Ad Alpes Caput 1
- MegasKomnenos
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:55 pm
Ad Alpes Caput 1
Good evening,
I have recently begun working on Nutting's Ad Alpes, supplementary to my work with Seigel's Latin Syntax: A Clear Guide to bring my grammar back up to something near scratch, and LLPSI. But already I have run into a difficulty.
On p. 18 (only the second of Caput 1!), Cornelius is discussing the dangerous pirates that harried the Aegean prior to Pompeius Magnus' efforts to halt their predations. In answer to his son Sextus' question - 'Why did the long ships (i.e. Roman ships) not immediately drive those wicken men from out of the sea?', Cornelius replies:
'Saepe id temptātum est,' inquit pater; 'sed, ut est in vetere prōverbiō, "Incipere multō est quam impetrāre facilius." Quō modō factum est ut, cum aliōs nāvēs cōnsectārentur, aliī procul praedās agerent;...'
I make this out to mean (more or less):
'It was often tried,' said the father; 'but, as it is in the old proverb, "To begin is much easier than to accomplish/finish." In this way it was done, when the [Roman] ships were following some, others were conducting the loot far away;...'
I have several questions:
1. Have I translated 'Quō modō factum est' correctly literally? I gather it means something like 'This is how it was'? But I want to be sure I have understood the Latin as it is - rather than to have understood the gist.
2. Does Quō modō here introduce an indirect question, and that is why agerent is in the subjunctive? Making ut here merely an adverb? I cannot reason out a purpose clause or indirect command here? But I can see the former as a possibility that I have misunderstood.
3. Is my literal rendering of Quō...agerent correct? Are the aliī also Roman ships? Is the idea that whilst some Roman ships pursued the pirates preventing their plundering, that other Roman ships conducted valuable cargoes out of harms way? Or have I misunderstood completely?
Many, many thanks for any help.
Best,
Jamie
I have recently begun working on Nutting's Ad Alpes, supplementary to my work with Seigel's Latin Syntax: A Clear Guide to bring my grammar back up to something near scratch, and LLPSI. But already I have run into a difficulty.
On p. 18 (only the second of Caput 1!), Cornelius is discussing the dangerous pirates that harried the Aegean prior to Pompeius Magnus' efforts to halt their predations. In answer to his son Sextus' question - 'Why did the long ships (i.e. Roman ships) not immediately drive those wicken men from out of the sea?', Cornelius replies:
'Saepe id temptātum est,' inquit pater; 'sed, ut est in vetere prōverbiō, "Incipere multō est quam impetrāre facilius." Quō modō factum est ut, cum aliōs nāvēs cōnsectārentur, aliī procul praedās agerent;...'
I make this out to mean (more or less):
'It was often tried,' said the father; 'but, as it is in the old proverb, "To begin is much easier than to accomplish/finish." In this way it was done, when the [Roman] ships were following some, others were conducting the loot far away;...'
I have several questions:
1. Have I translated 'Quō modō factum est' correctly literally? I gather it means something like 'This is how it was'? But I want to be sure I have understood the Latin as it is - rather than to have understood the gist.
2. Does Quō modō here introduce an indirect question, and that is why agerent is in the subjunctive? Making ut here merely an adverb? I cannot reason out a purpose clause or indirect command here? But I can see the former as a possibility that I have misunderstood.
3. Is my literal rendering of Quō...agerent correct? Are the aliī also Roman ships? Is the idea that whilst some Roman ships pursued the pirates preventing their plundering, that other Roman ships conducted valuable cargoes out of harms way? Or have I misunderstood completely?
Many, many thanks for any help.
Best,
Jamie
- bedwere
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5102
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
- Location: Didacopoli in California
- Contact:
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
1) Maybe that instead of this?
2) Rather a consecutive, I'd say.
3) I think that aliī are pirates not being followed by the Roman ships and thus able to take the loot away.
2) Rather a consecutive, I'd say.
3) I think that aliī are pirates not being followed by the Roman ships and thus able to take the loot away.
Corrections are welcome (especially for projects).
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
- MegasKomnenos
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:55 pm
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
Hello again Bedwere,
Thank you for your help. If I remember rightly, a consecutive clause is the same as a result clause? So literally does it mean something like 'In that way it was done (with the result) that, when the [Roman] ships were following some, others were taking the loot far away.' ?
Could you give me another example of Quō modō introducing a consecutive clause? My original thought, that it was an indirect question, was based on the idea that what followed the ut was an answer to the question 'How was it done?', but then the ut becomes much harder to account for/include in one's translation than in your interpretation.
Is Quō modō here an adverb? And is Quomodo to be distinguished from Quo modo
Thank you again for any help.
