a city’s name, so it is put in the bare ablative where most common nouns would take the preposition ex. In domō. When a house is mentioned merely as a physical building, it takes prepositions like most other common nouns. Here for instance, "in a house" sounds like "in a building of the type ‘house’" rather than "in this or that person’s house/home"; that is why in domō is the most likely translation. In Āfricā. While Africa is the proper name of a place, it is neither that of a town nor that of a city, nor does Africa by any standard qualify as a small island. It is a whole continent. Therefore it behaves regularly.

Note 1: Domus has a mixed declension. While fourth-declension (or ambiguous) in the rest, it tends to decline as second declension -us in some grammatical cases, most notably the ablative singular (domō) and the locative (domī), but also not rarely the accusative plural (domōs) and

genitive plural (domōrum). Whatever the form, it remains feminine.

Note 2: There are exceptions to the general rules about the use and omission of prepositions. For instance, while a phrase like Āfricam venīre, without any preposition, would be extremely unusual in classical prose, it would not be surprising in poetry.

B)

Although that farmer fears people more than the wolf, he sometimes comes (in)to town. Two countrymen arrived from the countryside yesterday. Banished people were sometimes sent to Pandateria. Soldiers often sleep on the ground. (Humus is one of the rare common nouns that have a locative case. Humī is very frequent for "on the ground".) I once lived in Carthage. The war-weary soldier (lit. the soldier weary with war) wants to go home. A messenger (or message) was quickly sent from Athens to Rome. I want to go to Athens; for Dionysius, a learned man and a very dear friend, lives there. In our house, poems are not only read, but also written. He was thrown out of his father’s house because of his profligate life(style).

Chapter 29

A)

Illud carmen, quod equidem nōndum lēgī, Aenēide pulchrius esse dīcitur. Puer cui dominus pecūniam dederat in oppidum iit/īvit et quīnque crusta ēmit. Hī mīlitēs quōs post mē vidētis hostīs/hostēs validissimōs vīcērunt/vīcēre. Puella, cuius bella faciēs omnium puerōrum oculōs ad/in sē convertēbat, inter amīcās cōnsēdit. Illō diē fīliae imperātōris, quārum carmina mīlitēs audierant/audīverant, in castra (cum) magnō gaudiō receptae sunt. Aquae flūminum quae in terrā illā exsecrātā fluunt īnsalūberrimae sunt. Puerī quibus/quīs Claudia terribilem dē lupō fābulam nārrā(ve)rat in silvam īre timēbant. Apprehendimus hominem quī aurum tuum surripuit. Liber quem scrīpsistī ā discipulīs meīs legitur. Omnium quae scrīpsī carminum (or: Ex omnibus quae scrīpsī carminibus) hoc mihi optimum vidētur.

Note 1: A relative pronoun usually* agrees with its antecedent (i.e. the person or thing it refers back to, for instance "the man" in "the man who stole your gold") in gender and number. The case of the relative pronoun, however, is totally independent from that of the antecedent. The relative pronoun takes the case required by its own grammatical function in the

relative clause. If you are unsure of the grammatical function of the relative pronoun, rephrase the relative clause as an independent clause and see what grammatical function the word that the relative pronoun stood for has. For example:

We have arrested the man who stole your gold. The man stole your gold. Therefore the relative pronoun "who", which stands for "the man", is the subject of the relative clause and will be nominative in Latin.

This book, which I read last year, is very good. I read this book last year. Therefore "which", which stands for "this book", is the direct object of the relative clause and will be accusative in Latin.

*Exceptions frequently occur when the relative clause has a predicative complement after a form of sum or the like; that is, when the antecedent is said, in the relative clause, to be this or that. In that situation, the relative pronoun tends to be attracted into the gender and number of the predicative complement. For example: Londinium, quae est urbs Britanniae… = "London, which is a city in (lit. of) Britain…": although the antecedent Londinium is neuter, the relative pronoun quae is feminine, in agreement with the predicative complement urbs rather than with the antecedent.

Note 2: In English, relative pronouns are sometimes omitted. For instance, "the book that you wrote" and "the man whom I saw" may be shortened to "the book you wrote" and "the man I saw". This never happens in Latin. The relative pronoun must always be there.

Note 3: Quīs is an alternative dat./abl. pl. form of the relative pronoun.

B)

This is the woman you seek. Personally, I like your poems better than Vergil’s. (OT) Then that/the frightful soldier said, "This sword, with which I have slain many strong enemies, will not touch you." We shall soon read a book in which the deeds of valiant men are narrated. This is the forest in which the wolf dwells. That man whose poems were said to be very beautiful was a soldier not only strong and valiant but also frightful of (in) face and body, who had conquered and killed many enemies. I saw the man who lives in that cottage. The roses that Publius holds will be given to the girls. We shall take into town the wounded soldiers who can no longer fight. That is the man we saw in town yesterday.

Note 1: A relative clause may come before its antecedent, as in quam quaeritis fēmina, "The woman (whom) you seek".

Note 2: Like in English, a Latin genitive can stand on its own with the possessed thing left implied, as in 2, where Vergiliī/"Vergil’s" stands for Vergiliī carmina/"Vergil’s poems". The Latin genitive also translates the English construction "that/those of"; so "those of Vergil" would translate to Vergilī as well, usually without any demonstrative pronoun to translate "that" literally.

Note 3: Quam in 2 is not being used as a relative pronoun, but as the relative adverb (or conjunction) meaning "than", which you have come across before. (The adverb and the pronoun are, however, etymologically the same word. The adverb is the pronoun having developed special usages.)

Note 4: A demonstrative like ille may sometimes be translated with the simple English definite article "the", and vice versa.

Note 5: While we do not usually say "and" between "many" and another adjective in English, it is frequently done in Latin, as in hostēs multōs ac validōs, "many (and) strong enemies".

Note 6: It is not uncommon for the bare ablative (i.e. without any preposition, the way that quō is used in 4) to occur where we say in English that something is told (or the like) in a piece of writing. It is possible to interpret such an ablative as an ablative of means (the thing is told by means of the piece of writing, even if you don’t usually put it that way in English) or as a prepositionless locatival ablative. Locatival ablatives without prepositon occur in some contexts, often in poetry but also in prose in a few common constructions.

Note 7: When a sentence goes on to say that a subject demonstrative pronoun is this or that (as in "This is the woman…"), the demonstrative pronoun most of the time agrees with the complement. For example, "This is the woman…" = Haec est fēmina… (rather than Hoc est fēmina…); "This is the forest…" = Haec est silva… (rather than Hoc est silva…); "That is the man…" = Ille est homō… (rather than Illud est homō…).

Chapter 30

A)

Fuit homō quīdam in oppidō nostrō nōmine Dionȳsius, quī magister erat et puerōs oppidī docēbat. Is domum nostram vēnit et "Vultisne," inquit, "crustum? Amīcus enim crustum mihi dedit neque ego id edam, nam crustīs nōn dēlector." There was in our town a man by the name of Dionysius, who was a teacher and taught the town’s children. This man/He (once) came to our house and said, "Do you want a cake? A friend gave me a cake and I am not going to eat it, because I don’t like cakes." Eum librum quem heri quaerēbās domī invēnī. I found at home the book that you were looking for yesterday. Imperātor "Meā sententiā," inquit, "mīles dēbet nōn sōlum bene pugnāre sed etiam, cum aequum est, hostī parcere. Iste crūdēlis est, itaque eum in exercitū meō nōlō." The general said, "In my opinion, a soldier ought not only to fight well, but also to spare the enemy when it is right. That one is cruel, so I do not want him." Lingua Latīna quibusdam difficilis vidētur sed Arabica, meā sententiā, est difficilior. Attamen eā valdē dēlector. Latin seems difficult to some, but Arabic, in my opinion, is more difficult. And yet I enjoy it very much.

There is another, less obvious possibility: Lingua Latīna quibusdam difficilis vidētur sed Arabica, meā sententiā, est difficilior. Attamen eō valdē dēlector.

Latin seems difficult to some, but Arabic, in my opinion, is more difficult. And yet I enjoy that (i.e. the fact that it is difficult) very much. Eōs quī pugnāre iam nōn poterant imperātor domum remīsit. The general sent back home those who could no longer fight.

B)

He who does not know how to fight with a sword is not a soldier. (A less literal, more informal translation could be: "You aren’t a soldier if you don’t know how to fight with a sword", with a "you" that is general rather than referring to a specific person.) Claudia is not beautiful, and yet Publius loves her because she is a very witty girl. Those who had stayed at home were drinking wine and dancing. I receive many letters from those I love. The farmer’s daughter was in love with a man (or: someone) called Marcus. He had been a soldier but had just been sent back home after an injury. I had seen the man in town but I didn’t know his name. The general ordered those who were unhurt to stay awake, whereas those who had received injuries were allowed to sleep (lit. it was permitted to them to sleep). I like those girls and their voices (lit. Those girls and their voices are pleasing to me). Are you going to hurt me with the sword I gave you (with that sword which I gave you)? I was given this book (lit. this book was given to me) and I cannot read it.

Note: The adjective pronoun is, ea, id is used in broadly two ways:

It is not a demonstrative in the same sense as hic, iste and ille are, in that you cannot simply point to someone or something and say is! It needs either to have a referent mentioned shortly before, or to be defined by a clause.

Chapter 31

A)

Sī domum meam vēneris, gaudēbō. Sī mihi hospitibusque (meīs) cēnam parā(ve)ritis bonam, magnum erit praemium. Quī librum meum reppererit/invēnerit, ōsculum eī dabō. Ille (homō/vir) mē interficiet/occīdet nisi eī dederō (eam) quam poscit pecūniam. (Or less likely but not impossible: quam poposcerit. Poscit means that the demand is being made even now; poposcerit that it will be made in the future.) Sī crās cum vēnerō adhūc lūdētis, lūdam vōbīscum. Nōs convocābunt cum testēs/testīs reppererint/invēnerint. Hāc pugnā sī vīcerimus, confectum erit bellum. Sī novum carmen scrīpserō, (id) ad tē mittam.

Sī Pūblius ad mē litterās mīserit, rescrībam. Sī hāc pugnā victī erimus, hostēs nōbīs nōn parcent.

Note 1: In English, it is usual to use the present tense in conditional, temporal, and similar clauses when referring to the future: "if you do this" and "when you do this" can refer to the future as well as the present. In Latin, however, when such clauses refer to the future, the futurity is usually made explicit by the use of the future tense. Moreover, a further distinction tends to be made according to whether the action of the conditional, temporal, or similar clause is to be completed before that of the main clause, or whether they will take place simultaneously. For instance, consider sentence 5 above:

Sī crās cum vēnerō adhūc lūdētis, lūdam vōbīscum.

Vēnerō is in the future perfect, literally "I shall have come", because that action will be completed before the speaker sees if the others are still playing: the speaker will have come to the place before that. Lūdētis, on the other hand, is future simple because that action will still be going on at the same time as that of lūdam: the speaker will, naturally, play with their friends while these are still playing, not after they have played.

Note 2: "There" in the English expression "there is/are" denoting existence does not translate literally in Latin. Forms of the verb sum are used alone. They then often tend to come toward the beginning of the clause, but it is not always the case.

Note 3: The placement of hāc pugnā before sī in 7 puts emphasis on hāc

pugnā: the battle is at the forefront of the speaker’s mind; it is the topic of the sentence. This type of word order is not at all uncommon. Do not worry if yours differs here, however: another order is not wrong.

B)

If you are defeated tomorrow, those whom you spared yesterday will not spare you. If you sleep at midnight, I too will sleep; if you dance, I too will dance. If these soldiers are not allowed to sleep, they (lit. These soldiers, if it is not permitted to them to sleep,) will not be able to fight well tomorrow. He who does this will be killed. Will you spare me if I give you money? You will receive great rewards after this battle if you fight bravely. If a messenger comes from Rome, I want him (to be) brought to me. Will you read their (those people’s) poems if they send them to you, master? The friends of those you kill will want to kill you. When the master sleeps, we will drink this wine.

Chapter 32

A)

magister bonus, magister bone hōs puerōs aliō amīcō, aliī amīcō (or, in practice, alterī amīcō; see note) quendam mīlitem nūllīus agricolae, nūllī agricolae istam cēnam magnum caput imperātōrī terribilī, imperātōre terribilī rēbus facilibus (both dat. and abl. pl.) domūs pulchrae (both gen. sg. and nom. pl.), domūs pulchrās pulchrae faciēī (both gen. and dat. sg.), pulchrae faciēs idem carmen sōlī mihi tōtīus oppidī illārum pugnārum eī dominō, eī dominī (nom. pl.) alterum librum aliqua pōma ūnīus flūminis ūllōs exercitūs

pōma dulcia dominus terribilis, dominī terribilis, domine terribilis vōcum dulcium quōsdam librōs exercituī magnō domī tuae hanc ancillam sōlitūdinis magnae, sōlitūdinī magnae, sōlitūdinēs magnae eīs/iīs/īs magistrīs tōtum vulnus hunc hominem eā rē illud caput ipsīs rēgibus multōrum exercituum

Note: The genitive and dative singular of alter (alterīus and alterī) are often used in lieu of those of alius (alīus and aliī).

B)

Dormiēbāmus. Accēperō. Pugnābunt. Ductus erō. Intellēxeris. Audīvimus. Ībant. Fēceram. Capiunt. Raptae erunt. Tenērī. Dūcēmus. Cēperās. Facere. Parābitur. Ībitis. Audiēris/audiēre. Sedent. Capiēbantur. Dūcēminī. Mittite!

Scrīpsī. Scrībētur. Plācāre! Nōlet. Missī erant. Rīdē! Rapiminī. Fēcerint. Rīdēbiminī. Rapī. Venīte! Cēnāte! Gaudēre. Amāberis/amābere.

Chapter 33

A)

Tum Claudia sorōrī "Tū mē," inquit, "peritūram servā(vi)stī."

Hunc (hominem) dēprehendimus vīnum dominī surripientem. Fēmina flēns ēiulānsque "Vir meus," inquit, "graviter aegrōtat." In castra victī rediērunt/rediēre. Graviter ā magistrō increpitus puer discessit ērubēscēns. Haec mihi spatha ā fēminā pulchrā data est ante tabernāculum sedentī. Quī vōs victōrēs amant, (iī vōs) victōs dēserent. Surrēxērunt/Surrēxēre praemia (sua) acceptūrī/acceptūrae. Succurrite mihi peritūrō/peritūrae! Nōs errantēs/errantīs lēniter onēre solēs.

Note: The antecedent of a relative clause may be left implied; e.g. iī in 7. Quī can more or less stand on its own for is quī, quod for id quod, etc. The difference is one of emphasis.

B)

The defeated soldier’s sword lay broken on the ground. He/She found a soldier lying on the ground severely wounded and about to perish, carried him home and saved him. We lay sick in the tent. The wolf drew near to snatch a sheep away. The farmer saw the wolf drawing near.

The wolf, put to flight by the farmer’s shout, went back into the forest. The cook sings while preparing dinner. We put to flight barbarians about to snatch our women away. Publius came to me laughing. I heard a woman singing in the forest.

Note: As exemplified by several of the sentences in this chapter, Latin participles are, not exclusively, but frequently found where in English we would tend to use a whole subordinate clause (not only with "when", "as" and "while", but also sometimes "if", "though", and others). It also occurs that a sentence with a participle can be split into two main clauses ed by "and" or the like in English. For instance, Sentence 8 of Exercise B could also acceptably translate to "Barbarians were about to snatch our women away and we put them to flight". While such a rewording is not necessary in this particular sentence, it is sometimes really preferable, especially when you are dealing with longer Latin sentences which, translated literally into English, might sound unnatural or even confusing. Conversely, when translating from English into Latin, you should keep in mind that some clauses can translate to participles, and that option is sometimes stylistically preferable.

Chapter 34

A)

Tantum bibī ut stāre nōn possim.

Fābulās rīdiculās nārrāmus ut maestus noster amīcus/maesta nostra amīca rīdeat. Resistite, mīlitēs, et vincite, nē glōria nostra pereat. Discipulī cōnsīdunt ut magistrum audiant. Or: Discipulī cōnsīdunt magistrum audītūrī. Bene māne surgam ut tōtam domum pūrgem. Or: Bene māne surgam tōtam domum pūrgātūrus/pūrgātūra. Tam terribilēs dē lupō fābulae nārrantur ut puerī in silvam īre nōlint. Sīc/Ita saltātis ut vōs libentissimē spectēmus. Tam vēlōciter curris ut tē praeterīre/praetereuntem vix videāmus. Hoc/Haec faciō ut maerēre dēsinās. Cum lupum videō, clāmō ut terream eum fugemque.

Note 1: A negative purpose clause is either introduced by nē, or introduced by ut with a nē coming later. A negative result clause is introduced by ut and its verb is negated by nōn rather than nē.

Note 2: Neuter plural demonstrative pronouns, like haec, are sometimes used where in English we could or even would tend to use a singular pronoun like "this". Indeed, "this" or "that" sometimes refers to a whole situation that can be viewed as a set of several "things", facts or acts, gestures or words, etc. One context where this very frequently happens is when someone is referring to an utterance. In English you can say, for instance, "He said this" just as well as "He said these things/words". In Latin, haec, literally "these (things/words)", is more common in such a context than the singular hoc.

B)

Puella ululātum audit et, nēā lupō vorētur, fugit. The girl hears a howl and flees, not to be devoured by the wolf. Pecūniam ā mē petunt ut cibum emant. They are asking me for money (They are asking money from me) to buy food. Mīles ille tam terribilis est faciē ut barbarōs etiam fortissimōs terreat. That soldier is so frightful of face that he frightens even the bravest barbarians. Hic tam validus est utnōn possit ā quīnque virīs vincī. This one is so strong that he cannot be defeated by five men. Nēmō est tantā doctrīnā praeditus ut omnēs linguāssciat. No one is endowed with such learning as to know all languages. Or: No one is endowed with such learning that he knows/they know all languages. (Note that while in English we can use the technically plural pronoun "they" to refer to a single person of unknown gender, the plural cannot be used here in Latin. Sciat must be singular like nēmō.) Dormī, puella, nē crās fessa sīs. Sleep, girl, not to be tired tomorrow. Succurrite mihi, nē peream! Rescue me, lest I perish/so that I not perish! Fēmina sauciōs inter occīsōs quaerit ut eōs servet. The woman looks for wounded men among the slain to save them. Mīles saucius inter occīsōs iacēns clāmat ut ab aliquō audītus servētur. The wounded soldier, lying among the slain, shouts so that, having been heard by someone, he may be saved. Or less literally: The wounded soldier, lying among the slain, shouts so that someone may hear and save him. Hoc faciō nōn ut amer, sed quia aequum est. I am not doing this in order to be loved, but because it is right.

Chapter 35

A)

Pālum sex pedēs longum terrae/terrā/in terrā/in terram īnfīxit. Centum annōs vīxit. Hōrās duodecim dormī(vi)stī, deinde subitō exclāmāns ēvigilā(vi)stī. Ager dīvitis illīus agricolae tria mīlia uum longus est, lātus duo. Rōmae mēnsem mānsērunt/mānsēre. Trēs/Trīs hōrās vigilō. Annum in Āfricā erant cum nūntius Rōmā advēnit. Bīduum in agrō labōrābāmus cum graviter pluere coepit. Capillum duo cubita longum sāpōne Arabicō lavāre solēbat/lavābat. In animō habēmus Rōmae aliquot diēs manēre ut omnia monumenta vīsāmus.

Note 1: When in English we say "I have been doing something for such and such a length of time" meaning that the action started in the past and is still ongoing, Latin uses the present tense, not the perfect. Similarly, for "I had been doing something for such and such a length of time" meaning that it was still ongoing, Latin uses the imperfect rather than the pluperfect.

Note 2: A common misconception about perfect and imperfect is that the imperfect is used for actions that lasted a long time whereas the perfect

denotes actions that were brief. This is not what the difference between the two consists of. The difference is rather that when using the perfect, you are usually viewing the action in its entirety, from its beginning to its end (at the very least, you see its beginning); whereas when using the imperfect you are only thinking of some point during an action that started earlier and is usually being looked at as a background for something else. If you consider an action as a line like this:

___________

The perfect will refer to the entire line:

Vīxit = __________ : he lived for that entire time, however long it may have been, and that is what you are talking about.

The imperfect, on the other hand, will refer to a point on that line:

Vīvēbat = the dot in ______._______ : he was living, he was alive at that point which you are talking about, when something else happened. Vivēbat refers only to the dot, not to the entire line. The beginning and end of the line, which represents the whole time during which he lived, are largely irrelevant to what you are saying. The only thing relevant is that he was alive at that point on the line.

So, since when you say "He lived a hundred years" you are necessarily referring to the entire time during which he lived (viz. the hundred years) the translation will usually be Centum annōs vīxit. Centum annōs vīvēbat, by contrast, would usually mean either "He had been living for a hundred years" (see Note 1—in

this case, the beginning of the "action line" is relevant to an extent, since we are stating for how long the action had been happening; but the end of it is still irrelevant and the focus is still on a point between the two) or "He used to live a hundred years" (the latter is not a very likely thing to be said with this verb, but you could have a statement like "Man was strong in those days; he used to live a hundred years"). The "used to" meaning of the imperfect also refers to a point on an "action line": here the line represents the whole length of time during which an action was habitually done, and the imperfect is a point somewhere on it.

On the other hand, perhaps you did not have the mistaken idea that an action that lasted a long time must necessarily be conveyed by the imperfect; perhaps you instinctively used the correct tense when translating "He lived a hundred years" because, after all, it says "lived", not "was living". If so, you were correct in this particular case. Yet you should not overly rely on the notion that imperfect = "was [verb]ing". While the idea of the Latin imperfect is very close indeed to "was [verb]ing" or "used to [verb]", the equivalence is not complete. Sometimes, a simple English preterit verb, such as "did", must translate to the Latin imperfect (and vice versa), because the focus is really on a particular point during the action rather than on the whole of it.

There are a few English verbs with which this happens particularly often, like "to be", "to have", "to know", "to think", "to love", "to like" (the list is not exhaustive). Most of these do sometimes take the "was [verb]ing" form, but only in rather specific contexts, and their simple preterit form often corresponds to the Latin imperfect. (One that is nearly never found in the past progressive is "to know". When do you say "I was knowing it"?)

Let me give an example. Take the sentence "You told me what I already knew". This "knew" should translate with the imperfect: Id mihi dīxistī quod iam sciēbam. Why? Because you’re talking about a certain point during the time when you knew it. You already knew it before the relevant point in time, viz. the point when your addressee said it to you. Sciēbam means that back then you habitually knew, so to speak; or at any rate your knowledge of the thing had

already been acquired by the time that you’re talking about. By contrast, scīvī means either that you right then started knowing something previously unknown to you, or that you knew something for the entirety of a more-or-less specified length of time.

B)

We were walking among the temple’s columns (which were) many feet high. We’ve been waiting for your friend many hours already. This war has been waged for ten years, so that we are all tired now and desire peace. He/She will swim across a mile-wide river to escape the enemy. We do not want to stay one day/a single day in this accursed city. They were not even able to sleep one hour that night. Unless we sleep/If we do not sleep at least six hours, we will hardly be able to work tomorrow. My son has been suffering from a cough for several days. I was a soldier for ten years; now I hate war. I want to buy a broadsword at least two cubits long.

Chapter 36

A)

Haec locūtus discessit. Tālem māchinam bīduō fabricāre/fabricārī possum. Tantum opus ūnō diē perficī nōn potest. Paucī ē nostrīs/Paucī dē nostrīs/Paucī nostrōrum hostēs/hostīs persequentēs/persequentīs effūgērunt/effūgēre. Hostis tēlō trānsfīxus in lutum cruentum cecidit moritūrus. Miserēre peritūrī/peritūrae! Decem annōs pugnāvimus, ūnā hōrā victī sumus. Multōs labōrēs patiēmur sī in illam terram profectī erimus. Or: Multōs labōrēs patiēmur in illam terram profectī, which is literally "We will suffer many hardships having set out for that land"; see Answer Key, Chapter 33, Exercise B, Note. Bellī us labōrēs tibi, iuvenis, suādeō nē sīs cupidus eius glōriae quae gladiō parātur. Petasum (meum) tē persequēns āmīsī.

