Winnie ille Pu: things that puzzle me

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

expergiscere seems fine

Yes, as is, it's an imperative deponent.

I am confused by your "agendum" My text says "agedum expergiscere". Agedum seems correct here. Come! Wake up!

And that solves everything. As I'm working on an OCR version coming from the Internet, I can't guarantee the content is 100% faithful. For once I didn't deem necessary to check against my physical copy, and that's where I failed. On another hand, it means I found the error. I guess I deserve whipping.

[seneca2008]

I guess I deserve whipping.

“Use every man according to his desert and who should 'scape whipping? "

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

Dēcrēvit sēcrētissimē ad Sex Pīnōs adrēpere, cautissimē fundum Foveae īnspicere an Heffalumpus intus esset, speculātum.

'Speculātum' looks like a supine. Given the context, it looks like it completes 'adrēpere', but the 'cautissimē […] esset' part 'breaks' the dynamics of the pair verb + supine, and so I wonder if it really makes sense on is only an artificial way of making complex sentences.

By the way, should it be Heffalumpus or Heffālumpus? As a non native English speaker, I can't tell.

[seneca2008]

"“He would go up very quietly to the Six Pine Trees now, peep very cautiously into the Trap, and see if there was a Heffalump there.”

The latin is literally (ignoring the cautissimē ...... esset)

he decided to creep secretly to the six pines, ..........., in order to spy out/explore.

So adrēpere,....speculātum gives the reason why he is going to the six pines and "cautissimē fundum Foveae īnspicere an Heffalumpus intus esset" says what he is going to do there. Seems natural to me....

Heffalumpus or Heffālumpus? someone more expert will have to reply on this, but my feeling is that it doesnt matter in the least. (if you are wondering where the stress is in the word....heffa-lum-pus?)

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

"“He would go up very quietly to the Six Pine Trees now, peep very cautiously into the Trap, and see if there was a Heffalump there.”

The latin is literally (ignoring the cautissimē ...... esset)

he decided to creep secretly to the six pines, ..........., in order to spy out/explore.

So adrēpere,....speculātum gives the reason why he is going to the six pines and "cautissimē fundum Foveae īnspicere an Heffalumpus intus esset" says what he is going to do there. Seems natural to me....

It's that big cautissimē ...... esset inserted in the middle which causes the whole to look unnatural to me. Must be because I'm not used yet to such constructions. I would personnaly have put speculātum right after adrēpere, because where it is, it looks like it's coming from nowhere. Farther on there is another such construction, but with a shorter clause, though.

my feeling is that it doesnt matter in the least. (if you are wondering where the stress is in the word....heffa-lum-pus?)

I guess it's not that important, but I try to get it right. As for the stress, with the exception of some tricky cases, I think I know the rules quite well. And here the length of the a doesn't change the stress position.

Anyway your feedbacks are invaluable, as I can't afford to let things unexplained/unclear.

[seneca2008]

I guess it's not that important, but I try to get it right.

Nothing wrong with that! I always look in the dictionary when I need to know vowel length and I dont know it. But that obviously doesn't work here. I have tried saying it with a long a and a short an and a short a seems more natural.

As to the word order without wanting to read too much into it, there is something faintly Ovidian in enclosing the trap within the expedition, which would be lost if speculātum were placed after adrēpere. One would also probably need to think of a way of joining the cautissimē clause to the main clause if speculātum were advanced. I think it only looks odd compared to the English word order which of course is less flexible. But even the original English has a tripartite structure. and perhaps that was what the translator wanted to reproduce?

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

I have tried saying it with a long a and a short an and a short a seems more natural.

I hope you were alone when trying this out.

there is something faintly Ovidian

It's beyond my level, so I can't argue with you about it.

perhaps that was what the translator wanted to reproduce?

I'll believe you on word and go on with that.

“Manū fortem esse difficile est [,” dīxit Porcellus singultim, “] dē Animālium Pusillōrum Grege Porcō!”

I'm not sure while the accusative on fortem. 'difficile est' is used with the infinitive, alright. But does 'fortis' have to be used at the accusative? I'm not sure about the grammar on that specific point.

I was starting to write about the second part, thinking that 'porcō' was an ablative, but I just realized it was in fact a dative: 'difficile est porcō'

[seneca2008]

No heffalumps were harmed during my experiments.

"Manū fortem esse difficile est"

Looks ok. The normal phrase is "manu fortis" so fortis is put in the accusative following "dixit porcellus". Slightly confusing I think because you already have an infinitive with necesse est. Perhaps easier to see if you had "manu fortis est" (direct speech) which becomes dixit "manu fortem esse".

not strictly relevant but you might like to see this:

Spoiler

Show

L. Annaeus Seneca iunior. De Beneficiis book 4, chapter 37, section 1, line 2

Philippus Macedonum rex habebat militem manu
fortem, cuius in multis expeditionibus utilem expertus
operam subinde ex praeda aliquid illi virtutis causa
donaverat et hominem venalis animae crebris auctora-
mentis accendebat

singultim looks odd in dīxit Porcellus singultim. Singultim means "sobbingly" but the original English says "sniffing slightly". Perhaps miserabiliter might be better, as the sniffing is not to be taken literally but as if the words are spoken sadly with resignation.

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

No heffalumps were harmed during my experiments.

"Manū fortem esse difficile est"

Looks ok. The normal phrase is "manu fortis" so fortis is put in the accusative following "dixit porcellus". Slightly confusing I think because you already have an infinitive with necesse est. Perhaps easier to see if you had "manu fortis est" (direct speech) which becomes dixit "manu fortem esse".

