?

Log in

Bradley's Arnold, exercise 4A - scribendi recte fons - Latin prose composition [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
scribendi recte fons - Latin prose composition

[ website | English to Latin from Perseus ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Bradley's Arnold, exercise 4A [Sep. 28th, 2006|07:36 pm]
scribendi recte fons - Latin prose composition
scribendi_recte
[nosoponus]
1. Sī et tū et exercitus valētis, benē est.  2. et ego et tū prō patriā multōs annōs bellum gessimus. 3. ante fīnem aestātis Gaulī a Caesare vinctī sunt.  4. grex prōximō diē tūtus domum rediit. 5. hoc nēc tū umquam fēcistī nēc frāter tuus. 6. multī tum cīvēs erant exsulēs. 7. et ego consul factus sum suffrāgiīs beneficiīs populī Rōmānī et tū. 8. cīvibus meīs, vōbis Gaulīs, pepercī. 9. hīs rēbus constitūtīs domum tertiō diē domum rediit. 10. Clitus glādiō ab Alexandrō interfectus est. 11. senātus populusque Rōmānus  tē et patrem multa ornāvit. 12. neque ego neque tu hunc frūctum omnium nostrum labōrum exspectāvimus.
Typing the English in was too much.  It can be found in Bradley's Arnold.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: thomas_niemand
2006-09-29 01:35 am (UTC)
Missing a 'que' in number 7 perhaps? 'beneficiisque' but I might say 'ac beneficio'
(Reply) (Thread)
From: nosoponus
2006-09-29 02:18 am (UTC)
you are right! I forgot the conjunction, which would have been beneficiīsque. but you interest me with the 'ac beneficio': why 'ac'? why singular?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: thomas_niemand
2006-09-29 02:59 am (UTC)
well, as you know I'm reading Pro Murena and beneficium keeps showing up in the singular in that work so, I guess I have the singular on my mind.
I'm sure you already know this too, but from que, to et, to atque you have decreasing degrees of proximity, between the nouns they link. So I just thought suffragiis and beneficiis were not a natural unit, but that it was a special point to mention the kindness of the people.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: thomas_niemand
2006-09-29 01:38 am (UTC)
12. exspectaveramus perhaps
(Reply) (Thread)
From: nosoponus
2006-09-29 02:19 am (UTC)
yeah, the tense in the original was pluperfect.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)