Note 1: While tālis and tantus can both idiomatically translate to "such", they convey different ideas. Tālis is about kind, quality, character (= of such a kind); tantus is about size, amount, intensity, greatness, importance (= such great).

Note 2: When you see a sentence like Miserēre peritūrī! in isolation, you cannot tell with certainty whom peritūrī refers to. There is a good chance

that it refers to the speaker, but it could also refer to a third person. However, in a natural situation, where there is a context to every utterance, such omissions of pronouns (here meī) are not infrequent when the referent can easily be identified from the context.

B)

Obey, lest you die/so as not to die! Having pursued the fleeing enemy for several hours, we returned to the camp at dusk. The new statue of the king was completed in two months. I found the (or, likely, my) lost hat by the well. You pursued us for two miles. We do not understand the speech of those who cannot (do not have the skill, do not know how to) speak Latin. I don’t understand. Speak Latin, please. When we had spoken these words, they gave us the money that we had asked for. (Literally: To us having spoken these (words), they gave the money…) I will not let you be killed. We steal so as not to perish from hunger.

Chapter 37

A)

Imperātor Rōmae esse fertur. In silvam eāmus et videāmus lupum illum/eum dē quō semper loquuntur. Dūc mē ad rēgem dominum tuum. Moriar sī mentior! Lēgātī rēgis sī advēnerint, dūcantur in tabernāculum imperātōris. Baculum (meum), puer, mihi adfer! Saepe nōbīs dōna pulchra adfertis. Dīc mihi: ubi istum galdium invēnistī? Fac (id) quod iubeō. Or, if "what I command" refers to several things: Fac (ea) quae iubeō. Dētur huic venia ut cum lēgātīs colloquātur. (If you got the cases in the first part wrong, see again Answer Key, Chapter 16, Exercise B, Note.)

Note: Dīc, dūc and fac are the classical singular present imperatives of dīcō, dūcō and faciō. The regular-looking dīce, dūce and face are attested in archaic Latin (for instance in pre-classical authors like Plautus and Terence).

B)

The inhabitants of that island are said to eat human flesh.

Let them (those people) stay here; (and) let us go to the enemy’s camp and ask permission to speak with the general. The master does not eat meat. Lead us to your camp, for we wish to speak with the ambassadors who arrived yesterday. You have endured and are still enduring many hardships, soldier. Let us read the letter that we received from Rome. Let not this letter be brought to the general. They are eating food cooked by Claudia. Such (great) hardships can scarcely be endured. Let him/her send ambassadors; we will hear them.

Note: that a letter that you send to someone is usually not (with few, mostly poetic, exceptions) the singular littera but the plural litterae. That is because littera means a letter of the alphabet, and a letter that you send to someone is made up of many letters of the alphabet. Litterae can also mean several letters sent to someone, but only the context will enable you to tell when it is so. By default, assume that it refers to a single letter.

Chapter 38

A)

Pānis fit ē frūmentō. Tam saevus/atrōx canis vidēbātur ut tibi (ad eum) accēdentī timērem. In colle stābant ut exercitum accēdentem spectārent. Rēs heri tam rīdicula facta est ut adhūc/etiam rīdeam. Num istud fierī potest? Silentiō ībant nē accessus suus ab hostibus sentīrētur. Quid mē fīet sī hīc sōlus relictus/sōla relicta erō? Domūs ē lignō fīēbant/fierī solēbant. Nārrābō/Memorābō vōbīs rem rīdiculam quae ā Claudiā amīcā meā facta est. Or: Nārrābō/Memorābō vōbīs rem rīdiculam ā Claudiā amīcā meā factam. Facinus atrōx prīdiē ab illīs duōbus mīlitibus factum memorātūrus/memorātūra eram, cum ipsī in ōrā silvae appāruērunt/appāruēre.

Note 1: The mostly missing (barring some extremely rare occurrences) perfect tenses (perfect, pluperfect and future perfect) of fīō are supplied by the ive of faciō. So, for example, "he became" is factus est, same as "he was made". Present-stem (present, imperfect and future simple) ive forms of faciō (facitur etc.) are almost never used and generally replaced by forms of fīō. Thus, "it is done/made" translates to fit rather than facitur, and so on.

Note 2: Unlike in purpose clauses, there is no sequence of tenses as such in result clauses. When the result takes place in the present, it is logically put in the present tense, even if the cause was in the past, as in Sentence 4.

The sequence of tenses is not a transcendental thing, a rule for the sake of a rule, but a name for a phenomenon that is in fact simply based on a certain form of logic. As far as purpose clauses are concerned, when you do something in the past with a certain purpose in mind, that purpose was in the past even if it becomes fulfilled in the present. The purpose clause refers to the purpose rather than its fulfillment, and it is following this logic that it cannot (save in a few special cases) be put in the present tense if it depends on a past-tense verb.

Note 3: The reflexive possessive suus is used to refer back to the subject as a possessor. Sometimes, however, it is found in a subordinate clause to refer not to the subject of that very clause, but to the subject of the main clause that the subordinate clause depends on, as in Sentence 6. This typically happens when the subordinate clause denotes something that is, broadly speaking, in the mind of the subject of the main clause; something that they say, think, or intend; for instance, here, a purpose of the subject. The same rule applies to the reflexive pronoun sē.

B)

There was indeed an access, but so difficult and (so) dangerous that those who attempted it often perished. Such terrible deeds were being committed by the king’s army that the whole world detested them (them = the people in the army). The night was very dark, so that we could not see the way. What became of that man whom we used to drink and sing and dance and gamble (play dice) with last year? The general ordered some soldiers to keep watch on the hill so that they might see the enemy come from afar.

Note: We often add "can/could" to verbs of perception in English: "I can see…", "I could hear…", "I can feel…" These phrases, though sometimes more idiomatic, essentially differ little from just "I see…", "I heard…", "I feel…" and the literal equivalents of the latter are often sufficient in Latin, like in sentence 3. A form of possum is not needed unless there is really an emphasis on the ability to perceive rather than perception itself.

C)

A negative purpose clause may be introduced by the conjunction nē or the conjunction ut. If ut is used, nē comes as a negative adverb later in the clause. It is being done, it happens, it is happening, it is being made, it becomes, it is becoming, it comes to . Fiere, faciuntur, facī, fīmur. Perfect, pluperfect, future perfect. It became, she became, she was made, it was done, it was made, it happened, it has become, she has become, she has been made. (This feminine form can translate to "it became etc." if it refers to a thing that is grammatically feminine in Latin.)

Chapter 39

A)

Dīcit sē illum librum legere. Dīxit sē illum librum legere. Dīcit sē illum librum lēgisse. Dīcit sē illum librum lēctūrum (esse). Dīxit sē illum librum lēgisse. Dīxit sē illum librum lēctūrum (esse). Pūblius Mārcum heri vīsit dīcitque (eum) fessum vīsum (esse). Puellae dīxērunt/dīxēre sē carmine tuō dēlectātās (esse). Dīcis tē annō proximō Rōmae fuisse. Vōs gaudēre dīxistis. Dīcēmus nihil nōs invēnisse/repperisse. Dīcent sē gaudēre. Ā sorōre sē servātam (esse) dīcit. Sē fessōs/fessās (esse) dīxērunt/dīxēre. Sē cēnātūrōs/cēnātūrās (esse) dīxērunt/dīxēre.

Note: The tense of an infinitive is relative to the tense of the verb on which it depends. In the case of an indirect statement, that means the verb of saying or similar. A present infinitive denotes something that (according to the statement) is, was or will be happening at the time of speaking (or thinking, knowing, etc.). A perfect infinitive denotes something that was or will be completed before the time of speaking. A future infinitive denotes something that will or would happen after the time of speaking. This is only logical when you consider the word-for-word translations of these constructions:

Dīxit sē legere = He said himself to read = He said he was reading or He said he read (as a habit).

Dīcit sē legere = He says himself to read = He says he is reading or He says he reads.

Dīcet sē legere = He will say himself to read = He will say that he is reading or He will say he reads.

And so on with any tense of dīcō.

Dīxit sē lēgisse = He said himself to have read = He said he had read.

Dīcit sē lēgisse = He says himself to have read = He says he has read or He says he read or He says he was reading or He says he had read (basically any past tense).

Dīcet sē lēgisse = He will say himself to have read = He will say he has read or He will say he read, etc.

And so on with any tense of dīcō.

Dīxit sē lēctūrum (esse) = He said himself (to be) going to read = He said he

would read or He said he was going to read or He said he was about to read (basically any construction denoting futurity relative to the time of speaking).

Dīcit sē lēctūrum (esse) = He says himself (to be) going to read = He says he will read or He says he is going to read, etc.

Dīcet sē lēctūrum (esse) = He will say himself (to be) going to read = He will say that he will read or He will say he is going to read, etc.

And so on with any tense of dīcō.

B)

For my part, I didn’t think that Gaius would come. They say that Marcus was hit with a fist by Publius. Or, less literally: They say that Publius hit Marcus with his fist. The active Latin version, Pūblium Mārcum pugnō percussisse aiunt, is ambiguous: who hit whom? Which of the two accusatives is the subject of percussisse, and which is the object? The answer to this type of question is clear when one of the accusatives is, by its very nature, unlikely to be the subject of the verb (e.g. Librum sē legere aiunt is unlikely to mean "They say that a book is reading them") but it is not always so obvious when both accusatives refer to people. Latin authors frequently avoided such ambiguity by using the ive instead of the active in accusative-and-infinitive clauses. When I arrived, Publius, laughing loudly, told me that Claudia had done something hilarious. (Literally: To me arriving, Publius, laughing loudly, said that Claudia had done a very funny thing.)

They deny that they stole anything OR They say they didn’t steal anything. They denies that they were soldiers./They said they were not soldiers. You deny that you are a good man./You say you aren’t a good man. I believe this happens often. I am certain that you will keep your word. When we reported that the enemy had appeared with elephants, the general grew pale and seemed afraid. (Literally: … the general, growing pale, seemed to be afraid.) They said you were interested in poetry (poems).

Chapter 40

A)

Hostibus dēvictīs, maximā eōrum urbe captā, exercitus Rōmam reversus est/Rōmam rediit. Mīles humī iacēbat crūribus frāctīs, sanguine ē vulnere capitis fluente. Mē rīdente rīdēs, (mē) flente flēs. Dīs volentibus vincēmus. Hoc amīcīs adiuvantibus fīet facile, adversantibus difficile. Crūre frāctō ambulāre nōn poterat. Obserātō ōstiō in cubiculum sē (suum) contulit.

Sīc/Ita locūtus litterīs in mē iactīs discessit. Viam vix vidēbat lacrimīs vīsum obscūrantibus. Oppidō captō litterae Rōmam missae sunt.

Note 1: 8 was a bit of a trick sentence. If you wrote locūtō, here is why it is wrong: an ablative absolute cannot normally refer to the subject of the clause—or, most of the time, to any other grammatical component of it like a direct or indirect object etc. When a participle or the like refers to the subject or object etc. of the clause, it should usually agree with it. For instance here, locūtus agrees in the nominative with the subject. Locūtō would have to be about some other person who does not already appear as any grammatical component of the sentence. The sentence would then mean "With him having spoken thus, he (not the same person as the one who spoke) … left."

Note 2: Lacrimīs… obscurantibus in 9 is ablative, not dative. The "for" in the English sentence means "because of", not "for the benefit of". The literal back-translation of the Latin is "He hardly saw the way (with) the tears obscuring (his) vision".

B)

Who will help me when my friends are away? One legion pursued the fleeing enemy and, having killed some of them and also captured a few, they returned to the camp at dusk. (Literally: One legion, having pursued the fleeing enemy, some of them having been killed, a few also having been captured, returned to the camp at dusk.)

I know this town so well that I can find my way in it with eyes closed. My friend Claudius, who died of a broken skull (with his head broken), used to say that barbarians were equal to Romans. (Capite frāctō clearly denotes the cause of death. It is therefore debatable whether it should be classified as an ablative absolute or rather as an ablative of cause, or both at the same time. Constructions don’t always neatly fall into categories, and it does not necessarily matter much. What is important is to understand the meaning.) Everything is possible (All things can be done) if the gods will it; if they don’t, nothing. Having put the wolf to flight, the farmer went (betook himself) home. We weep while they rejoice. Who cares about a pain in the feet when the enemy is in pursuit? I am not in the habit of laughing when a friend is crying. When the teacher had spoken thus, the boy blushed.

Chapter 41

A)

Nesciō (utrum) māla an pira mālīs./Nesciō mālane an pira mālīs. Pūblius mē (inter)rogāvit quis illa mihi dīxisset. Mē (inter)rogā(vi)stis quem optimum nostrum esse arbitrārer. Sciō quis aurum surripuerit/fūrātus sit.

Nescīmus ubi habitet. Videō cur (or: quā rē/quam ob rem/quam ob causam…) apud frātrem pernoctāre nōluerīs. Sciō cui sit aurum datūra. (Inter)rogāvī quō essent māne itūrī/itūrae. Dīxī vōbīs quam Pūblius amāret. Dubitāmus sintne pugnāre parātī.

Note 1: In a question that is asking which of two (or more) things is the case, "or" translates in Latin to an. The "other ors"—aut, vel, -ve and sīve/seu— are not used in that context in good Latin. An may be used in combination with utrum (e.g. Nesciō utrum māla an pira mālīs), with -ne (e.g. Nesciō mālane an pira mālīs) or on its own (e.g. Nesciō māla an pira mālīs).

Utrum rarely occurs in simple questions (i.e. questions with no "or").

An can also introduce a one-part question, roughly as -ne does, but often with a different nuance. An introducing a direct question frequently implies disbelief or indignation. Introducing an indirect question, it does not always differ distinctly from -ne, but there is a significant difference in some expressions. Especially notable is the fixed one nesciō an, which usually implies that the speaker tends to think that what follows is the case although they are not sure. The expression can sometimes even idiomatically translate to "perhaps" or similar.

B)

No one is unaware of what you did./Everybody knows what you did. Tell me which poem you like best. (Literally: Tell me which poem is most pleasing to you.) I am in doubt whether it is permitted to eat this meat. You asked whether I preferred his/her (that person’s) poems or yours. You ask where I’m going? Where on earth except home? Don’t/Can’t you see how tired I am? The girl didn’t know when she would see her lover. Do you know which foods the mistress likes? (Literally: Do you know which foods the mistress is delighted by?) They asked if I wanted to go into the forest with them or if I was too afraid of the wolf. You know how much I love you (all). It can scarcely be believed/It is scarcely believable how much you drank that night.

Note: The reflexive pronoun sē is used in the indirect question in 8 because it refers to the people who asked the question. They were referring to themselves when they spoke. A demonstrative (e.g. illīs) would normally refer to some other people. The rule is the same as with the reflexive possessive suus (see Chapter 38, Exercise A, Note 3).

Chapter 42

A)

Nesciō (utrum) prō hāc rē praemiō dōnandus, Mārce, sīs an verberandus. Or: Nesciō prō hāc rē praemiōne dōnandus, Mārce, sīs an verberandus. Librum nūper lēgī omnibus legendum. Or: Librum nūper lēgī quī omnibus legendus est. Capessītūrō rem pūblicam hic liber utīque legendus est. Pecūnia mihi invenienda est. Imperātōrī mīlitēs (suī) hortandī sunt. Ego tibi sequendus/sequenda sum. Magister dīxit legendōs nōbīs esse Caesaris dē bellō Gallicō commentāriōs. Hunc sī vīs occīdere/interficere, ego prius (tibi) occīdendus/interficiendus/occīdenda/interficienda erō. Fābulam nōn nārrandam nārrā(vi)stī. Or: Fābulam nārrā(vi)stī quae nārranda nōn erat/fuit. Scrīpta nostra magistrō trādidimus ēmendanda.

Note 1: The gerundive keeps a ive sense in deponent verbs.

Note 2: If a possessive is to be included in 5, it should be the reflexive for the following reason: although the possessor, the general, is not the grammatical subject of the sentence (mīlitēs is) he is a logical subject of sorts: he is the one who should do the encouraging, and he would be encouraging his own soldiers.

B)

I do not know which ones of these should be rewarded. I don’t think I should be flogged. He sent me his poem to read. Slaves must prepare dinner for their master. We absolutely must find food today lest we die of hunger. The wolf should not be feared; (for) some people say children are devoured by the wolf (or less literally: the wolf devours children), but it is not so. It is not you who should do this, but I./This should be done not by you, but by me. We have to teach children. The wounded needed to be carried into the town. This man (This one/He) should not be killed, but saved.

Note 1: The gerundive of course has no agent when the speaker or writer has no specific agent in mind (that is if they are saying something like "This needs to be done", in general or by an unspecified person or group). However, a specific agent may be omitted too, when it is clear from the context who it is. In such cases, a translation mentioning the person or people who should do the thing in question will often be natural in English. For instance, in Sentence 5, it is most likely that "we" are the ones who need to find food; that is why "we must find food" is a good translation even though there is no nōbīs with the gerundive. (If the more literal "food needs

to be found" was your translation, count it as correct; it is indeed acceptable even though the tendency—not absolute rule—in English would more often be to say "we must/need to find food").

Note 2: While the agent of a gerundive is usually expressed with the dative rather than ab + abl., the latter construction is used when the gerundive also has an indirect object, like in sentence 4. You thus avoid having two datives, which would cause ambiguity.

Chapter 43

A)

Ad legendum (or legendī causā/grātiā). Multīs librīs legendīs/multōs librōs legendō. Urbis capiendae/urbem capiendī. Ambulandō. Ad urbem capiendam (or urbis capiendae causā/grātiā). Ad amīcum adiuvandum/ad amīcam adiuvandam (or amīcī adiuvandī causā/amīcae adiuvandae causā/amīcī adiuvandī grātiā/amīcae adiuvandae grātiā). Moriendī. Ad scrībendum/scrībendō. Ad carmina scrībenda/carminibus scrībendīs.

Rosā carpendā/Rosam carpendō.

Note 1: In classical prose, causā and grātiā used in the sense of "for the sake of", "in order to", almost always come after the genitive.

Note 2: When it comes to choosing between gerund + direct object and gerundive construction, both options are often acceptable. However, the gerund + direct object construction does not usually occur after prepositions in classical Latin—so a phrase like ad urbem capiendum, for instance, is not very good and would be better changed to ad urbem capiendam. Gerund + direct object is not very common with causā and grātiā either.

Note 3: The dative gerund or gerundive construction could theoretically have been added a few more times above (to translate the phrases expressing purpose) but it is only common in a few types of expressions, notably ones that involve choosing a place, thing, etc. for a certain purpose, or the suitableness of a person or thing for a certain purpose. Those are contexts where "in order to" is not used often used in English.

B)

Haec aqua nōn est ad bibendum apta. This water is not suitable for drinking. Carminibus scrībendīs operam damus. We apply ourselves to writing poems. Nesciō an ille sit ad nōs occīdendōs/occīdendās parātus. I don’t know if (but I tend to think that perhaps) he (that man) is ready to kill us./Perhaps he is ready to kill us.

Cibī emendīcausā paucī inoppidummissī sunt. A few (men/people) were sent into town to buy food. Carminibus legendīs carmina scrībere discimus. (It is) by reading poems (that) we learn to write poems. Locum aedibus struendīsēlēgit. He/She chose a spot to build the house (or: for building the house). Bibendōstultus fit homō. By (or: With) drinking, a person becomes foolish. Or: Bibēnsstultus fit homō. A person becomes foolish when drinking. (The gerund means the act of drinking, whereas the present participle describes someone as doing that action.) Asinī sunt bēstiae oneribus portandīs aptissimae. Donkeys are beasts very wellsuited to carrying burdens. Cavē, amīca, istud vīnum, nē nimis bibendōstultafīās. Beware of that wine, my friend, lest by drinking too much you become foolish. Or: Cavē, amīca, istud vīnum, nē nimis bibēnsstultafīās. (The difference is the same as in 7.) Aquam haurīte, puellae, amābō, ad pūrgendam domum. Draw water to clean the house, please, girls.

Chapter 44

There was in Athens a roomy and capacious, but infamous and unwholesome house. Through the silence of the night a sound of iron would be heard (produced) and, if you listened more attentively, a noise of chains, first rather far off, then from very close. Soon a ghost would appear, an old man consumed by gauntness and filth, with a long beard and bristling hair. He wore fetters on his legs and chains on his hands, and he shook them.

Chapter 45

A)

Nōlī amāre, iuvenis! Nē amā(ve)rīs, iuvenis! Nōlī flēre, puer! Nē flē(ve)rīs, puer! Nōlīte, amīcī, istam aquam bibere! Istam aquam, amīcī, nē biberītis! Nōlī mē sequī, iuvenis! Nē mē sīs secūtus, iuvenis! Domum meam nōlī, mīles, venīre! Domum meam, mīles, nē vēnerīs! Ex meō puteō, puella, aquam haurīre nōlī! Ex meō puteō, puella, aquam nē haīs! ("From" here means "out of" rather than "away from"; that is why ex is used and not ab/ā.) Nōlīte nōs, puellae, sequī! Nē secūtae nōs, puellae, sītis! Nōlī mē, Pūblī, mentīrī putāre! Nēmē, Pūblī, mentīrī putā(ve)rīs! Nōlīte, servī, illīs dīcere ubi heri fuerit dominus vester! Nē illīs dīxerītis, servī, ubi heri fuerit dominus vester! Nōlīte, mīlitēs, hominēs inermēs/inermīs interficere/occīdere! Nē hominēs inermēs/inermīs interfēcerītis/occīderītis, mīlitēs!

Note: The two kinds of direct second-person negative commands that are the most common in classical Latin prose are nōlī(te) + infinitive and nē + perfect subjunctive. Other constructions exist but are less usual and/or less classical, notably:

Maybe you have not yet heard of the future imperative. The most basic function of the future imperative is, as its name suggests, to issue a command that is to be fulfilled at some point in the future rather than right away. For instance, they are common, as positive commands, after temporal and conditional clauses referring to the future in sentences of the type "When/If such and such happens, then do this." They are also frequently found in legal texts to refer to things that were meant to be done for all foreseeable future time. They have distinct second person plural and third person plural forms, but a single form for both the second and the third person of the singular.

The second and third person singular active future imperative adds -tō to the present second person singular imperative, with a change from e to i in the preceding vowel in third-conjugation verbs (e.g. present imperative eme -> future imperative emitō = "Let him/her buy!" or "Buy (sg.)!"). In the ive, the form stays the same except for the ending, which becomes -tor (e.g. emitor = "Let it/him/her be bought!" or "Be bought (sg.)!).

The second person plural active adds -te to the singular form (e.g. emitōte = "Buy (pl.)!"). No ive form of the second person plural future imperative is attested.

The third person plural ends in -ntō (e.g. emuntō = "Let them buy!") in the active and -ntor in the ive (e.g. emuntor = "Let them be bought!").

In a few verbs, second person future imperatives are used instead of the present ones. The verb meminī has no present imperatives; the (slightly irregularly formed) future imperatives mementō and mementōte are used instead. The second person singular future imperative of sciō likewise replaces the present one, which is not in regular use. The second person plural future imperative of that verb, too, often occurs in lieu of the present one, which is infrequent as well.

Although sum does have present imperatives in use, its future imperatives not rarely occur instead, especially in the singular (presumably to avoid the ambiguity of es being identical to the indicative).

Finally, note that present imperatives are sometimes used in contexts where one might expect future ones.

B)

Nōlī mē lere, Claudī; lentibus enim malum dare soleō. Do not provoke me, Claudius, for I usually make trouble for those who provoke me (literally: for provoking ones). Huius hominis exemplum miserum nē secūtī sītis, iuvenēs, quībibendō āleāque lūdendō omnia sua perdidit. Young people, do not follow the wretched example of this man who lost (or squandered) all his possessions by drinking and gambling (playing dice). Nōlī tōtum crustum sōlus vorāre; amīcōsmanē. Do not devour the whole cake alone; wait for your friends. Nē sīs stultē locūtus. Do not speak foolishly. Nōlī carmen optimum optimī poētae stultē rīdēre. Do not laugh foolishly at the excellent poem of an excellent poet. Tam maledicīs litterīs nē rescrīpserīs. Do not respond to such an abusive letter (so abusive a letter). Nōlī iīs quī tēadiūvērunt ingrātus esse. Do not be ungrateful to those who have helped you. Id quod nōn es nōlī vidērī velle. Do not seek (want, desire) to look like what (that which) you are not.