I fear I still don't get it. So you're right it's wildly confusing. The problem is that 'difficile est' isn't an infinitive. If it were indirect speech, I would expect 'manū fortem esse difficile esse, dīxit Porcellus', and even in that context, I'm not totally confident it should be accusative, because it's [[manū fortem esse] difficile est] dīxit Porcellus, so maybe the first clause has its own existence, and so we should have a nominative. (so in direct speech: 'Porcellus: manū fortis esse difficilis est')

L. Annaeus Seneca iunior. De Beneficiis book 4, chapter 37, section 1, line 2

Lenard obviously widely borrowed many things from old authors.

singultim looks odd in dīxit Porcellus singultim. Singultim means "sobbingly" but the original English says "sniffing slightly". Perhaps miserabiliter might be better, as the sniffing is not to be taken literally but as if the words are spoken sadly with resignation.

In my Gaffiot, the word singultim isn't associated with sobs, but suggests Porcellus says his sentence word by word. Which is wrong anyway if we follow the original version. I noticed the translation wasn't quite exact by times.

[seneca2008]

The problem is that 'difficile est' isn't an infinitive.

I think you are forgetting that difficile est is an impersonal verb. It makes no sense to me to write "'manū fortem esse difficile esse, dīxit Porcellus" This means (if anything) "Porcellus said he is difficult to be brave." Turing something into reported speech doesn't mean that all verbs are turned into infinitives..

I am sorry I cannot offer anything further on this. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable might help? If anything occurs to me I will post again on this.

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

I finally found the answer here, in note 2:

https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/infinitive-noun

An appositive or predicate noun or adjective used with an Infinitive ín any of these constructions is put in the accusative, whether the infinitive has a subject expressed or not.

Nōn esse cupidum pecūnia est

I'm getting towards the end, only 3 chapters to go. When I'm finished with that, I'll release my work. But if you're interested, I may give a sample earlier.

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

Īōr: Nōn erat dēsīderium meum participem esse Expō...eī illīus, quam Pu nōmināvit.

Hello,

New problem: why the dative? Particeps is to be used with the genitive, as shown with illīus. Īōr doesn't remember the word 'expōtītiō' (an alteration of 'expedītiō').

[Shenoute]

My copy (actually, a scan) has:

participem esse expo - o rei illius, quam Pu nominavit.

That seems to solve the ei/dative question but raises another, what is this "o" doing? A typo?

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

My copy (actually, a scan) has:

participem esse expo - o rei illius, quam Pu nominavit.

That seems to solve the ei/dative question but raises another, what is this "o" doing? A typo?

Hmm given what I see in the English version, this looks like a typo, which I'll fix. Thanks.

C.R.: “Tālī modō meliusculē tibi est?
Īōr: "Magis sēnsum caudae habet, fortassis"

'It's feeling more like a tail perhaps'

What is the subject of 'habet'? Is it impersonal here?

[Shenoute]

Checking with the English original, it seems the subject of habet is an understood cauda.

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

Checking with the English original, it seems the subject of habet is an understood cauda.

That's clever! If i understand, that would be 'cauda magis sēnsum caudae habet'. I would never have figured it out.

Suāvis fuisset hujusmodī cōnfābulātiō et profectō parum prōderat rem memorābilem sīcut inundātiōnem habēre, sī cum nūllō dīvidī poterat.

'dīvidī' looks very wrong here. The English has 'share', but not with a meaning of 'separation' (as used in the Latin version), but of 'having in common'. I deem necessary to replace it with a better suiting verb, such as 'commūnicārī', but I'm not sure it's the best word. Any better idea?

[seneca2008]

“It would have been jolly to talk like this, and really, it wasn’t much good having anything exciting like floods, if you couldn’t share them with somebody.”

I think the problem here is that "share" here means "talk about them (ie the floods or exciting things) with somebody" or "converse with somebody about them"

This suggests something along the lines of "loqui cum aliquo".

An example where English and Latin usage diverges and so one cannot translate "share" simply or literally. That's how it seems to me anyway.

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

An example where English and Latin usage diverges and so one cannot translate "share" simply or literally. That's how it seems to me anyway.

We totally agree. I'll fix that the best way I can.

I'm almost finished proofreading the book, now. I only have a few things left I need some advice with.

Jam dictūrus erat omnia bene sē habēre, cum animadvertit quod haud bene sē habērent

'animadvertit quod' sounds like colloquial/vulgar Latin to me. Shouldn't it be 'animadvertit [ea] haud bene sē habēre'? Colloquial is ok in speech, but in the narrative it may be problematic to me.

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

I'd like to share the current state of what I'm working on:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/107VOuo ... sp=sharing

Some work is still needed on the pictures, but most of it is done.

[Aurēliānus Agricola]

I corrected the word 'singultim', which is out of context here. I replaced it with 'suspīrāns'

But there are two more words that aren't in their place:

Fuit intus rūmor quīdam sternūtāmentī similis et deinde dēnuō silentium.

There was a sudden scuffling noise from inside the hole, and then silence.

It looks like the translator understood 'snuffling', with, obviously another meaning. So I guess this should be corrected. But with which word?

Porcellus, modicō distāns intervāllō caput ungulīs sublevāns sēcum singultāvit.

Piglet was sitting a little way off, his head in his paws, snuffling to himself.

And here is 'snuffle'. It seems like 'singultāre' doesn't bear the correct meaning. But I can't find any decent Latin word for 'snuffle'. Didn't Romans snuffle at all?