Jamie
Thank you for your help. If I remember rightly, a consecutive clause is the same as a result clause? So literally does it mean something like 'In that way it was done (with the result) that, when the [Roman] ships were following some, others were taking the loot far away.' ?
Could you give me another example of Quō modō introducing a consecutive clause? My original thought, that it was an indirect question, was based on the idea that what followed the ut was an answer to the question 'How was it done?', but then the ut becomes much harder to account for/include in one's translation than in your interpretation.
Is Quō modō here an adverb? And is Quomodo to be distinguished from Quo modo
Thank you again for any help.
Jamie
- bedwere
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5102
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
- Location: Didacopoli in California
- Contact:
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
Hi,
Yes, it is the same. That's how I interpreted, at least.
This is novel composition, if I am not mistaken. The author wrote quō modō (o long) rather than quō modo (quōmodo). So it does not seem to me that he wanted to use that adverb.
Yes, it is the same. That's how I interpreted, at least.
This is novel composition, if I am not mistaken. The author wrote quō modō (o long) rather than quō modo (quōmodo). So it does not seem to me that he wanted to use that adverb.
Corrections are welcome (especially for projects).
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
- MegasKomnenos
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:55 pm
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
If quō and modō are an ablative of means ‘By which/that method’, why is illo modo not used say, to mean ‘By that means it was done’? Or can qui, quae, quod mean ‘that’ as well as ‘who, what’? If so, how do you distinguish between the two uses?
Sorry to ask so many questions about such basic material.
Jamie
- bedwere
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5102
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
- Location: Didacopoli in California
- Contact:
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
qui
Assuming Nutting wanted it to be unimpeachable from a syntactical point of view, maybe the antecedent simply refers to the previous sentence, to the trying.
Assuming Nutting wanted it to be unimpeachable from a syntactical point of view, maybe the antecedent simply refers to the previous sentence, to the trying.
Corrections are welcome (especially for projects).
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
- MegasKomnenos
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:55 pm
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
I see. That makes sense to me. Thank you for all your help with this - you have been very patient!
Jamie
Jamie
- bedwere
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5102
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
- Location: Didacopoli in California
- Contact:
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
Welcome! Of course, take anything I write cum grānō salis...
Corrections are welcome (especially for projects).
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
Blogger Profile My library at the Internet Archive
Meae editiones librorum. Αἱ ἐμαὶ ἐκδόσεις βίβλων.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4791
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
I don't think this has yet been properly sorted out.
quo modo literally “in which way,” i.e. “and in this way.” quo simply serves as a connective (as the relative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence very often does), it does not introduce an indirect question or any other kind of subordinate clause. (Technically speaking it’s a relative clause itself.)
quo modo factum est ut “And in this way it happened (factum est) that ...” i.e. “And this is how it happened that ...”. agerent depends on ut, “(it happened) that” (normal construction, neither a purpose clause nor an indirect command).
alii are the other ships, the ones that evaded pursuit. alios naves … alii ... “Some ships … (object of cōnsectārentur), others (subject of agerent) …" Both sets of ships are the pirates’.
Piracy had been a persistent problem for the Romans until Pompey finally succeeded in suppressing it. Cf. Somali pirates more recently.
Hope this helps.
quo modo literally “in which way,” i.e. “and in this way.” quo simply serves as a connective (as the relative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence very often does), it does not introduce an indirect question or any other kind of subordinate clause. (Technically speaking it’s a relative clause itself.)
quo modo factum est ut “And in this way it happened (factum est) that ...” i.e. “And this is how it happened that ...”. agerent depends on ut, “(it happened) that” (normal construction, neither a purpose clause nor an indirect command).
alii are the other ships, the ones that evaded pursuit. alios naves … alii ... “Some ships … (object of cōnsectārentur), others (subject of agerent) …" Both sets of ships are the pirates’.
Piracy had been a persistent problem for the Romans until Pompey finally succeeded in suppressing it. Cf. Somali pirates more recently.
Hope this helps.
- MegasKomnenos
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:55 pm
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
Hello mwh,
The questions that remain to me are:
1) What do you mean by a 'normal construction' with ut? I followed the guidance of 'The Latin Language: A Handbook for Students' prepared by the Scottish Classics Group pp.93-4. Could you point me to this kind of 'normal construction' in Kennedy's Latin Primer? I do not say any of this to doubt you - I just want to be able to find this and add it to my storehouse of ut uses.
2) I thought that we had alios...alii both as pirates already? I.e. 'In this way it was done, when the [Roman] ships [naves] were following some [alios], others [pirates] were conducting the loot far away;...' ?