Nōlī nimis bibere; nōn enim ego tē domumportābō. Do not drink too much, for I am not going to carry you home. Flente amīcā rīdēre nōlī. Do not laugh while your friend is crying.

Chapter 46

A)

Sī mē rīdeant, aequō (id) animō feram. Nōn mendīcārem nisi pauper essem. Sī adessēs, nōn tantopere/tam/tantum maerērem. Sī crās meam domum vēnerīs/veniās, multīs tē complexibus recipiam. (The perfect subjunctive vēnerīs makes it explicit that the action of coming to the house would be completed before that of welcoming.) Sī mē rīsissēs, percussissem tē. Nisi adfuissēmus, vōs occīdissent/interfēcissent. Nisi tunc/tum adfuissēmus, hodiē nōn vīverētis. Stultē (inter)rogās amemne tē. (Nam) nisi/Nisi (enim) (tē) amārem, nōn haec omnia tuā causā facerem. (Regarding the inclusion of nam or enim, see Answer Key, Chapter 13, Exercise B, Note. It is acceptable to omit them here.) Quid factum esset sī Carthāginiēnsēs Rōmānōs vīcissent? Fēlīcissimus/Fēlīcissima essem sī ā/abs tē amārer. Or: Fēlīcissimus/Fēlīcissima sim sī ā/abs tē amer. The English can be interpreted either way: "I would

currently be most blessed if you currently loved me (which, alas, is not the case)" or "I would be most blessed if you should love me at some point in the future (I do not know that it is the case now but it may happen one day, who knows?)". Regarding the form abs, see Exercise Book, Chapter 15, Vocabulary.

B)

Both sentences are grammatically correct. They have different meanings. The first one means "If I had done that, you would have approved (you would have expressed approval back then)". The second one means "If I had done that, you would approve (you would be expressing approval now)". With the imperfect subjunctive, you are focusing on the present, stating that something that is not currently happening or currently the case would be currently happening or currently the case if some condition were currently being fulfilled (but it is not). With the present subjunctive, you are usually referring to a future potentiality, stating that something would occur if some condition happened to be fulfilled at some future point. The perfect subjunctive is not used in past-unreal conditionals. It can be used in future potential (future-less-vivid) conditionals, like the present subjunctive, with the difference that the perfect subjunctive stresses the completion of the action, its potential completed state at some point in the future.

Chapter 47

As a result, the inhabitants’ nights would be grim and frightful, spent awake out of dread. (More literally: As a result, for the inhabitants, grim and frightful nights would be spent awake through dread, OR As a result, grim and frightful

nights would be spent awake through dread by the inhabitants.) Wakefulness would be followed by illness and, as the terror grew, by death. For even in the daytime, although the apparition was gone (had gone away), the memory of it (of the apparition) would wander before the eyes, and the fear lasted longer than its causes (literally: the fear was longer(-lasting) that the causes of the fear). As a consequence, the house was deserted, doomed to emptiness (solitude), and wholly abandoned to the (that) monster. Yet the house was being d, in case anyone, unaware of so great an evil, would want to buy or rent it.

Chapter 48

A)

Cum iter Rōmam facerēmus, rēs quaedam mīra facta est, quam versibus/versū referam. Cum litterās obsignā(vi)sset tabellāriōque trādidisset, surrēxit servōsque (suōs) vocāvit. Multam pecūniam cum habeam, (tamen) miser homō sum. Cum priōre nocte nihil dormī(vi)sset, (tamen) fessus nōn erat. Cum litterīs (tuīs) (inter)rogā(ve)rīs, dīcam tibi quōs nūper librōs lēgerim. Cum tam sit ēbrius, dormiat nec nōbīs molestus sit. Tū mihi semper ades cum nēmō alius cūrat. Cēna parāta erit cum redieritis/cum reversī eritis. Validissimus sollertissimusque centuriōnum cum esset, in excursiōnēs perīculōsissimās mittēbātur/mittī solēbat.

Annō proximō, cum per viās Rōmae ambulārēmus, mendīcum cōnspeximus faciē similem rēgī nostrō.

Note 1: Tamen is often, though not always, added after concessive clauses.

Note 2: Latin word order is, as you know, very different from English word order. Perhaps one of the greatest differences is that a word or phrase can find itself before the conjunction or relative pronoun that "introduces" the clause it belongs to, like the words that come before cum in 3 and 9. This word order was one that I found elegant in these sentences, and it puts some emphasis on the words that precede the conjunction. However, a different word order is not grammatically wrong. Cf. Answer Key, Chapter 31, Exercise A, Note 3.

B)

You always used to laugh when we wept. When the general had said (or, less literally but equally correctly in English: When the general said) this (these things/words), all the soldiers gave applause. What did you feel (at the moment) when I hit you? Such a thing was never seen (at the time) when that king was reigning. I will visit you when I return from Athens. Though this man is weak in body, he beats everyone in learning. Since I have received no letter(s) from him, I do not know where he is. Although she was not beautiful, Publius loved Claudia to distraction/was madly

in love with Claudia. When I’m in Rome, I’ll write to you. As we danced and drank and gambled/played dice, behold, the master arrived.

Note: Here are a few important points about the different types of cum clauses:

A temporal cum clause means "when…" either in the sense of "whenever… ", as in Sentence 1 of Exercise B; in the sense of "at the time when…", as in Sentence 4 of Exercise B; or in the sense of "at the (exact) moment when…", as in Sentence 3 of Exercise B. In later authors, cum + subjunctive became relatively frequent even to convey repeated situations in the past. But most classically, this type of cum clause rather takes the (imperfect or pluperfect) indicative.

Do not despair if you find it difficult to wrap your head around the difference between temporal and historical cum clauses. It is a subtle distinction for which it is not surprising if you do not get a solid feel until you have acquired considerable experience in reading Latin. I still chose to give some explanations because, sometimes, it is better to have some idea, however vague, than to be left completely in the dark.

Chapter 49

A)

Multōs librōs habeō. Multī mihi librī (sunt). Pater meus duo/duōs fīliōs habet. Patrī meō duo fīliī (sunt). Hī mīlitēs nūllōs gladiōs habent. Hīs mīlitibus nūllī gladiī (sunt). Hī mīlitēs gladiōs nōn habent. Hīs mīlitibus gladiī nōn sunt. Hī mīlitēs gladiīs carent. Hārum rērum nēmō maiōrem habet nōtitiam quam ille. Hārum rērum nēminī/nūllī nōtitia maior (est) quam illī. Quisnam hortum hōc pulchriōrem habet? Cuinam hortus hōc pulchrior (est)? Claudia trēs/trīs sorōrēs habet. Claudiae trēs sorōrēs (sunt). Nūllum rēgem, nūllum imperātōrem, nūllum dominum habēmus. Nūllus nōbīs rēx, nūllus imperātor, nūllus dominus (est). Rēge, imperātōre, dominō carēmus. Nūllus rēgis fīlius bona habet quam hic pauciōra. Nūllī rēgis fīliō bona (sunt) quam huic pauciōra. Mox nūllam habēbis pecūniam. Mox nūlla tibi erit pecūnia. Mox pecūniam nōn habēbis. Mox pecūnia tibi nōn erit. Mox pecūniā carēbis. Nūllam tunc domum habēbāmus. Nūlla tunc domus nōbīs (erat). Tunc domum nōn habēbāmus. Tunc domus nōbīs nōn erat. Tunc domō carēbāmus.

Note 1: Forms of sum (most frequently, but not exclusively, third-person present and imperfect forms and the present infinitive) may sometimes be left implied. This is true in general, not only in the dative-of-possession construction.

Note 2: English constructions with "no…" as in "These soldiers have no swords" etc. do not necessarily have to translate with nūllus. Sometimes, it

is enough to negate the verb with nōn, as in Hī mīlitēs gladiōs nōn habent, literally "These soldiers do not have swords". It all depends on how much emphasis the "no" has. If it’s unemphatic, the construction with negated verb will often be sufficient.

B)

Let him who has no knowledge of these matters go away and come back (to come back) when he has learned something. That dog is not mine; indeed, I have no dog. With the general dead, when we had almost no hope left, some people arrived with glad tidings (messages). I have two sons and two daughters. I have two dogs, whom I love almost as much (equally) as my children. I do not think he/she (that man/woman/person) has any son. Do you know if he/she (that man/woman/person) has any money to buy food? I have a beautiful house in Athens. I have two brothers, of whom one is a soldier, the other a physician who cares for soldiers. Some have strength, others have learning.

Note: The ideas of "I have this or that" and "this or that is mine" are different ones and are expressed differently in Latin. The dative of possession can translate "I have this or that", not "this or that is mine". The latter is expressed with a possessive (or a genitive if the owner is

denoted by a noun), as in the first part of Sentence 2 or as in Hoc Caesaris est = "This is Caesar’s". "This belongs to me" translates the same way as "This is mine" (Hoc meum est).

Chapter 50

The philosopher Athenodorus came to Athens and read the placard. When he heard the price, the cheapness was suspicious, so he made inquiries. He was informed of everything and rented the house nonetheless, or rather all the more. (More literally: The philosopher Athenodorus comes to Athens, reads the placard and, the price having been heard, having inquired because the cheapness was suspicious, he is taught everything and rents [the house] nonetheless, or rather all the more.) When it began to draw toward evening, he ordered his bed to be spread (a bed to be spread for him) in the forefront part of the house. He called for writing tablets, a stylus and a light. He sent all his household away into the interior of the house. He himself focused his mind, his eyes and his hand on writing, so that his mind should not, through idleness, (lit. so that the mind, idle, should not) imagine sounds of phantoms (lit. heard phantoms) and false fears.

Chapter 51

A)

Haec tribus sēstertiīs ēmimus. (Tribus sēstertiīs is naturally an ablative of price, not a dative.) Armilla quam cupis ducentīs dēnāriīs constat.

Utinam haec nostra victōria tantō sanguine nōn/nē cōnstitisset! Utinam crās ad cēnam veniās! Utinam vīveret! Homō/Vir quīdam barbā hīrsūtā trīstīque vultū nōs adiit/ad nōs accessit. Prōcērus erat, nigrō capillō, oculīs caesiīs. Or: Prōcērus erat, nigrō capillō, caesius. Puellam amō nōmine Claudiam, doctam, argūtam, vōce suāvī/dulcī, rīsū iūcundō. Utinam illa (verba) nōn/nē dīxissem. Utinam essem rēx in altō soliō sedēns, servōrum multitūdinī nūtū imperāns!

Note: The tenses of the subjunctive after utinam work rather similarly to those in conditional sentences, with only slight differences due to the different nature of wishes from conditionals.

Both nōn and nē can be found in negative utinam clauses.

B)

I bought this bracelet worthy of a queen for a lot of money. The best wines are purchased with much gold. No house is sold for one sesterce. Did they really sell such a beautiful house for such a small price? We sat next to a man with a long (and) black beard, a big nose and fine clothes. I wish we did not now have to sell for such a small price that which we bought for such a great one! I hope he has done what we asked him! I wish you weren’t so annoying. I hope that good man gives us some money. This land was bought with the blood of good men.

Chapter 52

capiendae parā(ve)rīs

ementur habē audiēbāmur accēdat rapiar legerēs scrībe laedentia factō amātūrus rīseritis factae sumus ierās voluerit scrīpseram lavāminī amārēris/amārēre vidēbō dīcerēminī vēnimus scrībī

parā(vi)sse audientem habendī fuerim raptum esset emitis datum esse amābāmus gaudēte sedērētis dīxerō vīsa sīs laver fēcerint habeam capiunt futūra esse victūre audīminī facere parāre

victī erātis scrīpsissem captae erunt audiendōrum vēnerīs fuissēmus

Chapter 53

In the beginning, it was the silence of the night like everywhere (else). Then there was a shaking of iron, a moving of chains. (Then iron was shaken, chains were moved.) He did not raise his eyes, did not let go of his stylus, but strengthened his resolve (his mind) and obstructed his ears with it (lit. extended it in front of his ears). Then the din increased, drew closer, and soon it was heard as if it were on the threshold, then as if it were inside it (lit. it was heard already as on the threshold, already as inside the threshold). He looked round, saw and recognized the ghost (that had been) described (lit. told) to him.

Chapter 54

A)

Nūntius missus est quī rēgem monēret.

Nihil habeō quod dīcam. Mihi nōn pārētis quae domina vestra sim. Nōs, quī valdē ēsurīrēmus, pānis ille tam dēlectāvit quam cibus exquīsītissimus. Pecūniam mihi dedit quā cibum emerem. Nēmō tam ignārus est quī hoc nesciat. Mittam (virōs) quōs exerceās. Lupus ovem quaerit quam voret. Quis est tam stultus quī illud crēdat? Tū mē, quem/quam omnēs accūsent, scīs esse innocentem.

B)

I will give you a book to read. He sent a servant for me to hand over the book that he was asking for. (He sent to me a servant to whom I might hand over the book…) Though I am not a learned man, I still know this. Since you father is a physician, you are not ignorant of these things. No one of us is so bold, or rather so insane, as to provoke that dog. The king sent ambassadors to the general to ask for peace. There is no water for us to drink, so we drink wine. Now we need to find the gold to ransom the hostages.

The girl, having stayed awake two whole nights, could barely stand anymore. Do not accuse me when you were not there on that day and do not know the matter (well) enough.

Chapter 55

A)

(Tibi) suādeō nē mē lās. Velim ad Mārcum scrībās./Velim ut ad Mārcum scrībās/Velim tē ad Mārcum scrībere. (The option with the accusative and infinitive is possible, but, with the specific form velim, not as common the other two constructions.) Rēx servīs (suīs) imperāvit ut ōstium custōdīrent./Rēx servōs (suōs) iussit ōstium custōdīre. Obsecrō (vōs) nē obsidēs interficiātis/occīdātis. Senēs obsecrāvērunt/obsecrāvēre mīlitēs nē sē interficerent/occīderent. Postulābant ut pecūniam redderēmus. Mox optābimus ut amīcus (noster)/amīca (nostra) redeat./Mox optābimus amīcum (nostrum)/amīcam (nostram) redīre. Sī (ā mē) petīveris/petieris ut rēgem adeam, adībō/faciam. Or: Sī (mē) rogā(ve)ris ut rēgem adeam, adībō/faciam. Magister discipulīs suāserat ut Vergilium legerent. Volō mē loquente taceās./Volō ut mē loquente taceās./Volō tē mē loquente tacēre.

(Not very elegant with the two pronouns.)/Volō taceās cum loquor./Volō ut taceās cum loquor./Volō tē tacēre cum loquor.

Note 1: Some verbs of wishing, commanding, advising, requesting, etc. take the accusative and infinitive; more take ut + subjunctive or the subjunctive alone in the positive and nē + subjunctive (ut nē sometimes occurs too, with the same verbs) in the negative. Some it of more than one construction (sometimes in different contexts). I have included in the answer key only the options that are common or at least relatively so. There are more possibilities in reality, but some of them would be quite rare and therefore not the ones you should learn first.

Note 2: Indirect commands and wishes are among the types of subordinate clauses that represent something in the mind of the subject of the verb that introduces them, and that therefore take indirect reflexives to refer back to that subject, as in 5.

B)

Magister mihi suāsit ut carmen aliquod scrīberem. The teacher urged me to write a (some) poem. Scrīpsit ad mē pater nē illī fēminae crēderem. My father wrote me not to trust that woman. Imperāvit magister ut tacērēmus aut discēderēmus. The teacher commanded us to be silent or leave. Hāc in rē mē velim adiuvēs. I would like you to help me in this matter. Imperātor iussit nūntiumRōmam mittī. The general ordered a messenger to be

sent to Rome. Cum Athēnīs redieris, velim ad mē veniās. When you return from Athens, I would like you to come to me. Suādeō ut, sī aut pecūnia danda erit aut āmittenda vīta, pecūniam potius dētis. I urge you, if you must either give money or lose your lives (lit. life; here the singular is more idiomatic in Latin, but the plural is in English), rather to give the money. Mē rīsistis suādentem nē istud facerētis, nunc autem vōs paenitet cōnsilium meum contempsisse. You laughed at me when I advised (lit. You laughed at me advising) you not to do that, and now you regret that you rejected my advice. Obsecrō ut mihi succurrātis; perībō enim nisi opem mihi tuleritis. I beg you to rescue me, for I shall perish if you do not bring me assistance. Centum tē annōs vīvere volō. I want you to live a hundred years. (Centum annōs vīvās volō would be correct, but Centum tē annōs vīvās volō is not: the accusative tē can only be the subject of an infinitive.)

Chapter 56

It stood and beckoned with its finger like someone calling. In response, Athenodorus gestured with his hand to wait a little and he bent over his wax tablets and stylus again. The ghost was making noise with the chains over his head as he wrote. He looked round again at the ghost, which was beckoning the same as before. Then, without delay (lit. And not having delayed), he picked up the lamp and followed.

Chapter 57

They differ in the first and second persons singular and plural. In the first person singular, the future perfect active ends in -erō while the perfect active subjunctive ends in -erim. The second person forms and first person plural forms are identical except for the length of the first i in the ending, which is short in the future perfect and long in the perfect subjunctive, e.g. fēceris, fēceritis and fēcerimus vs. fēcerīs, fēcerītis and fēcerīmus. This difference in vowel length also shifts the stress accent in first and second person plural forms, e.g. fē-CE-ritis vs. fē-ce-RĪ-tis. (However, we know from verse evidence that the forms that differ only in vowel length were sometimes interchanged even by good writers.) Tū tam doctus es quam mē and Fessus erat ac ēsuriēbat are not good Latin. The problem in the first is that mē is in the wrong case. The idea expressed is that the addressee is as learned as the speaker is, therefore the latter should be represented by the nominative ego as subject of an implied sum. (Although nowadays statements like "You are as such and such as me" are common in English, the same rule as in Latin used to apply, and some strict grammarians still insist on rather saying "as I" or "as I am" based on the same reasoning. Note that an exception to this rule occurs in Latin when the first term of comparison is in the accusative. When that happens, the second term is attracted into the accusative, unless the verb sum is actually expressed. For instance, "I know someone as learned as me" would be Nōvī aliquem tam doctum quam mē. When the first term is in another case than the nom. or acc., then the second term is in the nominative and the verb sum is usually expressed; e.g. "I will give the book to someone as learned as me" = Librum alicui dabō tam doctō quam ego sum.) The mistake in the other sentence is that ac is being used before a vowel, which does not happen in good Latin (nor does it occur before h). It should be corrected to atque. (The rest of the sentences are correct and mean, in order: "They thought I was the king", "He/She picked up his/her bag, his/her hat and his/her sword", and "I do not know if he/she/it is at home".) "Since he is my friend" (causal cum clause) and "although he is my friend" (concessive cum clause). Pluperfect (dīxissem).

Ablative (of price, which is a type of instrumental ablative). The main possibilities are:

Quae nōn multam pecūniam habeam, (tamen) nōn sum pauper.

Quamquam nōn multam pecūniam habeō, (tamen) nōn sum pauper.

Licet nōn multam pecūniam habeam, (tamen) nōn sum pauper.

Ut nōn multam pecūniam habeam, (tamen) nōn sum pauper.

Etsī nōn multam pecūniam habeō, (tamen) nōn sum pauper.

Etiamsī nōn multam pecūniam habeō, (tamen) nōn sum pauper.

Quamvīs nōn multam pecūniam habeam, (tamen) nōn sum pauper.

(It is enough if you got only one, and all bonus if you got more.)

Ad amīcōs docendum is not good classical Latin, because classical Latin does not usually put a gerund with direct object after a preposition. It would be better with a gerundive construction, ad amīcōs docendōs.

Cum cēnārem and (mihi) cēnantī are the most obvious options. Indirect question, result clause, purpose clause, indirect command with ut, wish with utinam. (A verb does not become subjunctive just because it is in a direct question. Many direct questions are in the indicative; only those that are potential, unreal, etc. take the subjunctive; for instance, with the potential subjunctive: Quis hoc faciat? = "Who would do this?" But "Who does this?" translates with the indicative: Quis hoc facit? The same applies to sī conditional clauses: unreal and potential conditionals take the subjunctive (see Chapter 46) but many other conditional clauses use the indicative. For example: Sī aderis, gaudēbō = "If you are there, I’ll be glad"; Hunc librum, sī vīs, lege = "Read this book if you want"; Sī istud factum est ut dīcis, gaudeō = "If that was done as you say, I am glad". Temporal clauses do not, as a rule, take the subjunctive, nor do negative clauses. Again, they do only if there is another reason for the subjunctive (like being part of an unreal or potential conditional, of a wish, of indirect speech, etc.). Main indirect-statement clauses in classical Latin have their verbs in the infinitive (with a subject in the accusative).) "Having/needing to be [verb]ed." It is an adjective denoting a need or obligation for the action of the verb that it comes from to be performed on the person or thing that it agrees with.

Chapter 58

A)

Magister meus, multae doctrīnae vir, ait/dīcit carmina amīci nostrī/amīcae nostrae paene paria Vergil(i)ī carminibus esse. Quantī cōnstat haec armilla?

Hic liber plūris est quam quaevīs aedēs/quaevīs domus. Magnī rēfert cui hoc mūnus committātis. Tantī mihi litterae sunt quantī cibus. Tē plūris quam quemvīs rēgem faciō. Hoc carmen ā Claudiā, fēminā magnī ingen(i)ī, scrīptum est. Magnae ille vir virtūtis urbem paene sōlus cēpit. Floccī nōn fīō. ( that present, imperfect and future simple ive forms of faciō are supplied by fīō.) Dīxit amīcōs meōs hominēs esse nihilī.

B)

I bought this bracelet for as much as you (bought) your house. How would I not be happy, when I am marrying (am going to marry) tomorrow a man of great intellect, great learning and great valor? I value peace more highly than all the glory gotten in war. I don’t give a fig what they (those people) say. I makes no difference whether you are a good man or a worthless person: they only care about your money. It is important for you to know how much those wines are sold for. I can scarcely say how great a fool I was then (literally: of how great a foolishness I was then).

Do you not know that gold is worth more than wood? I care little about insults. Let us regard death as of no importance./Let us care nothing about death.

Note 1: Perhaps you are wondering, quite understandably, what the difference is between the ablative of quality and the genitive of quality and between the ablative of price and the genitive of value.

Regarding the ablative and genitive of quality, there are exceptions and situations where both constructions are about equally possible, but the following is a general statement about frequency: the genitive of quality more often denotes a mental or moral quality than a physical one. On the other hand, the ablative is still relatively frequent to denote mental and moral qualities.

The genitive of value is often found in single non-specific words like magnī, parvī, plūris, maximī, nihilī, tantī, quantī…, and can denote not only monetary value but also figurative value. Though it can modify a verb (as in tantī cōnstat = "it costs so much"), it can also modify a noun like any other genitive (as in homō nihilī = "a person of nothing", i.e. "a worthless person"). A specific sum of money (e.g. "for a hundred sesterces") will usually be in the ablative. The ablative of price does not normally modify a noun.

Note 2: A genitive of quality—and, for that matter, an ablative of quality too —is made up of at least two words (most typically a noun and an adjective). In English we can say, for example, simply "a man of valor". That is not usually done in Latin. You would need to add some adjective to "valor" (e.g. vir magnae virtūtis = "a man of great valor") or else change the prepositional phrase to an adjective (e.g. vir fortis = "a valiant man").

Chapter 59

It went with a slow pace as if heavy with the chains. After turning (After it turned) into the court of the house, it suddenly dissolved away and abandoned its companion (literally: having suddenly dissolved away, it abandoned…). Once abandoned, Athenodorus plucked off weeds and leaves and laid them down to mark the spot.