3) Why is agerent in the subjunctive? cum + subjunctive meaning when in past time?
4) Why is quo modo in the ablative - is it an ablative of means? I.e. By what means? Or is the phrase here an indeclinable? Again, I just want to know what I'm looking at.
Thank you in advance,
Best wishes,
Jamie
The questions that remain to me are:
1) What do you mean by a 'normal construction' with ut? I followed the guidance of 'The Latin Language: A Handbook for Students' prepared by the Scottish Classics Group pp.93-4. Could you point me to this kind of 'normal construction' in Kennedy's Latin Primer? I do not say any of this to doubt you - I just want to be able to find this and add it to my storehouse of ut uses.
2) I thought that we had alios...alii both as pirates already? I.e. 'In this way it was done, when the [Roman] ships [naves] were following some [alios], others [pirates] were conducting the loot far away;...' ?
3) Why is agerent in the subjunctive? cum + subjunctive meaning when in past time?
4) Why is quo modo in the ablative - is it an ablative of means? I.e. By what means? Or is the phrase here an indeclinable? Again, I just want to know what I'm looking at.
Thank you in advance,
Best wishes,
Jamie
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:05 am
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
I think I can answer these:
1) "Factum est ut" is followed by a subjunctive clause. I think it's a result clause, at least I've always thought of it as a result clause.
2) I think you are correct. The "naves" are the Roman ships, and alios and alii are the two different groups of pirates.
3) "Agerent" is in the subjunctive because this is a result clause depending on "ut." See above.
4) You are right. It's an ablative of means: "By which way."
1) "Factum est ut" is followed by a subjunctive clause. I think it's a result clause, at least I've always thought of it as a result clause.
2) I think you are correct. The "naves" are the Roman ships, and alios and alii are the two different groups of pirates.
3) "Agerent" is in the subjunctive because this is a result clause depending on "ut." See above.
4) You are right. It's an ablative of means: "By which way."
- MegasKomnenos
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:55 pm
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
Thank you for this. Until Bedwere's post I had never come across Result Clauses by any other name, but I think Consecutive Clause might be a less loaded way of thinking about this construction from now on - and I assume it is this greater sense of neutrality/a sense of a wider applicability than to a result that births mwh's 'Normal construction'. Thinking of my options as being essentially limited to result/purpose/indirect question, I discounted a result early because of the lack of some sort of word along the lines of tam/adeo before the ut. I had originally plumped for indirect question as I said, because I had interpreted it as being an answer to the direct question quo modo...?praepositus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:37 pm I think I can answer these:
1) "Factum est ut" is followed by a subjunctive clause. I think it's a result clause, at least I've always thought of it as a result clause.
2) I think you are correct. The "naves" are the Roman ships, and alios and alii are the two different groups of pirates.
3) "Agerent" is in the subjunctive because this is a result clause depending on "ut." See above.
4) You are right. It's an ablative of means: "By which way."
Thanks for your help - may I just ask, you say you've always thought of it as a result clause - have you read Ad Alpes before?
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:05 am
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
Never read "ad alpes,"; I started with Wheelock and Wheelock intermediate reader, then took the plunge into the literature...
- Barry Hofstetter
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: Ad Alpes Caput 1
It some grammars it is called a "substantive result clause" or simply a "substantive clause" because the entire ut clause is really the subject of factum est (which as MIchael pointed out is better rendered as "it happened" rather than "it was done," a frequent sense of the perfects passive of facio, more closely associated with fiō).MegasKomnenos wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:37 pmThank you for this. Until Bedwere's post I had never come across Result Clauses by any other name, but I think Consecutive Clause might be a less loaded way of thinking about this construction from now on - and I assume it is this greater sense of neutrality/a sense of a wider applicability than to a result that births mwh's 'Normal construction'. Thinking of my options as being essentially limited to result/purpose/indirect question, I discounted a result early because of the lack of some sort of word along the lines of tam/adeo before the ut. I had originally plumped for indirect question as I said, because I had interpreted it as being an answer to the direct question quo modo...?praepositus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 12:37 pm I think I can answer these:
1) "Factum est ut" is followed by a subjunctive clause. I think it's a result clause, at least I've always thought of it as a result clause.
2) I think you are correct. The "naves" are the Roman ships, and alios and alii are the two different groups of pirates.
3) "Agerent" is in the subjunctive because this is a result clause depending on "ut." See above.
4) You are right. It's an ablative of means: "By which way."
Thanks for your help - may I just ask, you say you've always thought of it as a result clause - have you read Ad Alpes before?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Cuncta mortalia incerta...
Cuncta mortalia incerta...