Chapter 60

A)

Fēmina ex oppidō in castra veniēns mīlitēs (inter)rogāvit satisne cibī habērent (or: satisne cibī eīs/iīs/īs esset). Quicquid cibī habēbant (id) posuērunt/posuēre in mēnsā vetustā quae in casae angulō stābat. Or: Quicquid eīs/iīs/īs cibī erat (id) posuērunt/posuēre in mēnsā vetustā quae in casae angulō stābat. Nihil cibī, nihil aquae, nihil speī erat./Nūllus cibus, nūlla aqua, nūlla spēs erat. Quantum vīnī est in cellā? Hoc saltem cibī habēmus./Hoc saltem cibī nōbīs est. Quid istud carminis est? Nimis ē cellā dominī nostrī, amīce, vīnī bibistī. Tantum vīnī bibistī quantum ego.

Putāsne hoc satis pecūniae ad equum emendum esse? Parum huius reī nōtitiae habētis./Parum huius reī vōbīs nōtitia est.

Note: Multus, tantus and quantus exist as adjectives that can sometimes be used in agreement with a noun to translate "much", "so much/as much" and "how much/(as much) as" respectively. This often (though not exclusively) happens in the genitive, dative and ablative, where the neuter substantivized versions multum, tantum and quantum rarely occur. For instance, "a garment stained with much blood" is normally vestis multō sanguine īnfecta. Vestis multō sanguinis īnfecta, while not quite impossible, would be unusual. On the other hand, when multum, tantum and quantum are used as substantives, you need to think of them as just that: substantives, that is essentially nouns. They no longer work as adjectives then. Think of them literally as "a great amount/a lot", "so/as great an amount", "how great an amount", and it will make sense that the genitive is used with them, as in "a great amount of" etc. English "much" can work similarly: you can say "much of this or that". Nevertheless, "much" is often used as an adjective (e.g. "much money", "so much wine", etc.) in situations where the substantive + partitive genitive construction is used in Latin.

The substantive plūs has an adjective counterpart, but the latter occurs almost exclusively in the plural: plūrēs, plūra = "more (in number)". When "more" precedes a singular thing, as in "more wine", and you translate it with plūs, this should always be combined with a noun in the partitive genitive: "more wine" = plūs vīnī. In this case, think of plūs as "a greater amount". Again, English "more" can work in the same way. We can say "more of this or that". But we very often use "more" as an adjective, as in "more wine". That does not happen with Latin plūs.

Minor, minus exists as an adjective, meaning "smaller", "lesser". Minus as a substantive means "a lesser amount", "less (of) ". It translates the English adjective "less" without itself being used as an adjective in agreement with a

noun. It takes the genitive instead, as in "a lesser amount of", "less of" (here again the English word can work similarly, even though it often does not).

Nimis, satis, parum and nihil are never adjectives.* Think of them as "an excessive thing/amount", "a sufficient thing/amount", "an insufficient thing/amount" and "nothing/no amount", respectively. Once again, in English too we can, in some contexts, say "too much of", "enough of", "too little of", and even "nothing of". The difference is that in Latin this construction is much more frequent and indeed the only valid one with those words in phrases of the type "too much (of) wine", "enough (of) wine", etc.

Finally, note that all these words can also function as adverbs, as in the following sentences:

Mē nimis amās = You love me too much.

Mē plūs amās = You love me more.

Mē multum amās = You love me (very) much/a lot.

Mē satis amās = You love me enough./You love me well enough.

Mē minus amās = You love me less./You don’t love me very much.

Mē parum amās = You love me (too) little./You don’t love me enough./You don’t

love me much at all.

Mē nihil amās = You don’t love me at all.

*Parum is etymologically a contraction of parvum, neuter singular of the adjective parvus; but this is not really relevant on a practical level, since parum itself is not used as an adjective.

B)

This is enough money for me. There is more wine in my cellar than in yours. We have less money than you. I do not desire more money; that (money) which I have is enough for me. Money in a man is not enough for engaging in politics if he does not also have some/a little (bit of) learning and intelligence. Enough, or rather too much, blood has been shed in this war: we demand peace! That tyrant had shed so much blood that everyone was now demanding his own (blood). I will tell you how much danger there is in this matter. Let’s cook some food/a bit of food. No hope is left./Not a bit of hope is left.

Note 1: I stated in Exercise Book, Chapter 47, Note on Quis, that quis, quid etc. "almost always" replaced aliquis, aliquid, etc. after sī, nisi, num and nē. An exception to this rule is when an ali- word conveys a special emphasis of the kind "at least some" or "definitely some". That is the case with aliquid in Sentence 5.

Note 2: Compare:

Ea mihi satis est = That (money) is enough for me.

Eius mihi satis est = I possess enough of it.

Pecūnia nōn est satis = Money is not enough.

Pecūniae nōn est satis = There is not enough (of) money.

Very different meanings!

Chapter 61

A)

Timēbat nē caperētur. Timeō nē ad cēnam venīre nōn possim./Timeō ut ad cēnam venīre possim. Tremēbant timōre/metū nē sē dominus vidēret. (The reflexive sē is required because the fearing clause denotes something in the mind of the subject of the verb that introduces it.) Timeō nē vīvus in oppidum nōn pervēnerit./Timeō ut vīvus in oppidum pervēnerit Timēbam nē satis pecūniae nōn esset inventum./Timēbam ut satis pecūniae esset inventum. ( that satis does not work as an adjective but as a noun, meaning roughly "a sufficient thing or amount", and therefore takes a partitive genitive. See again Answer Key, Chapter 60, Exercise A, Note, if needed.) Timeō nē rīdeās cum tibi dīxerō quid mihi acciderit. Timēbant nē imbēcilliōres essent quam ut/quī hostibus resisterent. Timor/Metus erat nē cibus dēficeret. Timeō nē nōs vīderint. Timēbāmus nē interfectus/interfecta/occīsus/occīsa essēs.

B)

I am consumed by fear that something should happen to my Publius. I am afraid that I may not be able to write a good poem. I am afraid that you may have forgotten me while I was away. He was afraid that you might not have received his letter.

After we had waited for a long time, fearing that our friend would not come, he finally arrived. Those words struck fear into us that they might want to kill us. Immense fear had seized everyone that war should be declared. I am very afraid that I may not be able to do what you ask. I am afraid that I will be flogged if I displease the master. Publius is afraid that Claudia may not love him.

Note: When you fear that something will happen, you want it not to happen; that is why nē is used in fearing clauses. The formal English "lest" works (or at least used to work) in a similar fashion.

In the opposite construction with ut, the ut clause is likely to be an indirect question (one of the meanings of ut, and the most original one, is "how"). Thus, Timeō ut fīat could mean more or less literally "I have misgivings as to how it may be done", which is naturally not far from "I am afraid it may not be done". Another theory is that it may originally have been a positive wish (since when you are afraid that something will not happen, you want it to happen).

Chapter 62

A)

Multa mīra in itinere vīdimus.

Parcite victīs! Fortem ā temerāriō nōn omnēs dīnōscere possunt. Multum interest inter canentem et ululantem. Gravia/Trīstia ī estis. Quot pulchra dīx(is)tī! Praestatne ingeniōsus doctō?/Estne ingeniōsus doctō melior? Dīc mihi dulcia/suāvia. Quaedam/Aliqua gravia dīcenda sunt adhūc. Terribilia/Dīra/Trīstia per quiētem vīdī.

B)

How many beautiful, how many delightful, how many serious things, too, were said on that day! That tyrant used to oppress all good people. Asked whether a good or a bad person usually had more money, he replied that he did not know. You write very beautiful things. I will tell the kids terrible things about the wolf to scare them out of going into the forest (terrible things by which they may be scared so that they not go into the forest). Wondrous things are said to happen in those lands.

Publius prefers clever girls to beautiful ones. Having suffered harsh things, I now desire sweet ones. Do not trust someone who is advising war. These things are indeed great, but we desire greater ones.

Note: The default gender for things is the neuter. That means that when talking about a thing or things that are not being denoted by a specific noun, either stated or clearly implied, whose gender an adjective should agree with, you use the neuter.

The default gender for people is the masculine. That means that, when talking about a person or people of unspecified gender, you should use the masculine. The feminine is used when one is talking about a female or females specifically (as in 7). Similarly, when talking about a group of people, as long as the group includes or is assumed to include males, you should use the masculine plural even if females are part of the group as well. The feminine plural is used for allfemale groups.

Chapter 63

On the next day, he went to the magistrates and advised them to have the spot dug up (to order that spot to be dug up). There were found, inserted in chains and entangled, bones which the body, decayed by time and earth, had left, bare and eaten away, to the bonds. The bones were collected and buried at public expense. (Having been collected, they were buried at public expense.) The spirit having been put to rest with a proper burial, the house was no longer haunted after that.

Chapter 64

A)

(Id) memorātū dignum arbitror illō annō vīsa esse ōmina multa. In oppidum īmus equum emptum. Tum/Tunc/Dein(de)—horribile dictū!—omnēs ad ūnum iugulātī sunt corporaque (eōrum) in flūmen prōiecta, ut id sanguine rubēret et quibusdam (in) locīs cadāveribus obstruerētur. Pars legiōnis pābulātum aquātumque missa est. Ī aliquid lactis ā vīcīnīs petitum. Istud factū difficillimum vidētur. Quis umquam librum scrīpsit lēctū digniōrem? Domum Claudiae vēnērunt/vēnēre litterās frātris (eius) trāditum. Vīs mē aliquid dīcere/Vīs (ut) aliquid dīcam sed nihil iam dictū dignum est. Duo iuvenēs quī forte prope astābant accurrērunt/accurrēre opem nōbīs lātum.

Note 1: Tum and tunc mean "then" in the sense of "at that time or moment", whereas dein(de) means "then" in the sense of "after that", "next".

Note 2: In Answer Key, Chapter 29, Exercise B, Note 6, I stated that "locatival ablatives without preposition" occurred "in some contexts, often

in poetry but also in prose in a few common constructions." One of those few common constructions is whith the noun locus. In is frequently omitted with this noun. However, both constructions, with and without in, are valid here.

B)

2 (ablative), 3 (accusative), 6 (ablative), 7 (accusative), 8 (accusative).

Note 1: The accusative supine is used to express purpose, only with verbs that denote a motion toward a place stated or implied. That is why, for instance, "to please you" in Sentence 4 cannot translate with a supine; for although it denotes purpose, the verb that it goes with, "I’m doing", does not imply any motion toward a destination.

The ablative supine is used with adjectives and denotes an action potentially performed by some agent on the thing that is being described by the adjective. For instance, if you say that something is difficile intellēctū, "hard to understand", it means that it is hard for someone to understand it. Or if you say that a literary work is lēctū dignum, "worth reading", that means it is worth it for someone to read it. The thing described by the adjective would be the direct object of the verb that the supine comes from if that action were stated as indeed being performed; e.g. Aliquis illud intelligit, "Someone understands it"; Aliquis illud legit, "Someone is reading it". It logically follows that intransitive verbs, which do not take direct objects, do not exist in the ablative supine. For instance, since someone cannot die someone else ("die" being an intransitive verb), it does not make sense to say that someone is dignus *mortuū (or *moritu, whatever it would be). That would mean that it was worth it for someone to die that person, which is an impossible meaning in both English and Latin. It also follows that even with a transitive verb, the ablative supine cannot be used if the person or thing described by the adjective would be the subject, rather than object, of the verb if the thing were stated as indeed happening. For instance, "He is worthy of

having you as a wife" cannot translate with the supine, since "he" would be the subject of the verb "have": "He has you as a whife". Dignus habitū would mean "worthy of being had by someone else", not "worthy of himself having someone or something".

Note 2: In Sentence 1, "to dance" would translate with an infinitive. In Sentence 4, "to please" would translate with ut + subjunctive. In Sentence 5, "to be waiting" would translate with an infinitive. In Sentence 9, "to fight" would translate with an infinitive, ad + gerund or quī + subjunctive. In sentence 10, "of having you as a wife" could translate with quī + subjunctive or, slightly less commonly, an infinitive phrase. But probably still better would be to leave "having" out of the translation altogether and say Tē uxōre dignus est, literally "He is worthy of you (as) a wife".

Chapter 65

A)

Mārcus cāsū brācchium frātrī frēgit. Claudia mihi librum ē manibus ēripuit. Auxiliō vēnit frātrī. Cantus illīus fēminae magnae mihi īrātiōnī fuit (or, depending on context, which is missing here: erat). Cōnsilium vestrum magnō nōbīs ūsuī fuit (or, a little less likely: erat). Maledicta tua sorōrī magnō maerōrī fuērunt/fuēre. Capillum mihi ēvulsistī!

Ūnus/Ūna obsidum/ex obsidibus/dē obsidibus custōdī gladium ē manibus excussit. Nūntius nūptiārum fīliī tuī magnō mihi gaudiō fuit. Vestra calamitās/Vester cāsus nōbīs gaudiō esse nōn potest.

B)

Your story about the wolf caused me great terror. The old man struck the thief’s head with his walking stick. As I was reading, Publius snatched the letter out of my hands. As I shouted for someone to come to my assistance, a soldier with a frightful face (literally: a certain soldier frightful in face) appeared and put my attackers to flight (literally: put to flight those who were attacking me). When your poem was being read at Claudia’s, it was a source of iration to all. Is it a maidservant who combs your hair?/Does a maidservant comb your hair? (The placement of -ne at the end of ancilla indicates that the question refers to that word most specifically. The question is whether a maidservant combs your hair or whether someone else does or you do it yourself. If the question had been whether your maidservant combed your hair or if she failed to, -ne would have been attached to the verb: Pectitne tibi ancilla capillum?) The arrival of the barbarians caused such great terror that we all thought we were already lost (literally: had already perished/been lost). (OT. There is no double dative properly speaking in this sentence. There is only one dative, tantō terrōrī, with no second one to indicate in whom that terror was caused. There could be one, but there does not have to. The dative of the thing caused can stand on its own as well as in a double dative construction.)

Do you want to know what was most useful to us then (a little more literally: what was the source of greatest usefulness for us)? Prostrated at the general’s feet, they begged for peace. I do not know whether this will cause them sorrow or joy.

Note: A mistake regularly and understandably made by students is to think that, because a sentence like Brācchium mihi frēgit corresponds to "He broke my arm", brācchium mihi means "my arm". It does not. Thinking that it does constitutes a misunderstanding of the grammatical and logical relationships between the words in that type of Latin sentence, and such a misinterpretation can lead to using the dative in contexts where is does not belong.

Brācchium mihi does not mean "my arm". Indeed, mihi in Brācchium mihi frēgit does not modify brācchium, but rather goes with the verb. It is not brācchium mihi but mihi frēgit. The sentence does not literally tell us whose arm was broken, but to whom the arm-breaking was done. We translate it to "He broke my arm" only because that is how English works, but the relationships between the words are not the same as in Latin.

Again:

"He broke my arm" tells us whose arm was broken.

Brācchium mihi frēgit tells us to whom the arm-breaking was done.

The two sentences describe the same event in different ways.

As a rule, if the situation that you are trying to describe in Latin cannot intuitively enough (do not get lost in far-fetched theoretical thinking!) be viewed as something being done or happening directly to whoever the possessive would refer to in English, do not use the dative to represent that person in Latin. For example, it would be odd to translate "Your brother hit me" as Frāter tibi mē percussit, because the addressee’s brother hitting the speaker is not something that was done or happened to the addressee. The normal translation is Frāter tuus mē percussit.

Chapter 66

A)

Omnibus moriendum est. Domī nostrae bibēbātur et saltābātur/bibī et saltārī solēbat. Tōtā urbe clāmābātur, flēbātur, ēiulābātur. Ad magna nōn pervenītur sine labōre. Hāc in terrā bene vīvī potest. Rēge loquente tacendum est./Cum rēx loquitur, tacendum est. Mihi Rōmam eundum est. Decem (nōbīs) diēs latendum fuit nē ā mīlitibus interficerēmur/occīderēmur. Lignātum in silvam ībitur.

Bīduō in Germāniam perventum est.

B)

Here people are crying, there they are laughing. You can’t live without money today. If we must perish, let us make it so that it not be in vain. When they reached the river, the general ordered the camp to be pitched in that place. I must return home before midnight. Does anyone think one should go to that land now, while a bloody war is being waged there? Should I have yielded just when I seemed about to win? I think we (or I, or possibly another person) should sleep now. One never lives well unless (one lives) honorably. People were dancing/There was dancing all over the city.

Note: The impersonal ive just means that the action of the verb is being done (or was done, etc.). For instance, ītur means very literally (albeit unEnglishly) "it is (being) gone". The "it" does not denote any external thing, but, in a way, the action, the going itself. Thus, ītur basically means that the action of going is being done. That can translate into English in various ways depending on context (one goes or is going, people go or are going, you go or are going, we go or are going…).

Further note that English sometimes uses forms of "to be" with the past participles of some intransitive verbs in an active sense. For example, "it is gone" means that a certain thing has gone away, has vanished (active meaning), not that it has been gone by someone, that someone has gone that thing (which makes no sense). Similarly, "I am come" is just an archaic equivalent of "I have come" (active meaning); it does not mean "I am come by someone", "someone comes me" (which makes no sense either). These deceptively ive-looking but actually active English constructions should not be confused with the Latin ive ones. Although ītur may translate very literally to "it is gone", it does not mean "it is gone" in the sense that the phrase normally has in English. "It is gone" in normal English means that a specific thing has gone away. Ītur means that the action of going is being done.

Chapter 67

A)

Nōn decet philosophum dīvitiās appetere. Nefās est tālia dīcere. Amāre mīlitāre est. Satius est/Melius est/Praestat vēra dīcentem rīdērī quam mentientem amārī. (Mihi) placet quod hanc rem nōn tacuistī./(Mihi) placet tē hanc rem nōn tacuisse. Utrum peius est, nocentem dīmittī an innocentem damnārī?/Utrum peius est, ut nocēns dīmittātur an ut innocēns damnētur? (Utrum is the right translation for "which" in this sentence because we mean "which" of two options.)

Ēnumquam nōbīs licēbit esse līberīs/līberōs? Difficile est bonum esse. Patet puellam fessam esse. (Mē) paenitet ad tē nōn scrīpsisse./(Mē) paenitet quod ad tē nōn scrīpsī.

Note 1: Accusative-and-infinitive clauses, quod clauses and ut clauses are among those that occur the most frequently as substantive clauses.

A substantive clause is a clause that functions as a substantive, i.e. as a noun. For instance, it can be the subject of a verb as a nominative noun would be, like the quod clause in Mihi placet quod hoc fēcistī, "It pleases me that you did this" (the "it" in this sentence is a dummy subject; the logical subject is "that you did this": that is what pleases the speaker). Or it can be the object, functioning as an accusative noun would. Such is the case of the quod clause in Amō quod hoc fēcistī, "I love the fact that you did this".

It can happen that more than one type of substantive clause would be correct in the same situation, but they are not just all interchangeable. For instance, an ut clause would not work for stating that something someone did pleased you. Why? Because an ut clause conveys something more like a potentiality, along the lines of "that someone should do something" or "for someone to do something". A quod clause, on the other hand, means "the fact that someone does (or did, etc.) something". An accusative-and-infinitive clause can translate either idea depending on context. For the rest, you need to learn by experience which constructions tend to be used in what contexts, with which verbs etc.

Note 2: When an infinitive construction is used substantively, the subject of the infinitive, if any, is in the accusative, and so is any adjective or participle

etc. referring to that subject, even if the subject is not stated but is an implied "someone" (see for example Sentences 4 and 8 above). The subject of the infinitive in this type of construction cannot be nominative, because the nominative case belongs to the subject of the finite (i.e. conjugated) verb. Thus, if I said Difficile est bonus esse, bonus would need to be or modify the subject of the finite verb est, which does not make sense: the subject of est is not supposed to be bonus, "a good person"—we are not saying "A good person is difficult"—but bonum esse, "to be (a) good (person)". This phrase can function as a noun, and thus as the subject of est, only if its subject and/or the adjective modifying that subject is in the accusative. Here, the subject is not expressed but is an implied "someone", and we have the adjective bonum in agreement with that implied subject.

Now, there are certain constructions where it might seem, at first sight, that the accusative should be used according to the above rule, and yet it is not; e.g. Volō bonus esse, "I want to be good". "To be good" seems to be the direct object of "I want" and so to be functioning as a noun and require the accusative-andinfinitive construction. But it does not. Why? Because bonus also refers to the subject of the finite verb volō and so, by some kind of logic, agrees with it in the nominative. This is the rule: if an adjective, noun or participle that goes with the implied subject of an infinitive also refers to the subject of the finite verb, put it in the nominative. If it does not, put it in the accusative.

Note 3: The strictly logical version of 7 is Ēnumquam nōbīs licēbit esse līberōs? Esse līberōs, "to be free", is the subject of licet: it is what would be permitted. However, in such constructions involving a dative (here nōbīs), the adjective (or noun, etc.) that would be expected to be in the accusative is frequently attracted into the dative if it refers to the same person or people that the dative noun or pronoun represents.

Note 4: An infinitive or clause is always neuter.

B)

It was a custom for the Britons to paint their faces. (Literally: There was this (in the way) of a custom for the Britons, (namely) that they should paint…) It is a shameful thing when the rich do not help the poor./It is shameful that the poor should not be helped by the rich. This ought to be done as soon as possible. (Lit. It is necessary/proper for this to be done…) I think that it is permissible to laugh at the gods’ laughable actions. Would that it were permissible to kiss you! Although some people consider it shameful for a soldier to flee/to turn his back (on the enemy), still, the one who was saved by fleeing/turning his back (on the enemy) can fight again, (whereas) the one who fell resisting cannot. It is a problem that money is lacking. It is impossible (lit. It cannot happen) that so few should beat so many. It is beautiful to be loved, more beautiful to love, most beautiful to both love and be loved. Who would think it appropriate (Who would think that it was appropriate) for a king to dance like that?

Chapter 68

A)

gerī fēceram dīxeritis capta sum amātus sīs vincet habēbitis parem adiuventur dūcerēminī

B)

Second person plural present ive indicative or imperative of amō. First person singular present subjunctive of gaudeō. First person singular present active subjunctive or future simple active of scrībō. Accusative supine, nom./acc./voc. neuter singular perfect ive participle or acc. masculine singular perfect ive participle of videō. First person plural perfect active subjunctive of faciō. Second person fem. pl. pluperfect ive subjunctive of dūcō.

Third person plural perfect active subjunctive or future perfect active of audiō. Second person plural present imperative of dormiō. Third person plural pluperfect active subjunctive of capiō. Second person singular imperfect subjunctive of eō.

C)

fēminae ductae virōs victūrōs fēminae locūtūrae mālō carptō rosa carpenda fēminārum saltantium virīs captīs templī pūrgandī fēminās sequendās virī locūtī

D)

Captum could be a perfect participle or a supine. Gerendī could be a gerund or a gerundive. Factās is a perfect participle. Dictū is a supine. Capienda is a gerundive. Scrībendō could be a gerund or a gerundive. Locutum could be a perfect participle or supine. Carpendīs is a gerundive. Amandus is a gerundive. Secūtō is a perfect participle.

Note: While the gerundive (a verbal adjective) exists in all genders, numbers and cases, the gerund (a verbal noun) is always neuter and singular and has no nominative. The supine exists in only two forms, the accusative in -um and the ablative in -ū. The accusative form of the supine is identical to the nom./acc./voc. neut. sg. and acc. masc. sg. perfect participle. No participle ends in -ū.

Chapter 69

A)

Ōstium subitō apertum est. Dē Gāiō sollicitor, amīcō cārissimō, quī trēs/trīs iam mēnsēs/mēnsīs aegrōtat. (If you are confused by the tense of the last verb, see Answer Key, Chapter 35, Exercise A, Note 1.) Fortūnae rota volvitur, nōs mox oppressūra. Illa (fēmina) sāga esse dīcitur/fertur et in varia avium genera trānsfigūrārī/mūtārī/convertī. Cum multa mūtentur, (tamen) quaedam eadem manent semper. Hoc pōculum sollerter factum nōn facile frangētur. Domus implēbātur hominibus./Aedēs implēbantur hominibus. Convertere ut faciem tuam videam. Saxum ingēns latere montis abruptum (est et) ad vallem dēvolvī coepit. (Without est et it means literally "A huge boulder, broken off the mountain’s side, began to roll down toward the valley". That is a more concise and maybe stylistically preferable version in Latin; but it is not grammatically wrong to include est et.) Aliquid sub aquāmovēbātur.

Note: As previously said in Exercise Book, Chapter 44, Note on Quatiēbat, a number of English verbs can be both transitive (= taking a direct object) and intransitive (= taking no direct object) and when that is the case, the intransitive meaning often translates to the Latin ive voice.

See, for instance, with some of the verbs used in this exercise:

And so on. The same dichotomy can be applied to each of the verbs that occur in the ive in the answer key to this exercise except dīcitur/fertur, which is a pure ive, not ive in middle sense.

Some languages, like ancient Greek, have three separate voices: active, ive and middle. The middle voice denotes an action that the subject performs on or for itself, or an action that it undergoes from no particular agent (at any rate no stated agent) but in a virtually spontaneous manner. The Latin so-called ive voice includes some of the meanings of the middle voice. The last meaning (that of an action spontaneously undergone) is very frequent. On the other hand, the Latin ive does not usually have the meaning of the subject performing an action for itself. (There are only remnants of the earlier existence of such a usage in some deponent verbs, part of which historically evolved from that meaning of the middle voice. For example, the deponent verb precor, meaning "pray", may have become deponent because praying is something that one often does for one’s own sake. In any case, it was so often used in the middle voice that it eventually lost its active voice altogether and, by the time of classical Latin, had become a deponent verb. All deponents are believed to have originated in middle voice uses, but not all from that specific meaning of it). As for denoting an action that the subject performs on itself, there are many cases where a construction with a reflexive pronoun will be more appropriate. For instance, "to kill oneself" will never translate to interficī but to sē interficere. Sometimes, both constructions will be possible. E.g. volūtārī and sē volūtāre both correctly convey the idea of rolling about or rolling oneself about. There is a slight difference in the feel of these phrases: the second one gives more the impression of an action deliberately performed on an object that is in some sort of way separate, in spite of being the same as the subject. But essentially the same event is being described in both phrases. As a rule of thumb, you may consider that when a reflexive (such as "oneself") is used in English as object of an active verb, the same construction should usually be used in Latin too. The ive in middle sense, on the other hand, most often translates the intransitive meaning of English verbs that can be both transitive and intransitive, although the construction with the Latin reflexive is sometimes found there too. (For the rest, experience will tell you which constructions are common with which verbs and when there are alternatives.)

You can see things this way: the middle voice—that is, the voice whose meaning is somewhere in between the active and the ive; hence "middle"—was mostly fused with the ive in Latin, while in English it was mostly conflated with the active. For example, the middle-voice idea of rolling translates to the Latin ive* volvī and to the English active "to roll".

*More exactly, the Latin voice that is now usually called the ive and works as both ive and middle is believed to have originally been the middle voice, and to have taken over the function of the ive—rather than the other way round as the customary terminology might suggest.

B)

The sentences that would translate with the ive in middle sense are 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10. The verbs in 1, 4 and 9 would simply be the intransitive accurrit, iacēbat and sedēbat. Those in 3 and 6 are used transitively with the direct objects "her foot" and "his mind" and would therefore translate to the active.

Chapter 70

Cicero to Atticus, greetings.

May I see the (that) day when I thank you for compelling me to live! So far, at any rate, I regret it very much. But I beg you to come to me at once in (lit. to)

Vibo, where I have diverted my journey for numerous reasons. But if you come there, I will be able to form a plan regarding my whole journey and flight. If you do not do it, I will be surprised; but I trust that you will (do it).

Chapter 71

A)

Nōn sumus tālēs quālēs/quālīs (tū) nōs esse putās. Amor ergā/in tē (acc.) meus tantus est quantus ergā/in mē (acc.) tuus. Quō plūra legimus, eō plūra discimus. Mīlitēs eō validiōrēs fīunt quō magis exercentur. Tum faciam quod petis cum dēsieris mihi molestus/molesta esse. Hoc ideō fēcī ut īram dominī sēdārem. Iī/Eī ferē optimē scrībunt quī multa lēgērunt/lēgēre. Ut vōs līberōs amātis, sīc ego canēs/canīs meōs. Tot (in)sunt in vītā hūmānā miseriae quot in lītore iacent harēnae. Amīcō vērum/vēra ita dīcere cōnābor ut nōn videar asperior. ( that comparatives can, in the right contexts, have the sense of "too…". Nimis asper is also acceptable.)

Note 1: The demonstrative part of correlative pairs may sometimes be

either included or omitted depending on how much or how little emphasis is meant. For instance, tālēs could be omitted from Sentence 1. Its inclusion puts more emphasis on "such/of such a kind".

Note 2: One situation among many where Latin often uses correlatives is where English uses extra words (often relative clauses) to convey emphasis or just leaves the emphasis implied. Here are a couple of examples:

Iī praemiō dōnantur quōs amat imperātor. Which is literally: Those are presented with a reward whom the general loves. Tum istud faciam cum tū hoc fēceris. Which is literally: Then will I do that when you shall have done this, i.e when you have done this, then (and at no other time) I will do that.

B)

You ought to read my poem, for I wrote it because you had asked me to (for the reason that you had asked me to do so, specifically because you had asked me to do so). I love our Publius just as you do. He usually wins who knows his enemy./The one who wins is usually the one who knows his enemy./The winner is usually the one who knows his enemy. Don’t blame me since you’re as drunk as I am. The oftener I see you, the more I love you. A person tends to be (is usually) greedier the richer they are.

I was so worried that I didn’t sleep anymore. I’ll stop crying when you stop. Where there is war, there is sorrow. They endured such (great) woes as can scarcely be believed.

Note: Not all correlatives that exist in the Latin language have been introduced in this chapter; only a few of the most common ones. The aim of the chapter was to strengthen your grasp of how correlatives are used rather than to teach you all of them.

Chapter 72

A)

Crēdō fore ut/futūrum ut oppidum capiātur. I think the town will be taken. (Fore and futūrum esse are synonymous in this context, and the esse with futūrum may be omitted. That omission is generally permissible with future and perfect participles as well as in some other situations.) Nōn putābāmus urbem captumīrī. We did not think that the city would be taken. (The supine is a verbal noun, not an adjective. So it does not agree with anything. The literal meaning of the īrī + supine construction is that of a (figurative) going that is taking place for the purpose of doing something. Īrī is the ive infinitive of eō in the impersonal ive (see Chapter 66) and the accusative supine is denoting purpose after that verb of motion (see Chapter 64). The supine, if it is from a transitive verb as is the case in this sentence, may take a direct object. Thus, the sentence very literally means "We did not think it to be being gone (i.e. we did not think that a going was taking place, that anyone was

going) to take the city.") Putābam tē interfectum īrī. I thought you would be killed. Dīcēbant fore/futūrum esse/futūrum ut interficerēmur. They said we would be killed. (The sequence of tenses after the past-tense verb dīcēbant requires the imperfect subjunctive in the ut clause). Putāsne hoc carmen lēctum īrī? Do you think this poem will be read? Ais fore utamer. You say that I will be loved. Nēmō putat illud probātum īrī. Nobody thinks that that will be approved. An nōs putātis captum īrī? Do you think we will be captured? Dīxerant fore ut caperēmur. They had said that we would be captured. (According to the sequence of tenses, the imperfect subjunctive in the ut clause can only follow a past-tense verb.) Aiō futūrum ut vincāmur. I say that we shall be defeated.

B)

I am confident that your poem will be approved by all. Who would think that such a strong man would be beaten by anyone? Do you really think that such bad poems as these (lit. these so bad poems) will be read at the court of a highly learned king? Some people believed that the war would be over (finished) that very year. The physician affirms that the soldier whom we carried wounded to our house will be healed easily.

I think a letter will be sent to Athens. I believe this poem will soon be read all over the world (in the whole world). The people of that sect believe that the world will be ended (or: will end) by fire. When nobody thought that he/she would heal (be healed), behold, he/she made a full recovery (he/she fully recovered). For my part, I don’t believe these (people) will be defeated.

Chapter 73

Cicero to Atticus, greetings.

Terentia gives you very great thanks, very frequently. (More literally: Terentia gives you thanks both often and very great.) I am most thankful for that. (More literally: That is most pleasing to me.) For my part I live in utter misery (literally: I live very miserable) and am consumed with immense sorrow. I do not know what to write to you. For if you are in Rome, you can no longer catch up with me; but if you are on the way, we shall deal face to face with the things that need to be dealt with, when you do catch up with me.

Chapter 74

A)

Direct statement: Nisi mox ad mē vēneris, moriar. If you don’t come to me soon, I will die. Indirect statement: Pūblius tibi dīxit, nisi mox ad sē vēnissēs, sē moritūrum (esse). Publius told you that if you didn’t come to him soon, he would die. Direct question: Quid faciēs sī pecūniam nōn invēneris? What will you do if you don’t find the money? Indirect question: Claudia Pūblium interrogāvit quid factūrus esset sī pecūniam nōn invēnisset. Claudia asked Publius what he would do if he didn’t find the money. Direct command: Lege litterās quās heri accēpī. Read the letter I received yesterday. Indirect command: Domina mē iussit legere litterās quas prīdiē/heri accēpisset. The mistress ordered me to read the letter that she had received on the previous day/yesterday (depending whether you’re talking about something that happened earlier in the past or whether you’re saying this on the same day that your mistress ordered you to read the letter). Direct statement: Sī crās apud Claudiam aderit Pūblius, ostendam eī Mārcī litterās. If Publius is there at Claudia’s tomorrow, I’ll show him Marcus’s letter. Indirect statement: Gāius affirmat sē tibi, Pūblī, sī crās apud Claudiam adsīs, ostensūrum (esse) Mārcī litterās. Gaius affirms that he will show you Marcus’s letter if you are there at Claudia’s tomorrow. Direct statement: Sī adversus hostem validiōrem tē pugnābis, vēlōcitāte vincēs. If you fight against an enemy stronger than you, you will win by speed. Indirect statement: Dīxī tibi, sī adversus hostem validiōrem tē pugnārēs, vēlōcitāte tē (esse) victūrum/victūram. I told you that if you fought against an enemy stronger than you, you would win by speed.

B)

Indirect statement: Ego crēdō ab aliīs ferē nōn amārī eum quī sē nimis amet. I believe that someone who loves themselves too much is usually not loved by others. Direct statement: Ab aliīs ferē nōn amātur (is) quī sē nimis amat. Someone who loves themselves too much is usually not loved by others. Indirect statement: Dīxērunt sē, nisi obsidēs reddidissēmus, oppidum esse dēlētūrōs. They said that if we did not return the hostages, they would destroy the town. Direct statement: Nisi obsidēs reddideritis, oppidum dēlēbimus. If you do not return the hostages, we will destroy the town. Indirect statement: Dīxit sē litterās scrībere amīcō quem aegrōtāre audīvisset. He/She said he/she was writing a letter to a friend who he/she had heard was sick. Direct statement: Litterās scrībō amīcō quem aegrōtāre audīvī. I am writing a letter to a friend who I have heard is sick. Indirect statement: Negāvit magistrum, quamquam vir doctus esset, tantum scīre quantum nōs putārēmus. He said that though the teacher was a learned man, he did not know as much as we thought. Direct statement: Magister, quamquam vir doctus est, nōn tantum scit quantum vōs putātis. Though the teacher is a learned man, he does not know as much as you think. Indirect statement: Putābāmus, nisi barbarīs aurum dedissēmus, interfectum īrī amīcum nostrum. We thought that if we did not give gold to the barbarians, our friend would be killed. Direct statement: Nisi barbarīs aurum dederimus, interficiētur amīcus noster. If we do not give gold to the barbarians, our friend will be killed.

Note 1: These are the most usual correspondences between tenses (whether of the indicative or of the subjunctive) in direct-speech subordinate clauses and tenses of the subjunctive in indirect-speech subordinate clauses. (Discussing every exception would be beyond the scope of this book.)

Direct Speech

Indirect Speech

Present

Present subjunctive

Perfect

Perfect subjunctive

Imperfect

Imperfect subjunctive

Pluperfect

Pluperfect subjunctive

Future simple

Present subjunctive

Future perfect

Perfect subjunctive

Direct Speech

Indirect Speech

Present

Imperfect subjunctive

Perfect

Pluperfect subjunctive

Imperfect

Imperfect subjunctive

Pluperfect

Pluperfect subjunctive

Future simple

Imperfect subjunctive

Future perfect

Pluperfect subjunctive

The imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive are sometimes replaced with the present and perfect subjunctive respectively in a phenomenon called repraesentatio, which typically occurs in long indirect speeches, such as are often found in the historians. The construction gives the speech a certain extra vividness by depicting it as if it were present, while still keeping it indirect and therefore acc.-and-inf. in the main indirect-statement clauses and subjunctive in subordinate clauses. It does not usually occur in short, isolated indirect speeches.

Note 2: Subordinate clauses dependent on indirect speech take the subjunctive as a rule only if they are integral parts of the reported speech, i.e. if they are being presented as part of what the original speaker said (or thought, etc.). Instead of being part of that, a subordinate clause can be a piece of information added by the person reporting the speech. When that is the case, it takes an indicative verb. See for example this sentence from Exercise Book, Chapter 72, Exercise B:

Medicus affirmat fore ut mīles, quem saucium domum nostram portāvimus, facile sānētur.

"The physician affirms that the soldier whom we carried wounded to our house will be healed easily."

Portāvimus is in the indicative because the physician is not being reported as saying "The soldier whom you carried wounded to your house will be healed easily". Rather, the physician is presented as merely stating something like "He will be healed easily", and "whom we carried wounded to our house" is a piece of information added by the current speaker to specify which soldier they are talking about.

In English, it is sometimes clear from the context whether a subordinate clause dependent on indirect speech is an integral part of that speech or a piece of information added by the person reporting it; at other times, it is ambiguous and, if you were to translate the sentence into Latin, both the subjunctive and the indicative would be possible, with different implications.

C)

Dīxit (eum) stultum esse quisquis ita putāret. Mārcus ad nōs scrīpsit sē, quod fīlius (suus) aegrōtāret, domī (esse) mānsūrum. Imperātor lēgātīs dīxit, nisi obsidēs postrīdiē redditī essent, uxōrem līberōsque rēgis poenās datūrōs. Fāma erat, sī bellum indictum esset, incolās illīus oppidī omnēs (esse) peritūrōs. Aiunt/Dīcunt quīdam philosophī eum quī mortem timeat stultē timēre id quod sensūrus nōn sit. Dīxistis vōs, sī vēnissēmus, pictūram (quandam) mīram nōbīs ostentūrōs (esse) quam nūper ēmissētis. Or: Dīxistis vōs, sī vēnissēmus, pictūram (quandam) mīram nūper ēmptam nōbīs ostentūrōs (esse). Philosophus ille crēdit deōs, sī quī/ūllī sint, nōn cūrāre rēs hūmānās. (Ūllī is more emphatic than quī, a little more like "any at all".) Illī miserī (hominēs) nōs (inter)rogā(vē)runt/(inter)rogāvēre quid sē futūrum esset sī barbarī oppidum obsidērent. (The future infinitive of sum is used in lieu of the missing one of fīō.) Iussit nōs dominus arcessere magistrum quendam quī apud vōs manēret./Imperāvit (nōbīs) dominus ut arcesserēmus magistrum quendam quī apud vōs manēret. Ab imperātōre accēpī litterās bellum cōnfectum īrī sī illam urbem exercitus

noster caperet/cēpisset.

Note: Sometimes, in a conditional, temporal or similar clause in direct speech, the future simple and future perfect are both possible, and the same is true of the indirect-speech counterparts of those two tenses. They convey slightly different meanings or nuances: "at the same time as that happens" for the future simple and its counterparts vs. "after that has happened" for the future perfect and its counterparts. For example, in sentence 10, you may consider that the process of putting an end to the war will be taking place even as the army is taking the town ( caperet). Or you may consider that it will start just after the army has taken the town ( cēpisset).

Chapter 75

A)

Both sentences would translate with the same tenses and moods: Negō mē hoc fuisse factūrum/factūram nisi illud accidisset, literally "I deny myself to have been going to do this if that had not happened". The direct statements, however, would differ: I would not have done this if that had not happened = Hoc nōn fēcissem nisi illud accidisset; I would not be doing this if that had not happened = Hoc nōn facerem nisi illud accidisset. Both sentences would translate with the same tenses and moods: Dīcit sē hoc factūrum (esse) sī ego illud fēcerim/faciam, more or less literally "He says himself (to be) going to do this if I do that". The direct statements would differ: I will do this if you do that = Hoc faciam (future simple) sī tū illud fēceris/faciēs. I would do this if you were to do that = Hoc faciam (present subjunctive) sī tū illud fēcerīs/faciās. There would be a difference. In the first sentence, the form of sum in the main

indirect-question clause (which is also the apodosis of the condition) would be perfect subjunctive, and the verb in the protasis (i.e. the sī clause) would be pluperfect subjunctive: I don’t know what I would have done if that had happened = Nesciō quid factūrus/factūra fuerim sī illud accidisset, more or less literally"I don’t know what I was going to do if that had happened". In the second sentence, those same verbs would be present subjunctive and perfect or present subjunctive respectively: I don’t know what I would do if that were to happen = Nesciō quid factūrus/factūra sim sī illud acciderit/accidat, more or less literally "I don’t know what I am going to do if that happens". The direct questions would differ as well: What would I have done if that had happened? = Quid fēcissem sī illud accidisset? What would I do if that were to happen = Quid faciam sī illud acciderit/accidat?

Note: The future participle + fuisse periphrasis that is used in indirectspeech conditionals sometimes also occurs in direct speech. For example: Quid factūrus fuistī sī …? = What were you going to do if…? which is close in meaning to Quid fēcissēs sī…? = What would you have done if…?

B)

Dīcit/Ait sē, nisi illam/istam pecūniam sibi dedissēs, moritūrum fuisse. Negāvit Claudia, sī quis sē monuisset, sē illō diē magistrī domum itūram fuisse. Putō, sī (quem) scrīpserīs librum, omnēs/omnīs libenter (eum) lēctūrōs (esse). Crēdō Claudiam nōn fuisse clāmātūram nisi vōs male gererētis. Mārcus Gāiusque quaerunt/(inter)rogant quid factūrus/factūra fuerim sī ipsī āfuissent. Quaerēs/(Inter)rogābis quid factūrī/factūrae fuerīmus sī quī/quis nōs mīles invēnisset. (Quis can be used adjectivally instead of quī with masculine singular

nouns.) Negant sē rīsūrōs/rīsūrās fuisse, Pūblī, sī laesus fuissēs. Dīcis/Ais tē auscultātūrum/auscultātūram/audītūrum/audītūram fuisse sī meliōra carmina legerentur. Dubitō num idem ego, sī adfuissem, factūrus/factūra fuerim. Omnēs scīmus illōs, sī proeliīs/pugnīs nostrīs interfuissent, nōn ita locūtūrōs fuisse.

Chapter 76

I only beg you, since you have always loved me (for) myself, to keep the same love; for I am the same (person). My enemies have taken my things, not myself, away from me. Take care. Handed over on the fourth day before the Ides of April, in Thurii.

Chapter 77

A)

Dīcit sē carmen scrībere. Dīcit sē carmen scrīpsisse. Dīcit sē carmen scrīpsisse.

Dīcit sē carmen scrīptūrum (esse). Dīxit sē carmen scrībere. Dīxit sē carmen scrīpsisse. Dīxit sē carmen scrīptūrum (esse). Dīcit sē carmen, sī rogā(ve)rīmus, scrīptūrum (esse). Dīcit sē carmen, sī rogā(vi)ssēmus, scrīptūrum fuisse. Dīxit sē carmen, sī rogā(vi)ssēmus, scrīptūrum fuisse.

B)

This sentence is correct. Meaning: I don’t know what would have become of us if he had not arrived. This sentence is incorrect because resistō does not take a direct object; it takes the dative instead. Correction: Nōn possum hostī tam validō resistere. Meaning: I cannot resist such a strong enemy. This sentence is correct. Meaning: He/She says they can be beaten by us OR He/She says we can beat them (see Answer Key, Chapter 39, Exercise B, Sentence 2). This sentence is correct. Meaning: I think there is no one so strong as to be able to lift this rock./I think no one is strong enough to lift this rock. (The quī clause is a consecutive relative clause/relative clause of result.) This sentence is wrong because the sequence of tenses is broken. With an introducing verb in the present tense (like nesciō here) or in a future tense, the main verb of an indirect question referring to the past must be in the perfect subjunctive. No matter whether you say "has done", "did", "was doing" or "had

done" in English, all of that is perfect subjunctive in Latin in this context. Correction: Sciō quid Mārcus heri, dum nōs cēnāmus, ēgerit. Meaning: I know what Marcus did (or was doing) yesterday while we dined. Note that the present tense in the dum clause is normal even though it refers to the past. That is the usual construction with dum when it means "while". This sentence is correct. Meaning: Though I love you very much, I don’t want you to visit me now. This sentence is incorrect because the adjectives in the substantive infinitive phrases should be in the accusative (see Answer Key, Chapter 67, Exercise A, Note 2). Correction: Turpe nōn est dīvitem esse, avārum esse turpe est. Meaning: It is not shameful to be rich, it is shameful to be greedy. This sentence is correct. Meaning: We generally love those who love us. This sentence is correct. Meaning: How much are such things sold for? This sentence is incorrect because frangit is in the wrong voice. The active voice means that the cup breaks some object, which does not make much sense here. For "breaks" in the sense of "gets broken", you need the ive in middle sense (see Answer Key, Chapter 69, Exercise A, Note). Correction: Pōculum cadit et frangitur. Meaning: The cup falls and breaks.

C)

The dog belongs to Gaius. If Publius had been stroking his own dog, the reflexive possessive suum would have been used rather than eius. The most likely options are: cum urbem cēpissent, urbe captā, postquam urbem cēpērunt and post urbem captam. The most likely translations are: Hic liber tibi legendus est, Hunc librum tē legere oportet, Hunc librum legās oportet, Hunc librum tē necesse est legere, Hunc librum necesse est legās (necesse est has a nuance of compulsion or

inevitability), Hunc librum legere dēbēs (dēbeō usually has a nuance of moral obligation in classical Latin). 1) Sequuntur: active: they follow (or they are following). This form in a nondeponent verb would have a ive meaning. 2) Sequēbar: active: I was following. This form in a non-deponent verb would have a ive meaning. 3) Secūtus: active: having followed. This form in a non-deponent verb would have a ive meaning. 4) Sequēns: active: following. This form in a non-deponent verb would likewise have an active meaning. 5) Sequendus: ive: having to be followed. This form in a non-deponent verb would likewise have a ive meaning. 6) Secūtūrus: active: going/about to follow. This form in a non-deponent verb would likewise have an active meaning. 7) Sequī: active: to follow. This form in a non-deponent verb would have a ive meaning. 8) Sequere: active: follow! (sg. imperative) This form in a non-deponent verb would have a ive meaning. 9) Secūta est: active: she followed. This form in a non-deponent verb would have a ive meaning. 10) Sunt secūtī: active: they followed. This form in a non-deponent verb would have a ive meaning. It would be nominative since it refers to the subject of the verb. "As I was walking". 2) While sleeping: dormiēns. (Or any other case or number of the same participle, depending on context.)

3) Good people: bonī. (Or any other case of the same word, depending on context.) 4) Marvelous things: mīra. (Or the same in another case, depending on context.) 5) Your possessions: tua if addressing one person, vestra if addressing more than one. (Or the same words in another case, depending on context.) 7) I will do it: faciam. 9) I am able to: possum. 10) One dances: saltātur. The three other phrases would all usually require more than one word. With as few words as possible: after saying these things = haec locūtus; since everyone says so = cum omnēs ita dīcant/quoniam omnēs ita dīcunt; he had been wounded = vulnerātus erat. Putō fore ut lēgātī mittantur. Putō futūrum (esse) ut lēgātī mittantur. Putō lēgātōs missum īrī. Hoc ideō fēcimus quod/quia lupum timēbāmus. Proptereā or eō can also be used instead of ideō. Verb of fearing + nē nōn + subjunctive and verb of fearing + ut + subjunctive.

Chapter 78

A)

Hic canis sōlus/ūnus est quī mē amet. Or: Hic canis sōlus/ūnus mē amat. Nēmō erat in tōtō exercitū quī legere posset (eās) tabulās quae in castrīs hostium inventae erant. Nōn sum is quī (or in the feminine: ea quae) amīcōs dēseram. Volō quaerātis magistrum quī linguam et Latīnam et Graecam absolūtē nō(ve)rit/sciat. Magister meus, quī linguam Graecam optime nōvit/scit, mihi dīxit illud mendōsum esse. (OT) Mīles ille terribilis sōlus/ūnus fuit quī nōs dēfenderet (or: Mīles ille terribilis sōlus/ūnus nōs dēfendit), quāpropter faciēs eius, quam vōs dīram dūcitis, nōbīs pulchra vidētur. Nēminem nōvī quem nōn ōrātiō tua mōverit. (In this quī nōn + subjunctive construction, nōn frequently comes directly after the relative pronoun even if nōn gets separated from the verb as a result. That does not necessarily mean that nōn refers closely to the word that directly follows it. Here, for example, nōn does not negate ōrātiō specifically.) Ubi in hōc oppidulō inveniēmus artificem quī hoc reficere possit? Imperātor est is quī imperat. (OT) Ūnus est quī/Ūna est quae mē amīcōsque meōs/amīcāsque meās dēfendat. Or: Ūnus/Ūna mē amīcōsque meōs/amīcāsque meās dēfendit.

Note 1: The general definition of a relative clause of characteristic is a relative clause that describes a person or thing as being of such a character as to do or undergo this or that; as being the kind of person or thing that does or would, generally or in a specified situation, do or undergo this or that. In other words, a relative clause of characteristic does not so much state a fact about what a person or thing does, but it tells us that they are prone, able, willing, or expected to do so, or that it is part of their character.

This definition, however, is arguably vague and open to (mis)interpretation. To give you a better idea of what it means in practice, here is a list of a few situations where relative clauses of characteristic typically occur:

Relative clauses of characteristic may be viewed as a type of consecutive relative clauses.

General definitions, such as in Sentence 9, typically do not involve relative clauses of characteristic. Their relative clauses usually take the indicative because they are stating general facts.

Note 2: In Latin, the verb of a subject relative pronoun always agrees with the person that it is really about, e.g. the first person singular in Sentence 3.

Note 3: Ūnus on its own can suffice to convey the idea of "only one". Adverbs like tantum or sōlum (normally not the adjective sōlus) may be added for extra emphasis.

B)

Am I the kind of person who gives in to threats? I am not the kind of woman whom many love. The general was a good, brave and just man and of the kind that imposed as much effort on himself as on the soldiers. Who is there who does not know this? For more natural English, it may be shortened to: Who does not know this?

One man was found who opposed the king’s madness. You are the only one of us whose advice the king receives. I am looking for a wife whose intellect is equal to mine. (Literally: for that wife whose intellect would be equal to mine.) Our soldiers are of the kind to spare those who surrender (themselves). There is no one who approves of what Gaius did yesterday./There is no such person as approves (or would approve)… We want a king (the kind of king) who does not oppress the people.

Chapter 79

A)

Litterās puerō astantī dedit. Timōre errandī factum est ut tacērēmus. Librum scrībere difficile est. Ad mē vēnit flēns. Clāmandō nihil efficitur. Ā clāmante nihil efficitur. Miserēre maerentis amīcī/amīcae. Puerī puellaeque humī iacentēs caelum diū spectāvērunt/spectāvēre.

Nesciō utrum peius sit, flentem rīdēre an increpāre. (Note that if you ignore the comma, this can also back-translate to "I don’t know whether it is worse to laugh at a crying person or to shout at them". The conjunction utrum, meaning "whether" at the beginning of a two-part question (whether… or…) is only a specialized use of the neuter singular of the pronoun uter, utra, utrum meaning "which of the two".) Ad imperātōris mandātum efficiendum nōs aptissimōs/aptissimās crēdimus.

Note: The present participle describes someone or something as doing a certain action. The gerund and infinitive denote the action itself. In general, if you can add the words "the act of" before the -ing English word and the sentence still makes sense, you will need either the gerund (or gerundive construction; see Chapter 43) or the infinitive in Latin.* For instance, Sentence 3, "Writing a book is difficult", still makes sense as "The act of writing a book is difficult" (that is just a little more wordy, but it is meaningful and conveys basically the same idea). If, on the other hand, the sentence becomes nonsensical by the addition of those words, you will generally need a participle in Latin.** For example, Sentence 4 no longer makes sense as "He came to me the act of crying".

If you have determined that you mean the action itself, the rules for choosing between the gerund (or gerundive construction) and the infinitive are as follows:

*Unless Latin idiom actually requires an entirely different construction (for an example of which see Exercise Book, Chapter 70, note on Agam grātiās quod), but these are things that you will learn as you go.

**Of course, if the English -ing word is part of a progressive tense like "I am reading" or "He was running", the Latin present participle will not be used but the entire phrase will translate to a Latin tense (most typically the present or

imperfect tense).

B)

Mandāta dominī nōn efficiēs dormiendō/dormiēns. With the gerund: You will not carry out the master’s orders by sleeping. With the participle: You will not carry out the master’s orders (while you are) sleeping. Māter puerō flentīōsculum dedit. The mother gave the crying child/boy a kiss. Magister puerum pārēre nōlentem increpuit. The teacher upbraided the boy refusing to obey/the boy who refused to obey. With nōlēns or nōlente, the sentence would be grammatically correct but mean something less likely. With nōlēns: The master, refusing to obey, upbraided the boy. With nōlente: The master upbraided the boy while [someone else previously mentioned] refused to obey. Dominō dīra minantī pāruimus. We obeyed the master (as he was) threatening terrible things. With minandō, the sentence would be grammatically correct but with a less likely meaning: We obeyed the master by threatening terrible things (it could make sense if the master had ordered them to threaten someone). Mīlitem graviter saucium inter cadāvera iacentem invēnimus. We found a seriously wounded soldier lying among the corpses. Parcere victīs honestum semper est. Sparing the defeated is always honorable./To spare the defeated is always honorable. Maior est parcentis/parcendī/parcere quam vincentis/vincendī/vincere glōria. With the participle: The glory of him who spares is greater than that of him who conquers. With the gerund: The glory of sparing is greater than that of conquering. With the infinitive: Sparing is a greater glory than conquering./To spare is a greater glory than to conquer. Cucurrimus, timentēs nē sērō advenīrēmus. We ran, fearing that we would arrive late.

Errāmus quidem, sed errandō/errantēs discimus. With the gerund: We make mistakes indeed, but by making mistakes, we learn. With the participle: We make mistakes indeed, but (while we are) making mistakes, we learn. With the infinitive, the sentence would be grammatically correct but would not make much sense: We make mistakes indeed, but we learn to make mistakes. Hic est quemfūrantem vigilēs dēprehendērunt. This is the one whom the watchmen caught stealing.

Chapter 80

A)

Presumably the king’s. It may seem at first sight that the king is the subject of the sentence and that suus should therefore be used, but that is not exactly the case. The subject is not just rēx but rēx et exercitus eius, a composite subject. The army, which is itself part of the subject, does not belong to the whole subject but only to the other part of it. The reflexive is not generally used in this sort of situation. Translation: The king and his army are near. Publius. In theory, sē could refer either to Gaius, who is the implied subject of the ut clause, or to Publius, who is the subject of the verb on which the ut clause depends. But the context tells us that it is more likely to refer to Publius. Translation: Publius begged Gaius to help him. Publius’s. If Publius had been walking with Gaius’s brother rather than his own, eius (or some other genitive demonstrative pronoun) would have been used, not the reflexive possessive suō. Translation: Publius is walking with Gaius and his own (Publius’s) brother.

Claudia. If it had been Publius, eī would have been used rather than the reflexive, because Publius is not the subject. Translation: When Claudia was at Publius’s, she felt like she was talking too much (she seemed to herself to be talking too much). Eī can only represent someone who is the subject of neither trāderet nor rogāvit. So it represents Gaius. From the grammar alone, the letter could be either that of Publius (the implied subject of trāderet) or that of Claudia (the subject of rogāvit) but Claudia is more likely to ask Publius to deliver her letter rather that Publius’s own. Translation: Claudia asked Publius to deliver her letter to Gaius when Publius visited him. (More literally: … when he visited Gaius, to deliver her letter to him.)

Note: Forms of ipse are sometimes used instead of forms of sē and suus in subordinate clauses to refer back to the subject of the introducing verb, especially when a reflexive would be ambiguous and at risk of being mistaken for a direct reflexive (that is, a reflexive referring to the subject of the very clause it is in). For example, take the sentence Pūblius dīxit Gāium, cum is apud frātrem ipsīus esset, fābulam mīram nārāsse = "Publius said that Gaius told an astonishing story when he (Gaius) was at his (Publius’s) brother’s." Since the cum clause is part of something that Publius, the subject of the introducing verb, said, the reflexive possessive suum would have been correct from a grammatical point of view. However, it would not have been obvious that suum had reference to the subject of dīxit rather than to that of esset. The clause could have been understood as "when he (Gaius) was at his (own) brother’s". Ipsīus makes the intended meaning clearer.

B)

Rēx ubi comperit amīcum suum captum ab hostibus esse, lēgātōs mīsit quī

supplicārent nē eī¹ nocērētur. Parātum esse sē² obsidēs reddere, sī suus³ amīcus illaesus ad sē² remitterētur. Miserērentur ergō et ipsīus⁴ amīcī et suōrum, quī illō⁵ solūtō ipsī lībertātem essent receptūrī.

When the king learned that his friend had been captured by the enemy, he sent ambassadors to beg that no harm be done to him. He was(, he said,) ready to return the hostages if his friend was sent back to him unhurt. They should, therefore, have mercy on both his friend and their own, who would themselves regain their freedom if he was released (literally: with that one having been released).

Neither the king nor the ambassadors are referring to themselves with this pronoun; this pronoun represents the king’s friend, who is not the subject of anything here, so no reflexive. The king is speaking and referring to himself, so reflexive pronoun. The king is speaking and referring to his own friend, so reflexive possessive. The king is speaking and referring to his own friend, so suī would not have been strictly incorrect as an indirect reflexive, but it would have been a little strange in combination with the direct reflexive suōrum (which has reference to the subject of miserērentur, the enemy whom the king is addressing) in the same clause. So it is better to use ipsīus instead. Does not represent the king, so no reflexive.

C)

Tam docta fēmina erat ut omnēs eam īrārentur. (A result clause is not something in the mind of the subject of the main clause—it is not something that

the subject says, thinks, intends, wishes, etc.—therefore reflexives are not generally used in result clauses to refer back to the subject of the main clause when it is not also the subject of the result clause.) Haec (ideō) faciēbat/facere solēbat ut puerī sē timērent. (A purpose clause refers to something in the mind of the subject of the verb on which it depends. The person here had a purpose concerning himself; hence the reflexive.) Rescrībēbat ad Pūblium, quī paucīs ante diēbus ad eam scrīpserat. (Relative clauses, unless they are of purpose or dependent on indirect speech or something similar, do not usually denote something in the mind of the subject of the main verb. That is why they do not typically take reflexives to refer back to that subject.) Cum Gāium vīsisset/Postquam Gāium vīsit, nōbīs dīxit eum sibi pictūram novam ostendisse. (Indirect speech is one situation where reflexives are used to refer back to the subject of the main verb. Here, sibi refers to the subject of dīxit; that is why it is reflexive. Eum, on the other hand, does not refer to the subject, and therefore is not reflexive.) Mārcus servīs (suīs) imperāvit ut Pūblium quaererent/servōs (suōs) iussit Pūblium quaerere, quod ille sibi pecūniam dēbēret. (The quod clause is part of what Marcus said. It consequently takes a reflexive pronoun to refer back to Marcus, the subject of iussit: that subject was referring to himself. As for the optional suīs or suōs, it would be used rather than the genitive of a demonstrative pronoun because Marcus presumably gave the order to his own servants.) Dominus nōs iussit litterās suās magistrō trādere./Dominus (nōbīs) imperāvit ut litterās suās magistrō trāderēmus. (The master was presumably referring to his own letter; hence the reflexive possessive suās.) (Inter)rogāvit nōs num vīdissēmus canem suum./(Inter)rogāvit nōs vīdissēmusne canem suum. (The speaker was presumably referring to his own dog, so the reflexive possessive is used. It is not entirely impossible that it was someone else’s dog, but that is not the first interpretation that comes to mind when one reads the sentence on its own.) Dīxit fīlium suum nōn compārēre (inter)rogāvitque num vīdissēmus eum/(inter)rogāvitque vīdissēmusne eum. (As with the dog above, the son is likely to be the speaker’s own. "Him" in the second part of the sentence does not

represent the subject of any verb, and so it does not translate with the reflexive pronoun.) Pūblius ubi Gāium vīdit/ut Gāium vīdit/cum Gāium vīdisset, tenēre sē nōn potuit quīn vestem eius rīdēret. (The owner of the clothing is not the subject, so no reflexive possessive.) Claudia et amīcus/amīca eius aiunt/dīcunt tē sibi lagōnam vīnī optimī dedisse. ("Them" refers to the people who are saying this; that is why it translates with a reflexive pronoun. Regarding eius, see Answer Key to this chapter, Exercise A, Sentence 1.)

Chapter 81

A)

Quaerō eum quī aurum meum fūrātus est/surripuit. Sciō quis aurum tuum fūrātus sit/surripuerit. Nōvī hominem/eum quī aurum tuum fūrātus est/surripuit. (Note that sciō does not usually mean "know" in the sense of being acquainted with a person.) Miser (quīdam) homō, quī aurum ē marsuppiō dīvitis mercātōris fūrātus erat/surripuerat, ad magistrātūs dūcēbātur. Nesciō quid factūra sit. Quod parvum est pulchrum est. Gāius, quem ob doctrīnam valdē/multum īror, nōs mox, (ut) spērō, vīset. Oppidānōs (inter)rogāvimus quā (viā) exercitus īsset.

Domus mercātōris, quā pulchriōrem nūllam vīderam, in colle sita erat agrīs vīneīsque circumdatō. Or: Aedēs mercātōris, quibus pulchriōrēs… sitae erant… Mihi dīxit quem ēligendum (esse) putāret/quem ēligī oportere putāret.

Note: Usually, if you can add the words "the question of" or "the answer to the question of" before the "what", "who", "which", "where" etc. clause and the sentence still makes sense (in spite of being terribly wordy), then the clause is an indirect question. Otherwise, it is a relative clause.

In addition, a frequent telltale sign of a relative clause is the presence of an antecedent (as in "the person who…", "the thing that…", "my sister, who…"). This criterion is not 100% reliable, however, since antecedents are sometimes left implied (e.g. in Latin, quī alone can stand for "he who", as can "who" itself in a literary or archaic of English) and some words that do not typically take antecedents are relatives in at least some contexts (e.g. "what" standing for "that which/the thing which", as in Sentence 6 above).

B)

Mihi nōn placet quod dīcis. I don’t like what (= that which) you’re saying./What (= That which) you’re saying does not please me. Quaesiit quem librum legere vellem. He/She asked which/what book I wanted to read. Scīmus quis/quī nōs occīdere velit. Both options are possible here. Quis, the basic interrogative "who", is more likely by default; but quī can mean "which person" (out of a more-or-less defined group) or "who" in the sense of "what kind of person", as opposed to mere identity. Translation of the quis version: We know who wants to kill us. Translation of the quī version: We know who/which

person/what (kind of) person wants to kill us. Id ā mē petis quod ego facere, etiam sī possem, nōllem. You are asking me for that (You are asking that of me) which I would not want to do even if I could. Gāius, quī tunc Athēnīs manēbat, longās ad mē litterās scrīpsit. Gaius, who was staying in Athens at the time, wrote me a long letter. Ūnum ex hīs pirīs habeās licet. Quod vīs? You may have (It is permitted that you should have) one of these pears. Which one do you want? Dīcam tibi quid tē futūrum sit sī istud fēceris. I will tell you what will become of you if you do that. Hoc, quod tē volente libenter faciam, nōlente nōn faciam. This, which I will gladly do if you want me to, I will not do if you do not want me to. Or : … I would gladly do… I would not do…; faciam could be present subjunctive as well as future simple. Quōs tū librōs domī habēs? Which/What books do you have at home? Vidēmus quī nōs ament. (Quis is singular and would not agree with the plural verb ament.) We see which people love us. "We see who loves us" is also an acceptable translation since "who loves us" can, in practice, refer to several people in spite of being grammatically singular.

Note:

As a relative pronoun, it corresponds to a relative "who(m)", "that", or "which", as in "the man whom I saw" (homō quem vīdī) and "the book that I read" (liber quem lēgī).

As a relative adjective, it corresponds to a relative "which [insert noun]" or

"what [insert noun]" as in Gāius doctissimus nostrum est, quā dē causā eum saepe cōnsulimus, "Gaius is the most learned among us, for which reason we often consult him" or Quō diē Gāius nōs vīsit, aegrōtāre coepī, "On which day Gaius visited us, I started being ill". In everyday English you would more often put that as "On the day that Gaius visited us…". Quō diē, "on which day", is in this context equivalent to diē quō, "on the day on which", where quō is used purely as a pronoun; but with diē being attracted into the relative clause, quō technically becomes an adjective to it. This sort of attraction of the antecedent into the relative clause is more frequent in Latin than in English.

As an interrogative adjective, it means "which [insert noun]" or "what [insert noun]" in a question (direct or indirect). E.g. Quem librum legere vīs? = "Which book (or What book) do you want to read?"

As an interrogative pronoun, it means "which one(s)" (out of a more-or-lessspecified group), e.g. – Librum legere volō. – Quem? = "– I want to read a book. – Which one?" The masculine singular form quī can sometimes translate to an interrogative "who", but then it usually implies "which person" (out of a moreor-less-specified group) or "what kind of person". The same is sometimes true of the feminine quae, but this form also occurs as simply the feminine of quis. Quis itself can also be feminine—it is originally common gender—so that "Who is that woman?" can correctly translate to either Quae est illa fēmina? or Quis est illa fēmina?

Finally, keep in mind that quis, quid, quī etc. can also be indefinite, meaning "someone/anyone", "something/anything", "some/any", in certain situations (see notably Exercise Book, Chapter 47, note on Quis). When that is the case, the feminine and neuter plural forms of quī are often qua instead of quae.

Chapter 82

A)

Literally: I too often see you grieving, whom grieving I always grieve. May be rephrased to: I am always sad when you are sad, and I see you sad too often. Literally: My friends had dressed the dog with children’s clothes through jest, which (= the dog) when I saw thus adorned, I almost fell flat on my back with laughter. May be rephrased to: My friends had dressed the dog with children’s clothes as a joke. When I saw the dog thus adorned, I almost fell flat on my back with laughter. Literally: What poems you shall have heard with the greatest pleasure, make it so that we too either hear or read those. May be rephrased to: Make sure that we, too, hear or read those poems which you had the most pleasure hearing. Literally: By which poems you are delighted, I too am delighted by those. May be rephrased to: I too enjoy the poems you enjoy. Literally: The king sent ambassadors in the hope of obtaining peace. Who when had arrived into the camp, the general was surprised. May be rephrased to: The king sent ambassadors in the hope of obtaining peace. When they arrived into the camp, the general was surprised. Literally: Your face, O frightful soldier, which having been seen the terrified enemy withdraws, seems to me the most beautiful of all. May be rephrased to: Your face, O frightful soldier, at the sight of which the terrified enemy withdraws, seems to me the most beautiful of all. Literally: Many portents are said to have been seen in which year that disaster happened. May be rephrased to: Many portents are said to have been seen in the year in which that disaster happened. Literally: That one writes those poems which reading I could not hold back tears. May be rephrased to: He/That man writes poems of the kind that I cannot read without shedding tears. Or: He/That man writes poems of such a kind that I cannot hold back tears when I read them.

Literally: I ask that you come to me as soon as possible; which unless you shall have done, I fear lest I die. May be rephrased to: I ask you to come to me as soon as possible. If you do not, I fear I shall die. Literally: My grandfather painted and gave this painting to me; which every time I look at, I see as it were a part of him now dead. May be rephrased to: This picture was painted and given to me by my grandfather, and every time I look at it it is as if I saw of part of him, now dead. (I turned the first part into the ive so as to keep the emphasis on the painting, an emphasis which is conveyed in Latin by the word order and is lost in translation if you say "My grandfather painted this painting…".)

B)

Rōma, quam urbem vir nōmineRōmulus condidisse trāditur, caput orbis ōlim fuit. Rome, which city is traditionally said to have been founded by a man called Romulus, was once the capital of the world. Or: Rome, the city that is traditionally said to have been founded… Servī in culīna rīdēbant; quōsut dominus audīvit, introiit rogāvitque quid reī esset. The slaves were laughing in the kitchen. When/As soon as the master heard them (literally: whom when the master heard/whom as soon as the master heard), he went in and asked what the matter was. Hostēs urbem quandam habēbant mūnītissimam, caput tōtīus regiōnis, quā captā imperātor bellum cōnficī posse putābat. The enemy had a very well-fortified city, the capital of the whole region, the capture of which the general thought could mean the end of the war (literally: with which having been captured the general thought the war could be finished). Amīcus mē absente dēcesserat. In fūnus iī, ut eī mortuō saltem adessem, quō aegrōtanteāfueram. My friend had ed away in my absence (literally: me being absent). I went to the funeral, so that I would at least be there, when he was dead, for the one during whose illness I had been away (literally: whom being ill I had been away).

Rōmam petīvimus, nam ibi amīcus noster esse dīcēbātur. Quō cum pervēnissēmus, eum perquīrere coepimus percontārīque num quis eum vīdisset. We went to Rome, for our friend was said to be there. When we arrived there (literally: Whither when we arrived), we started looking for him everywhere and inquiring whether anyone had seen him. Cubiculum petiī; in quō cum iacērem, magnum repente sonitum dēsuper audīvī. I went to my bedroom, and as I lay in it (literally: in which as I lay), I suddenly heard a big noise from above. Quō diē in urbem pervēnimus, mors rēgisnūntiāta est. On which day we reached the city/On the day that we reached the city, the king’s death was announced. Quōsdomī librōs habeō, tibi commodābō. I will lend you what books I have at home (or: the books I have at home). Rēx eā ipsā nocte dēcessit, quae calamitās magnō nōs dolōre affēcit. The king ed away on that very night, which disaster (or: a disaster which) affected us with great sorrow (or: caused us great sorrow). Quō dolōre afficeris, eōdem ego afficior. I am affected with the same sorrow as you are. (Literally: With which sorrow you are affected, I am affected with the same.)

Chapter 83

A)

Hastās bīnōs pedēs longās tenēbant. They held two-foot-long spears (spears that were each two feet long). Hoc, quod Mārcus prīmus fēcit, multī post eum fēcērunt. This, which Marcus

was the first one to do, has been done by many after him./This, which Marcus did first, many have done after him. Pūblius puerīs singulīs vocātīs singula māla dedit. Marcus called the children one by one and gave them an apple each. (Literally: Marcus, to the children having been called one by one, gave one apple each.) Trīna in diem carmina scrībis. You write three poems a day. Vir ille quīnque fīliās habet. That man has five daughters.

B)

Quīnque canēs habēmus means "We have five dogs" in total and/or in common. Quīnōs canēs habēmus means "We have five dogs each". Usually, you use a distributive numeral. "The two camps" = bīna castra. Since castra in this sense is plural no matter what, it tended to feel wrong to refer to them as being two in total; so the distributive was used to denote, more or less, two sets of those already plural things. Mīlitēs quīnque stābant means "Five soldiers were standing"; Mīlitēs quīnī stābant means "Soldiers were standing by groups of five". It is not correct as a phrase. Someone might have wanted to say "book two", meaning the second book in a work. We can use a cardinal number ("two") in lieu of an ordinal ("second") there in English, but not in Latin. It would have to be liber secundus. Alternatively, one might have meant "two books" and forgotten to make liber plural, in which case the correction would most likely be librī duo (unless the context required a distributive). The correct translation is Pōcula singula bibērunt. Pōcula singula is plural because there was more than one cup in total. Several cups were drunk individually. Pōculum singulum means one cup considered individually.

C)

Per quiētem mihi vīsus/vīsa sum inter columnās ambulāre quīnquāgēnōs pedēs altās templī magnificī. (The columns are each fifty feet high.) Tertiīs Claudiae litterīs nōndum rescrīpsī/respondī. Bīnae nūptiae heri factae sunt. Duo virī accessērunt/accessēre, quōrum alter hastam duo/duōs pedēs longam vibrābat, alter ingentem secūrem/secūrim. (Secūris is one of the few i-stem nouns that have a common alternative acc. sg. in -im.) Sī quīnque māla habēns tribus frātribus meīs singula dederō, quot mihi māla restābunt?

Chapter 84

A)

Sapientis est, ubi verba nocitūra sunt, tacēre. It is a characteristic of a wise man to stay silent when words will do harm. Corpora mutila iacent quā exercitus ille transiit. Mutilated bodies lie where (by which way) that army has ed. Deōsculābor eum quisquis hoc fēcerit. I will warmly kiss whoever does this.

Nōlī quae tua nōn sunt appetere. Do not strive after things that are not yours. Tenēre mē nōn possum quīn tē amplectar. I can’t help hugging you. (For the use of quīn, see Exercise Book, Chapter 80, Vocabulary.) Num tū quoque, mē Rōmae manente, in eādem urbe erās? Could it be that, while I was staying in Rome, you were in the same city too? Barbarus ille nōbīs dīxit sē, nisi certam pecūniae summam solvissēmus, nōs et uxōrēs līberōsque nostrōs interfectūrum. That barbarian told us that unless we paid a certain sum of money, he would kill us and our wives and children. Iam oportet nōs dormīre, nē crās nōbīs, cum laborandum erit, dēsint vīrēs. We should sleep now, so as not to lack strength (so that strength not be lacking for us) tomorrow when we have to work. Difficile est fortiter vīvere, fortiter morī difficilius. It is hard to live courageously, harder to die courageously. (: an infinitive or clause is always neuter.) Id tē rogō, nē omnia crēdās quae dē mē dīcuntur. This I ask you, not to believe everything that is said about me./What I ask you is not to believe everything that is said about me./I ask you not to believe everything that is said about me. (The antecedent omnia is plural—literally "all things"; that is how you usually say "everything" in Latin—so the singular quod… dīcitur would not agree.)

Note: The neuter pronouns id, hoc, istud and illud (and, less frequently, their neuter plural equivalents) are sometimes used to anticipate a substantive clause* (rather than to refer to something previously mentioned). The clause can be an accusative-and-infinitive clause, a quod clause, an ut or nē clause, an indirect question, etc. Sentence 10 above is an example of this. The construction literally corresponds more or less to "this/that, (namely) …" though a natural English translation will often be different. In all such cases, the sentence would still be, strictly, grammatically correct without the pronoun; but the latter adds a certain emphasis, and that construction sometimes fits a given context better than the unemphatic, pronounless version.

*For a reminder of what that is, see Chapter 67, and especially Note 1 to Exercise A in the Answer Key. In addition to the types mentioned there, nē clauses also regularly occur as substantive clauses. Nē substantive clauses typically work as direct objects of verbs of commanding, requesting, wishing, and the like (or as their subjects when the verbs are ive). When an anticipatory pronoun is present, the pronoun is technically the object (or subject) and the clause stands as a kind of apposition to it—it expands on it, defines what it is.

B)

I wanted to speak with them but I did not know their language, and though I could convey some things with my hands, that was not enough. Take the horse to the river to drink. This is the house of Claudia, who I hope will be my wife. It is said that when assassins came from Mark Antony to kill him, Cicero bravely presented his throat. Literally: Cicero is said to… With ive verbs of saying and similar, this construction is much more common than the acc.-and-inf. That is, it is much more usual to say Cicerō hoc fēcisse dīcitur (literally "Cicero is said to have done this") than it is to say Cicerōnem hoc fēcisse dīcitur. In effect, "Cicero is said to have done this" and "It is said that Cicero did this" will both translate to the literal equivalent of the former. This is especially true when the ive verb of saying (or thinking, etc.)is in the present, imperfect or future simple tense. The acc.-and-inf. is very uncommon then (it is not so uncommon with perfect, pluperfect and future perfect ive verbs). The master traveled on horseback (lit. by horse); we slaves had to go on foot (lit. by feet). My philosopher friend considers that someone who punishes a murderer with death becomes a murderer themselves. Or more literally: … that he who

punishes… himself becomes… Go and ask Publius if he has written any new poem—(which) I hope he has! I am very worried about you, because I have received no letters from you for a long time. (For the tense of the last verb see Answer Key, Chapter 35, Exercise A, Note 1.) I like the fact that you are not afraid of the mistress although she is so frightful. I would like to know what you (all) did in my absence.

Bonus: You could say Mihi placet quod dominam tam terribilem nōn timēs, "I like the fact that you are not afraid of such a frightful mistress ". You could even go a little bit further by dropping mihi. It would often be acceptable to leave it implied in a real situation, because it would be clear from the context who the indirect object of placet was.

Chapter 85

A)

Quaerō aliquem quī Arabicē (or: linguā Arabicā) loquī sciat. (As stated in Exercise Book, Chapter 36, Vocabulary, loquor does not take the language spoken as a direct object. Rather, in Latin, you speak by means of a language— e.g. linguā Arabicā—or in the manner of a certain people—e.g. Arabicē. Regarding the subjunctive in the last clause, it is because the most likely interpretation of the English is that the speaker is looking for any person of the kind that can speak Arabic. You can call it a relative clause of characteristic, or say that it is a kind of wish that the person found should be able to speak Arabic, or both at the same time. In any case, the subjunctive is required. With the indicative, it would mean that the speaker was looking for a specific person who

they knew could speak Arabic.) Satis in mēnsā cibī est. (Satis takes a partitive genitive; see Answer Key, Chapter 60, Exercise A, Note.) Mīror quem sibi ducem ēlēgerint. Venīte in silvam; lupus (enim) nōn adest. Timēbātis nē, sī āleā/āleam nōbīscum lūsum vēnissētis, dominus vester īrāscerētur. (Lūdō often takes the ablative of the thing used in a game, sometimes the accusative.) (Mihi) ut accēderem significāvit. Meminī quis (quae is an option if the person is female) mē tum/tunc servā(ve)rit. Utinam tam doctus/docta essem quam tū! Mārcum cēnantem adiit./Mārcum cum is cēnāret adiit./Mārcum dum is cēnat adiit. (Though the use of is may not be strictly mandatory, it serves to make it entirely clear that the subject of cēnāret/cēnat is not that of adiit.) Pecūniam ā nōbīs petent./Pecūniam nōs rogābunt.

B)

Profectō dominō/Postquam dominus profectus est, servī prae gaudiō saltāre coepērunt. After the master departed, the slaves began to dance for joy. Cum nocte proximā parum dormīvissem, iam magistrō loquente dormitābam. Since I had slept little the previous night, I was now drowsing while the teacher spoke. Suam quisque opīniōnem habet. Each person has their opinion.

Quis mē mortuum lūgēbit? Who will mourn me when I am dead? Oportet taceāmus. We must be silent.

C)

This sentence is incorrect. Lavā manūs antequam ēs would be correct and mean "Wash your hands before you eat". Ante means "before" either as a preposition, i.e. referring only to a noun, pronoun or noun phrase as in "before dinner" or "before you"; or as an adverb, meaning "at an earlier time", as in "I have said this before". It does not work as a conjunction, i.e. as a word introducing a clause with its own verb as in "before you eat". For that last meaning, you need to add quam. Antequam, which can be written as one or two words, means more or less literally "(at an) earlier (time) than", and corresponds to the conjunction use of "before". This sentence is correct. It means "I want to read that letter". This sentence is correct. It means "Not all those who had loved him when he was alive attended his funeral". (Eum is left implied with vīvum.) This sentence does not make much sense as it stands. Claudia mihi Marcī litterās ostendit would mean "Claudia showed/shows me Marcus’s letter". Mihi is the indirect object. The direct object is the letter. This sentence has an issue in that the apposition does not agree with its noun as it should. Correction: Henrīcum Quīntum, Anglōrum rēgem, bellum in Francōs gessisse scīmus. Translation: We know that Henry the Fifth, king of the English, (or less literally: the English king Henry V) waged war on the French.

Chapter 86

A)

Mīra nārrās. Obsecrāmus (vōs) ut aliquantulum pecūniae nōbīs pauperibus dētis. Multum malī in orbe (terrārum) fit. Quanta illō diē facta sunt! Nōnne vidēs hunc poētam ingeniō maximō praeditum esse? Oppidum māchinīs circumdedērunt/circumdedēre. Elephantus in lutō volūtābātur. (The verb is transitive, so the active would mean to roll some object about, and the intransitive sense of the English is expressed with the Latin ive in middle sense.) Vergilius, cuius (ego) carmina magnopere/valdē/multum īror, Octāv(i)ī Caesaris tempore vīxit. Caesar et Cicerō, quōrum scrīpta inter optima habentur, aequālēs fuērunt/fuēre/erant. (Sometimes, the perfect and imperfect are both possible in a given context, just with a different nuance.) Dominus noster multō benignior est quam tuus.

B)

He was so drunk that he fell into a pond on his way home (while returning home).

Do not displease the master, unless perhaps you wish to be flogged. I’ll go to the city tomorrow to buy books. In the time of the kings, Rome was not so big. The one who had stolen the gold was hiding so that the watchmen should not find him. (Upon being) asked why he was afraid of people, the farmer said that people were more savage than wolves. (More literally: The farmer, having been asked why he was afraid of people, said…) I (for my part) ire you more than (I do) any one of those (people). For my part, if friends were not informing me by letters, I would not know what was going on (what was being done) in Rome. If anyone had let me know about your illness, I would have been there right away. We will better discuss these matters face to face if you ever come to Rome or I to Athens (if ever either you [come] to Rome or I come to Athens).

Chapter 87

… and, having come forward, he was greeted by Arminius. The latter (Literally: Who), having dismissed his attendants (literally: attendants having been removed), demanded that the archers posted on the edge of our bank go away. After they left, he asked his brother where that disfigurement of face came from. As Flavus related the place and the battle, Arminius inquired what recompense he had received. Flavus mentioned increased wages, a torc and a crown and other military gifts, while Arminius scoffed at the cheap rewards of servitude.

Chapter 88

A)

Num quid bonī est bonōrum in morte? Is there any good in the death of good men? Quīvīs hoc facere potest. (Quisquam means "anyone" in the sense of "anyone at all", usually in negative, conditional, and similar clauses. For instance, you could say Nōn putō quemquam hoc facere posse = "I don’t think anyone can do this", or Num quisquam hoc facere potest? = "Can anyone do this?" Ūllus is roughly like quisquam but it is primarily an adjective, meaning "any (at all)", sometimes substantivized with the meaning "anyone (at all)". Quīvīs means "anyone" in the sense of "anyone you like", "any random person". It is also used as an adjective, "any (you like/random)". The only viable interpretation of "Anyone can do this" as a stand-alone sentence is "Any random person can do this".) Quō in librō ista lēgistī? In which book did you read those things? (In classical Latin, a preposition that goes with a phrase consisting of a noun modified by an interrogative or relative adjective or pronoun most usually comes in between those two words, so that, for instance, quō in librō is more usual for "in which book" than in quō librō, and cuius in librō is more usual for "in whose book" than in cuius librō.) Id refert, utrum bona an mala agās. What matters is whether you do good or evil. (More or less literally: This matters, (namely) whether you do good things or evil things. For the use of id, see Answer Key, Chapter 84, Exercise A, Note. Indirect questions are substantive clauses.) Oportere dīcitur, dum pestilentia vagētur, suae quemque domī, quantum fierī possit, manēre. It is said that, while the pestilence roams/while the epidemic spreads, everyone should stay in their own home as much as possible (lit. as much as can be done). (Quemque is the subject of the accusative-and-infinitive clause quemque… manēre, a substantive clause that is itself the subject of oportet. More literally it says "it is necessary that each stay…" or "it is necessary

[for] each to stay…" The verbs vagētur and possit are subjunctive because they are part of an indirect statement. They would be indicative in direct speech.) Magister quō plūs loquitur, eō magis dormitat discipulus. The more the teacher speaks, the more the student drowses. Sunt quī dīcant plūs in morte bonī inesse quam malī. There are those who say that there is more good than evil in death. Amīcam haec locūtam amplexa et ōsculāta sum. After my friend spoke these things, I (female speaker) hugged and kissed her. (Amīcam… locūtam is the direct object of amplexa et ōsculāta sum. By classical rules, it cannot be both an ablative absolute and the implied direct object. An ablative absolute, with few exceptions, must refer to someone or something that does not already have another grammatical function in the clause. See Answer Key, Chapter 40, Exercise A, Note 1.) Fierī potest ut quis legere nesciat et tamen sit magnō ingeniō praeditus. It can happen that someone does not know how to read and yet is endowed with great intelligence. Quōītis? Where are you (all) going? (Quō means "where" denoting a destination: "whither", "where to", "to what place". Ubi means "where" denoting a location: "in what place". The latter is evidently not what is meant here. Quem does not make sense either, since eō is intransitive. "To whom are you (all) going?", with that verb, would be Ad quem ītis?)

B)

There was such a strong wind that night that it took away a few roofs. The teacher upbraids the drowsing student. Surely you know this, since you are a teacher and a very learned woman.

No tale scared me more as a child than the one that used to be told to all children at the time about the wolf. (If you are confused by mē… puerum translated as "me as a child", see again Exercise Book, Chapter 59, note on Herbās et folia… signum locō pōnit.) Though I have no doubt (Though I by no means doubt) that you are more learned than I am, I (still/nevertheless) believe that you are wrong on this point (in this matter). A fierce battle was fought./They fought fiercely. (Pugnātum est is impersonal ive. See Answer Key, Chapter 66, Exercise B, Note, if you need a reminder of how the construction works.) Every time I read that poet’s works, I marvel at the man’s talent. If it is as you say (may the gods forbid it!) I am afraid war will be declared on us any day now. I don’t understand what you’re saying (the things that you’re saying) at all; we need an interpreter, I think (literally: as I think). (Note that quae dīcis is a relative clause, but an indirect question would have made sense as well. The subtle difference is as follows: quae dīcis = the things that you’re saying; quae dīcās = what things you’re saying, what it is that you’re saying. With the former, you are stating that you don’t understand the things/words themselves; with the second, you are stating that you couldn’t answer the question of what it is that the other person is saying.) Don’t let him (that man) sit alone, but rather let him come near and dine with us.

Chapter 89

A)

Haec ubi comperit imperātor, vigiliās secundum flūmen disposuit. When the general learned these things, he posted watches along the river. Cum plūra compereris, facitō mē, ut solēs, certiōrem. When you have learned more (things), let me know as usual (as you are wont to). Quantāpatientiā opus est eī quī tālēs amīcōs habet! How much patience you (= general "you") need when you have such friends! More literally: How much patience he needs who has such friends! Cum nihil melius habērem quod facerem, āleā lūsum in oppidum iī. As I had nothing better to do (nothing better that I might do), I went to town to play dice. (Note that the infinitive instead of the supine after verbs of motion is acceptable but very rare in classical Latin, mostly limited to a few poetic instances. It became more common in later Latin.) Maximō nōbīsgaudiō fuit adventus amīcōrum quōs valdē dēsīderāverāmus. We were overjoyed by the arrival of friends whom we had greatly missed. Or a little more literally: The arrival of friends whom we had greatly missed was a source of very great joy for us. But the change in word order from the original also changes the emphasis/order of ideas in a relatively significant way. The first translation, while less literal in the grammatical functions of words, is more faithful with regard to the order of ideas. Gāium invēnī, cum in hortō ambulārem, sōlum ibi sedentem. As I was walking in the garden, I found Gaius sitting there alone. Suō quisque locōcōnsēdit. Each person sat down in their place. Victōrem victīs parcere oportet. The conqueror should spare the conquered. (It is right that the conqueror should spare the conquered.) Praestat sōlum esse quam malōs amīcōs habēre. It is better to be alone than to have bad friends. (If you thought that sōlus should be nominative, see Answer Key, Chapter 67, Exercise A, Note 2.) Quānamlinguā loquuntur? Whatever language are they speaking? (-nam make a question more emphatic. For the case of quānam linguā, see Exercise Book, Chapter 36, Vocabulary, Loquor and/or Answer Key, Chapter 85, Exercise A, Sentence 1.)

B)

Direct speech: Pūblius patrem Claudiae adiit et "Ego," inquit, "fīliam tuam amō." Translation: Publius went to Claudia’s father and said, "I love your daughter." Indirect speech: Pūblius patrem Claudiae adiit et (eī) dīxit sē fīliam eius amāre. Or, less ambiguously: … ā sē fīliam eius amārī. (See Answer Key, Chapter 39, Exercise B, Sentence 2.) Translation: Publius went to Claudia’s father and said (to him) that he loved his daughter. Indirect speech: Imperātor mīlitēs iussit bonō animō esse; iam enim hostēs vīribus dēficī. Translation: The general ordered the soldiers to be of good cheer, for the enemy were already running out of strength (lit. were already being failed by strength). Direct speech: Imperātor "Bonō animō este,"inquit, "mīlitēs; iam enim hostēs vīribus dēficiuntur." Translation: The general said, "Be of good cheer, soldiers; for the enemy are already running out of strength." Alternatively, instead of the vocative mīlitēs, you could have a dative: Imperātor mīlitibus "…," inquit, "…" = The general said to the soldiers, "…" Direct speech: Cum in hortō ambulārent, amīca Gāiō, "Quid," inquit, "faciēs sī bellum indictum erit? Dabisne nōmen?" Translation: As they walked in the garden, his (girl)friend said to Gaius, "What will you do if war is declared? Will you enlist?" Indirect speech: Cum in hortō ambulārent, amīca Gāium interrogāvit quid factūrus esset sī bellum indictum esset; datūrusne nōmen esset.

Translation: As they walked in the garden, his (girl)friend asked Gaius what he would do if war was declared; whether he would enlist. Direct speech: Tum ille mihi "Dā mihi," inquit, "tabellās et calamum, ut ad Mārcum scrībam." Translation: Then he said to me, "Give me tablets and a (reed) pen, so that I may write to Marcus." Indirect speech: Tum ille mē iussit sibi dare tabellās et calamum, ut ad Mārcum scrīberet. Translation: Then he ordered me to give him tablets and a (reed) pen, so that he might write to Marcus. Indirect speech: Dīxērunt sē, ubi vocātī essent, statim esse ventūrōs. Translation: They said they would come immediately when they were called. Direct speech: "Ubi vocātī erimus," inquiunt, "statim veniēmus." Translation: They said, "We will come immediately when we are called." Indirect speech: Dīcēs tē ita, nisi iussisset pater, nōn fuisse factūrum. Translation: You will say that you would not have done so if your father had not ordered it. Direct speech: "Ita," inquiēs, "nisi pater iussisset, nōn fēcissem." Translation: You will say, "I would not have done so if my father had not ordered it." Direct speech: Tum Gāius Pūbliō "Num quam puellam," inquit, "in vītā praeter Claudiam amāstī? Sī amāstī, nōn meminī." Translation: Then Gaius said to Publius, "Have you loved any girl in your life beside Claudia? If you have, I don’t ." Indirect speech: Tum Gāius Pūblium interrogāvit num quam puellam in vītā praeter Claudiam amā(vi)sset. Sī amā(vi)sset, nōn meminisse sē.

Translation: Then Gaius asked Publius if he had loved any girl in his life beside Claudia. If he had, (Gaius said) he didn’t . Indirect speech: Dominus iussit perquīrī eum quem nocte proximā in hortō vīdisset. Translation: The master ordered the one whom he had seen in the garden the previous night to be searched for everywhere. Direct speech: Dominus "Perquīrātur," inquit, "is quem nocte proximā in hortō vīdī." Translation: The master said, "Let the one whom I saw in the garden last night be searched for everywhere." Direct speech: Cum ita locūtī essent, ego "Haec," inquam, "tam mihi quam vōbīs molesta, minimē facerem nisi necesse esset." Translation: After they spoke thus, I said, "There is no way I would be doing these things (I would by no means be doing these things), (which are) as troublesome to me as (they are) to you, if it were not necessary." Indirect speech: Cum ita locūtī essent, ego dīxī mē illa, tam mihi quam illīs molesta, minimē fuisse factūrum/factūram nisi necesse esset. Translation: After they spoke thus, I said there was no way I would be doing those things, (which were) as troublesome to me as (they were) to them, if it were not necessary. Direct speech: Saepe philosophī "Quicquid nātum est," inquiunt, "necesse est morī." Translation: Philosophers often say, "Whatever was born must die/it is inevitable that whatever was born should die." "Whatever is born" is also a good translation in this context. The perfect is sometimes used in Latin conditional, temporal, and similar clauses where we in English could or even likely would generally use the present tense. This is done to denote that one action is completed before the other (here, for instance, a thing finishes being born before it dies). It is the same principle as with the future

perfect in future conditionals. The same also occurs with the pluperfect in past conditionals. Indirect speech: Saepe philosophī dīcunt quicquid nātum sit necesse esse morī. Translation: Philosophers often say that whatever was (or is) born must die/that is inevitable that whatever was (or is) born should die.

Bonus: Sentence 8 would still be grammatically correct with that verb in the indicative, but there would be a slight difference in meaning or at least in implication. The difference is as follows: in Dominus iussit perquīrī eum quem nocte proximā in hortō vīdisset, the clause quem nocte proximā in hortō vīdisset is being presented as part of what the master said. Such is not the case in Dominus iussit perquīrī eum quem nocte proximā in hortō vīderat: here, the clause quem nocte proximā in hortō vīderat is stated as a fact by the writer to let readers know which person the master was referring to. The master may still have said something similar, but the person reporting the events is not presenting it as such. Perhaps the master simply said "Let that guy be searched for everywhere".

Note: This is a reminder that inquam almost always comes after the first word or first few words of the direct speech.

Chapter 90

A)

No. Agrī mihi sunt means "I have fields". "The fields are mine" is Agrī meī sunt. (See Answer Key, Chapter 49, Exercise B, Note.)

Yes. (Dubitātum est is impersonal ive, for an explanation of which see Answer Key, Chapter 66, Exercise B, Note. Placuit means literally "it pleased", "it met with approval", which in some contexts can idiomatically translate to "one decided/chose" and the like.) Yes. (For an explanation of the dative barbarō see Answer Key, Chapter 65, Exercise B, Note.) Yes. (Vertitur is ive in middle sense, for an explanation of which see Answer Key, Chapter 69, Exercise A, Note.) Not unless "when" has a causal meaning (similar to "since"). It sometimes does, but it is not particularly likely in this sentence. Cum adsīs, with its present subjunctive verb, means "since you are here" (causal cum clause) or "although you are here" (concessive cum clause). For "when you are here" (temporal cum clause) referring to the future you need cum aderis. No. It means "I am afraid that I might not do so". For "I am afraid that I might do so" you need nē instead of ut. (See Answer Key, Chapter 61, Exercise B, Note.) No. It is the other way round, "The more vigorously we work, the better we sleep" or, to keep the same order of ideas as in the Latin, "We sleep better the more vigorously we work". Eō and quō would need to swap places for the sentence to mean "The better we sleep, the more vigorously we work". Yes. It is literally "As the father, such the son", and that is the most direct way to translate the idea into Latin. No. Dīxit nōs rīsisse means "He said we had laughed". "He said we would have laughed" is Dīxit nōs rīsūrōs/rīsūrās fuisse. (See Chapter 75.) Yes. (For the tense of dormiēbāmus see Answer Key, Chapter 35, Exercise A, Note 1.)

B)

Ex interiōribus Āfricae quīnque diēbus¹ ad² mare pervēnimus, deinde nāvem/nāvim³ Graecam postrīdiē cōnscendimus. Cōnscēnsūrōs/Cōnscēnsūrās (autem)⁴ senex (nōs) quīdam dētinuit⁵ percontāns/(inter)rogāns/quaerēns quās terrās aditūrī/aditūrae essēmus; cumque Hispāniam et quandam eius partem memorā(vi)ssēmus, petiit ut frātrī suō ibi habitantī litterās trāderēmus, sī forte (per) oppidum eius⁷ trānsīrēmus. Adnuimus, litterās accēpimus nāvemque/nāvimque cōnscendimus, quae quidem paene sine nōbīs profecta est.

Ablative of time within which. They did not enter the sea just then (not before they boarded the ship) but only came near it; hence ad rather than in. Nāvis is one of the few i-stem nouns that have a frequent variant accusative singular form in -im. While autem is not strictly requisite, this is a context where it is natural enough to use this extremely frequent particle. For more on autem see Exercise Book, Chapter 19, Vocabulary. Alternatively, you could have: Cum (autem) cōnscēnsūrī/cōnscēnsūrae essēmus, senex nōs quīdam dētinuit. The speaker is referring to his own brother; hence the reflexive possessive. The speaker is not referring to his own town; hence the genitive demonstrative pronoun rather than the reflexive possessive.

Chapter 91

Thereupon they began to speak on opposite sides. The one brother mentioned

Roman greatness, Caesar’s power, harsh penalties for the defeated, and ready clemency for the one who surrendered, adding that Arminius’s wife and son were not being treated in a hostile fashion. The other spoke of obligation to the fatherland, of their ancestral freedom, of the inner gods of , of their mother ing him in his entreaties that Flavus should not choose to be a deserter and traitor to (lit. of) his family, relations by marriage, and indeed his people, rather than their ruler.

Note: Tacitus is known for his often condensed and elliptical style and his use of mixed constructions (like the mixture of direct-object noun phrases and indirect speech here). This sentence in particular is not the easiest. Do not be discouraged if it gave you trouble.

Chapter 92

A)

Quis hāc (fēminā) suāvius canit?/Quis suāvius canit quam haec (fēmina)? Numquam quemquam audīvī suāvius canentem. Or: Nēminem umquam audīvī suāvius canentem. (Literally: I have heard no one ever…, which isn’t the most natural wording in English but is perfectly normal in Latin). Num quis tam suāviter canēns homō esse potest? Mehercle tam suāviter canit quam dea. Ac cum/quae aliōquī(n) sit pulchra/fōrmōsa, pulchrior/fōrmōsior fit canendō. Quō magis canit, eō pulchrior/fōrmōsior fit similiorque deae. Ei mihi, amāre mē putō!

Quid faciam? Quid faciam? Ō dī, ferte (mihi) opem! (Faciam is a deliberative subjunctive; see Exercise Book, Chapter 73, note on Ad tē quid scrībam.) Periī. Illa mē vōce (suā) interfēcit/occīdit. Sed ō quam suāve tēlum pectus mihi trānsfīxit! (Also acceptable: pectus meum trānsfīxit.)

B)

Who is that man who gazes at me so intently while I sing? But actually I do not dislike those eyes, nor, by Castor, do I dislike his hair, not do I dislike his face, nor do I dislike his arms, nor do I dislike his hands. (Literally: But actually those eyes do not displease, nor, by Castor, does the hair displease, etc.) What bright eyes, what pretty hair, what a handsome face, what strong arms, what beautiful hands! But look, he is coming closer through the crowd of listeners, to see me better, I believe. Why am I glad that he is coming closer? In fact, why am I now trembling, really? Why, out of so many spectators, do I feel only his eyes, myself see only him? What the hell is the matter with me? I very much fear what it may be/what it is. I am dead, wretched (me)! I am in love.

Chapter 93

A)

Hunc librum nātālī meō ab uxōre accēpī. I received this book from my wife on my birthday. (Ab denotes a motion away from, ex a motion out of. Here the book was given by the wife so there was a motion of the book away from her, but not out of her.) Quis mē miseramē perīculō ēripiet, cum absint amīcī omnēs? Who will save wretched me from danger, since all my friends are away? (Or: … when all my friends are away; but note that this would not be a purely temporal "when", which would not correspond to a cum clause with the subjunctive.) Dionȳsius mē nūper vīsit, homō doctissimus, cuius ingeniumquantum sit tibi statim patēbit, sī vel ūnum ex eius carminibus legēs. Dionysius visited me recently, a very learned man, the extent of whose talent (literally: how great whose talent is) will be immediately obvious to you if you read even one of his poems. Nē quis mē obscūritātis accūset, sēnsum meum explānābō. Lest anyone accuse me of being obscure/of obscurity, I will explain my meaning. Spē diūtius vīvendī pārēmus medicīs. We obey doctors in the hope of living longer. Pūblius quō faciliusobdormiat quibusdam herbīs ūtitur. Publius uses some herbs to fall asleep more easily. Num quid est hōc homine iūcundius? Is there anything more delightful than this man? (Iūcundius, "more delightful", modifies quid, "anything".) Ecquis vestrum scit quōs illa gēns deōs colat? Does anyone of you know what gods that people worships?/Is there anyone among you who knows… (Vōs has

two genitives, each used in different contexts. Vestrum is used as a partitive genitive when one is talking about a certain person or number of people out of the "you" group. Vestrī is found in all other contexts. For instance, it occurs as an objective genitive, as in timor vestrī = "the fear of you (all)". "You (all)" is the object of the fear and that is why it is called objective genitive. It is also the form found with verbs that take the genitive, as in Vestrī misereor = "I feel sorry for you (all)". The same distinction exists between the first person plural genitive pronouns nostrum and nostrī.) Nōs forte apud Mārcum erāmus cum frāter eius advēnit. We happened to be at Marcus’s/We by chance were at Marcus’s when his brother arrived. Negāvit sē adfuisse cum illud scelus factum esset. He said that he had not been there/He denied that he had been there when that crime was committed (had been committed).

B)

Did this one drink up my wine, which I had purchased at such a high price and was reserving for a feast day? O (what a) wicked boy, and worthy of a tremendous lashing (lit. very big lashes)! No one is worthier than this man to be chosen as king. (As for) the fact that there was a fly in my broth, I suspect that it wasn’t done by chance, but on purpose. Before I put an end to this book, there remains one thing worth mentioning. Whatever evil there is in me, you see; whatever good there is in me, you do not see. Friends, let us sing of the brave deeds of the ancients. The master asked if we had seen anyone in the garden.

Do I look to you like I don’t know Latin? I wish we knew Arabic, so that we could speak with/to these people. (Loquī cum aliquō can be translated as "to speak to someone" as well as "to speak with someone". Loquī + dative is rare.) Both Arabic and Greek characters are very pleasing to the eye/very pleasant to see.

Chapter 94

A)

Gaudent incolumem tē redīsse./Gaudent quod incolumis redīstī. Iussī/Iussae sumus dominum, sī quem in hortō vīdissēmus, certiōrem facere. Valdē dubitō quid faciam. Dīcēbat/Aiēbat imperātor spem esse victōriae; sed/at hostēs multō plūrēs quam nōs erant et armīs vīctūque īnstrūctiōrēs. (Regarding multō and quam nōs see Exercise Book, Chapter 86, Vocabulary, Multō.) Aegrōtāre sē dīcēbat/aiēbat, sed nōs suspicābāmur eum morbum simulāre ut labōrem vītāret. Placuit ut exercitus ibidem manēret dum comperīrētur vērane/vērumne captīvus/captīva dīxisset. (For vēra/vērum dīcere see Exercise Book, Chapter 67, Vocabulary, Vērus, vēra, vērum. Another way to put it is with the adverb vērē: vērē dīcere = literally "to say truthfully", i.e. "to tell the truth". Note that vēritātem dīcere is not usually said.) Duo nostrum/Duo ē nōbīs/Duo dē nōbīs missī sunt dīversīs viīs ut, sī alter ab

hostibus captus esset, spēs adhūc esset ab alterō nūntium trāditum īrī/spēs adhūc esset fore ut ab alterō nūntius trāderetur. (Or in the feminine: Duae… missae… altera… capta… ab alterā…) Agricola cuius in agrō stāmus hominēs timet. (For the order of cuius in agrō, see Answer Key, Chapter 88, Exercise A, Sentence 3.) Num quōs deōs crēditis esse? In linguā Arabicā sōl generis fēminīnī, lūna masculīnī est.

B)

One reaches there more easily by sea than by land. A journey is made more comfortably on horseback than on foot./It is more comfortable to travel on horseback than on foot. Me, a soldier outstanding in strength and valor, to be beaten by this little boy?/That I, a soldier outstanding in strength and valor, should be beaten by this little boy? O shameful thing! They departed each by their own way. Having questioned everyone present/all who were present, we found no one to inform us about the king’s health. We were not allowed (lit. It was not permitted to us) to come closer to the king, on the grounds that we were unworthy of that honor. Whatever your reason for doing that, it was a bad thing to do. (Literally: For whatever reason you did that, you did badly.) You may come to dinner with any friends you like. (Lit. It is permitted that you come to dinner…)

As a young man, I loved a girl named Terentia. Will any memory of me remain among you when I am dead?

Chapter 95

A)

This sentence is correct. Translation: Should one believe whatever is said?/Should whatever is said be believed? There is a mistake in the person of the verb tenent. Its subject, quī, has as its antecedent the gods whom the speaker is addressing; therefore the verb should be second person plural. Correction: Ō dī īnferī, quī umbrārum silentia rēgna tenētis, meās accipite precēs! Translation: O infernal gods, who hold the silent realms of shades, receive my prayers! This sentence is correct. Translation: The king is said to be ill. (Or: It is said that the king is ill; see Answer Key, Chapter 84, Exercise B, Sentence 4.) This sentence is correct. Translation: It is rumored/There is a rumor that the king is ill. (Here the subject of the sentence is fāma, so the king can only be the accusative subject of an acc.-and-inf. substantive clause.) Quemcumque is in the wrong case. Like all relative pronouns, it should take the case required by its own function in the relative clause. Here it is the subject of advēnerit, so it should be in the nominative. Correction: Quaesō hūc addūcātis quīcumqueRōmā advēnerit. Translation: I request that you bring here whoever arrives from Rome. This sentence is correct. Translation: He used to do whatever you commanded. (Literally "whatever you had commanded"; see Answer Key, Chapter 89, Exercise B, Sentence 10.)

Abscēdēbat should be in the subjunctive (see Answer Key, Chapter 74, Exercise B, Note 1). Correction: Minātus est rēx, nisi noster exercitus ab oppidō abscēdēret, sē obsidēs occīdī iussūrum. It could even be pluperfect subjunctive (the past indirect-speech equivalent of what a future perfect would be in a directspeech conditional protasis): Minātus est rēx, nisi noster exercitus ab oppidō abscessisset, sē obsidēs occīdī iussūrum. In either case, it can translate as: The king threatened to have the hostages killed if our army did not move away from the town./The king threatened that, if our army did not more away from the town, he would order the hostages to be killed. The bare ablative frātre does not make much sense in the context. When "with" means "in the company of", you usually (here definitely) need the preposition cum. The ablative on its own makes the clause comically sound as if Publius had come by means of his brother—as if he had used him as a means of transport, piggyback perhaps; or, to coin a similarly humorous expression, on brotherback. Correction: Mārcus sōlus, Pūblius cum frātre ad cēnam vēnit. Translation: Marcus came to dinner alone, Publius came with his brother. This sentence is correct. Translation: We are not worthy to look on your divine face, O king of kings. Ierīmus is in the wrong tense. Correction: Domina imperāvit ut quam prīmum in oppidum īrēmus. Translation: The mistress commanded us to go to town as soon as possible.

B)

Claudia hoc faciat is a third-person command or wish for Claudia to do it, whereas Sine Claudiam hoc facere is a second-person command for someone to allow Claudia to do it. a) is incorrect. It should be quod dōnum? (See Answer Key, Chapter 81, Exercise B, Note.) b) is correct.

c) is correct. d) is correct. e) is correct. (Neuter pronoun + partitive genitive; literally "whatever there is [in the way] of food".) f) is correct. (Quis can be used adjectivally instead of quī with masculine singular nouns.) g) is correct. h) is correct. i) is incorrect. It should be quae domus? (Quis can be used adjectivally only with masculine nouns, and domus is feminine.) j) is incorrect. It should be eius liber. (Is liber, where is agrees with liber, means "that/this/the book". In order to mean "his", which is like "of him/of that man/of this man/of the man", is needs to be in the genitive, eius.) The main basic translations of quod are: which/that (nom./acc. neut. sg. relative pronoun), what (as a relative, = that which), that (conjunction), the fact that, as to the fact that, as for the fact that, because. The main basic translations of quam are: which/that/whom (acc. fem. sg. relative pronoun), as (= to the same degree as), how (= to what degree), than. The main basic translations of ut are: how (= in what manner), that (= in such a way that, or introducing a potential event or a command or wish), so that, as (= in the same manner as), like, when (= right after, as soon as), although, even if.

C)

Hoc ego sīc cupiō ut tū.

Nōnnūlla nūper lēgī, quālia tibi placēre posse putō. Iter nōn tam difficile fuit quam putāveram. Utinam tantō quantō ille ingeniō essem. Quā illī iērunt, eādem nōs eāmus.

Chapter 96

A)

Virtūs mīlitum nōn tanta est quantam spērā(ve)rat imperātor. Nesciō quī librī sorōrī vestrae sint placitūrī. Ōrātōris illīus verbīs movēberis/movēbere. Posthāc suum sequentur imperātōrem quōcumque, quācumque ībit. Ubicumque sum, quicquid faciō, meminī vestrī. Hic mīles ait/dīcit sē, sī quandō virum bonum imperātōrem habeat, factūrum quodcumque/quicquid ille imperā(ve)rit; (sed/at) huius saevīs mandātīs pārēre nōn posse. Te hunc saccum portāre/ferre nōlō; gravior (enim) vidētur (also acceptable: nimis gravis vidētur). Or: Hunc saccum portēs/ferās nōlō; … Sōlis ortū nāvem/nāvim cōnscendēmus et trīduum, sī secundus ventus erit, nāvigābimus. You could also condense it into: Sōlis ortū nāvem/nāvim cōnscendēmus trīduum, sī secundus ventus erit, nāvigātūrī.

Ūtērisne/Ūtērene (iīs/eīs) herbīs quās tibi dedī sī somnus difficilis erit? Dux ēlēctus prīmō honestē sē gesserat, sed iam āmentior in diēs saeviorque fierī vidēbātur.

B)

Cicero and Caesar lived in the same period; both were consuls and famous writers (lit. either/each (of the two) was consul, either/each (of the two) a famous writer). Wherever (lit. By whatever way) they (lit. have ed), they leave a desert behind. I know nothing about the matter that worries you (lit. that you are worried by). Some people worship many gods, others one, yet others none. Yesterday I received a letter from Gaius (saying) that he had recovered; and as soon as I read it (lit. which as soon as I read), I ran happy to Publius to let him know (about it). She was very surprised when the messenger handed her a letter sealed with the royal seal. Be careful not to believe that one/him: he is a big liar/he is a man very prone to lying and the kind of person who lies for no other reason than that lying delights him. I would like to know what (thing) you will write your next poem about. It seems there will be no end to these woes except death. (Literally: No end seems going to be to these woes except death.) Claudia caught me falling from the top stair.

Chapter 97

Starting from there, they gradually proceeded to insults, and not even the river between them would have stopped them from ing battle (more literally: having gradually fallen to insults, they were not being stopped from ing battle even by the river placed between), had not Stertinius come running to hold back Flavus who, full of rage, was demanding weapons and a horse (literally: if Stertinius, running up, had not held back Flavus full of rage and demanding weapons and a horse). On the other side, Arminius could be seen (literally "was seen", but see Answer Key, Chapter 38, Exercise B, Note) threatening and declaring battle; indeed, he was scattering his speech with a large number of Latin words (he was throwing in a large number of words in the Latin language), since he had served in the Roman army (lit. camp) as leader of his countrymen.

Chapter 98

A)

Dubitō canem(ne) an lupum/utrum canem an lupum in silvā vīderim. (, "or" between the options in a question is an, not aut or vel etc.) Illōs (hominēs) (inter)rogā cuius deī hoc templum sit. Duās mihi pictūrās pulcherrimās ostendit (inter)rogāvitque utra mihi magis placēret/utram māllem. (There are only two paintings; hence the use of uter, utra, utrum, "which of the two".) Oppidānōs monēbimus ut caveant hominem/virum nigrā barbā equō nigrō

īnsidentem. If referring to the present: Sī quō īre vultis, modo facite mē certiōrem, et ego dux vester erō (or: et ego dux vōbīs erō, literally "and I will be a guide to you"). If referring to the future: Sī quō īre volētis, modo facite (or, though it is not absolutely requisite, the future imperative would be especially fitting in this context where the command clearly applies to the future: facitōte) mē certiōrem, et ego dux vester erō/dux vōbīs erō). (Ego may acceptably be left out, but it is natural to include it because of the change of subject.) Hāc fābulā sine dubiō dēlectābiminī, quam ego puer/puella ab aviā audīvī. (Same as above regarding ego.) Mihi placet simulācrum Diānae quod in hortō tuō est. Fēlēs nostra in summā arbore haerēbat. Discipulī māne numerābantur (or: numerārī solēbant). Ecquid est quod scrībāmus?

Note: It is very common in English for a prepositional phrase to be used adjectivally; i.e. to be modifying a noun, describing it in a way that is similar to what an adjective would do, as in the phrase "the statue in your garden" or "a gift from a friend". While prepositional phrases are sometimes used that way in Latin too (see for instance Chapter 71, Exercise A, Sentence 2) it does not occur nearly as often as in English. In many cases, you will have to rephrase it, often by turning the prepositional phrase into a relative clause or participial phrase (e.g. literally "the statue that is in your garden" or "a gift given by a friend"), but also sometimes by using a genitive instead (e.g. "the crack in the wall" = rīma parietis; "a poem by Catullus" = carmen quoddam Catullī; "a gift from a friend" = dōnum amīcī), and other things depending on context. When an adjectival prepositional phrase does occur in Latin, it is most typically (though not necessarily always) sandwiched between a noun and an adjective, as in the first part of the sentence in Chapter 71 referenced above.

B)

Illud nōn putō quemquam (or, also possible though a little less common, ūllum) esse crēditūrum. Id/Hoc/Illud interest, quā mente vēnerint. (For this use of neuter demonstrative pronouns to anticipate a clause, see Answer Key, Chapter 84, Exercise A, Note.) Illās litterās nōs legere oportet. Utinam senī saltem mihi tranquillē vīvere liceat! Dīcī nōn potest quantō mē maerōre/dolōremors illīus affēcerit. Quid nōs facere vīs sī magistrum quālem dīxistī nōn invēnerimus? Utramque uxōrem aequē amō. Iam restat ut illīus ōlim magnae cīvitātis miserābilem nārrēmus occāsum. Nihilne est in tē pudōris? Veniam abs tē, quisquis/quīcumque haec legis, petō, sī quandō vīsa erunt rudiōra. (Regarding the person of legis, see Answer Key, Chapter 78, Exercise A, Note 2. Here the person that the relative pronoun really refers to is the singular "you" addressed by the writer.)

Chapter 99

A)

Pūblius ad frātrem (suum) scrīpsit sē mense sequentī Rōmam ventūrum (esse). Virum (meum) dēsīderō, quī sex abhinc mensēs/mensīs/mensibus ad/in bellum profectus est. Or: Virum (meum) dēsīderō sex abhinc mensēs/mensīs/mensibus ad/in bellum profectum. Certē (tū) is/ea nōn es quī/quae tālia crēdās. Conchās parvās colligēbant ad ōrnāmenta cōnficienda/facienda. Or: Conchās parvās colligēbant quibus ōrnāmenta cōnficerent/facerent. (… ut… cōnficerent/facerent is also possible.) Cum caelum serēnum est, saepe lītus petimus/ad lītus īmus/in lītus īmus, quod domō nostrā nōn procul abest. Nōn sum is quī/ea quae bellum libenter gerat; nam pācem/pācem enim multō magis cupiō quam glōriam. Viātor (quīdam) longō itinere fessus ōstium nostrum pulsāvit hospitiumque petiit/petīvit. Quīdam amīcōs cupiunt/volunt quam plūrimōs; ego (vērō/autem) mālō quam optimōs. In summō colle stantēs sōlis ortum spectāvimus. Nisi dēsieritis strepitum facere, māter (vestra) īrāscētur.

B)

I think the same as you; indeed all the best people think that way. As we were sick, though (only) slightly, we decided to send for a doctor.

I know I was given this bracelet (this bracelet was given to me) a few years ago on my birthday, but I don’t by whom. (You can also say less literally "for my birthday"; just be aware that nātālī meō is ablative.) I will send you things to read; for I recently came across a few things both beautiful and interesting, which I feel like sharing. I know this whole region very well; therefore follow me: you will not get lost/therefore follow me and you will not get lost. I know that these students do not lack the will to learn (literally: that the will to learn is not lacking to these students). Many strive after power; few know how to use it. While we often criticize leaders, would we (really) manage the state better if we had been granted power? My husband came home after the war was over, but (he was) not the same as he had been before. There are those who say that on that night they saw corpses that had left their graves (literally: graves having been left) wander(ing) through the streets.

Chapter 100

A)

Aspice ut saltet! (Indirect question.) Dominus trāditō nōbīs marsuppiō nummīs plēnō nōs librōs quam plūrimōs quamque optimōs eā pecūniā possēmus emere iussit.

Nōn putābāmus bellum ante cōnficī posse quam urbs illa caperētur. Sermōnem illōrum nōn intellegō; nē id quidem sciō, quālinguāloquantur. Nesciō quam diū errātūrus/errātūrafuerim (or the same in the reverse order) sī tū mihi dux nōn adfuissēs. Latrōnumgladiīs (the reverse order is good too, of course) perīssēmus nī mīles ille terribilis auxiliō nōbīsvēnisset. Plaudentibus ūniversīs scaenam relīquit. (The reverse order is equally good.) Monumentum sibi vīvus faciendum cūrāvit. (Vīvus agrees with the subject in the nominative, since it describes the state of the subject at the time of the action.) Cōnsiderandum est nōn quid in quāque rē facillimum sit, sed quid honestissimum. Quid nōn faciat Pūblius ut Claudia sē amet? (An indirect reflexive pronoun is used in the last clause because the clause denotes a purpose of Publius regarding himself.)

B)

I am not doing (all) this/these things because I feel like it, but because I must/because it is needed. These (people) live in the part of Gaul that is closest to . When I wrote to Gaius that I wanted to go to Athens and that there was nothing to prevent him from coming with me if he still felt like it (he had indeed told me not long before that he wished to visit that city again), he wrote back that he would be very glad to come/that he would very gladly come.

When we were given the choice (the choice was given to us) to spend the night either at Marcus’s or at Publius’s, we went to Publius’s. But we should rather have chosen Marcus’s house; we had a very bad night at Publius’s because carousing neighbors were making a lot of noise/very great noise. For my part, although that friend of yours is sometimes annoying, I would not call him a bad person. (I have rearranged the grammatical structure a little in the translation; in the Latin, istum amīcum tuum is the direct object of dīxerim.) May it be granted to me to see the monuments (or: tombs) of the pharaohs with my own eyes!/May I get the chance to see…! The man/husband was begging his wife not to set out for Africa without him; she should just wait until he was ready; it would only take a few days/only a few days were needed/there was only need of a few days. Fierce wars were being waged/used to be waged between that people and the neighboring ones. When we were kids you, grandfather, used to tell us many things about the wars in which you had fought as a young man. I hope these exercises were useful to you, reader, and that they still brought you some pleasure although I do not doubt that they were sometimes difficult.

Note: Regarding oportuit in 4: in English, when we talk about a thing that was needed or possible but wasn’t actually done, we often say "I/you/etc. should have" (as opposed to "I/you/etc. had to") and "I/you/etc. could have" (as opposed to "I/you/etc. was able to"). These should-haves and could-haves may feel, at first sight, as if they should translate with the Latin subjunctive. But actually, in Latin, a verb of need/obligation (such as oportet or dēbeō) or possibility/ability (like possum) usually stays in the indicative if the need/obligation or possibility/ability was real, even if the thing needed or possible did not become realized.

C)

"Quintus Ennius used to say that he had three hearts because he could (or: knew how to) speak Greek, Oscan and Latin."

Each language is its own logical system, its own way of thinking; that is presumably why knowing three languages gave Ennius the feeling that he had three hearts.

The Romans viewed the heart as the seat of the intellect, while we more usually associate the latter with the brain. Therefore, it may even be acceptable to "culturally" translate corda as "brains" in this context.

I hope the Exercise Book and its Answer Key have been helpful, and that you are well on your way to acquiring a Latin "heart" (or brain).