Hi all, I am reading (or trying to read) Suetonius' Life of Nero but I am stuck on the syntax of a sentence in paragraph 26. Hope this is the right place to ask for help.

The sentence in question: Quintana domi constituta ubi partae et ad licitationem dividendae praedae pretium absumeretur.

I'm pretty sure I've got the meaning down but unsure about the structure of the sentence. My interpretation (which I am not sure about, please correct me if I'm wrong):

- Quintana domi constituta: I'm not sure if this should be interpreted as an ablative absolute or as missing an est (or erat?). If it's an ablative absolute, would this mean that it should be connected to the previous sentence, because otherwise there wouldn't be a main verb?

- partae et ad licitationem dividendae praedae: genitive with pretium --> (the profit) of the booty acquired and to be divided for sale in auction. So dividendae would be a gerundive in the genitive agreeing with praedae and expressing a necessity.

- Pretium absumeretur: the profit (subject) is consumed (subjunctive because ubi introduces an indirect question?)

What are your thoughts?

(the broader context: it's a paragraph about Nero's sketchy undertakings: Post crepusculum statim adrepto pilleo vel galero popinas inibat circumque vicos vagabatur ludibundus nec sine pernicie tamen, siquidem redeuntes a cena verberare ac repugnantes vulnerare cloacisque demergere assuerat, tabernas etiam effringere et expilare. Quintana domi constituta ubi partae et ad licitationem dividendae praedae pretium absumeretur. Ac saepe in eius modi rixis oculorum et vitae periculum adiit, a quodam laticlavio, cuius uxorem adtrectaverat, prope ad necem caesus.)

Thanks for your help!

I am really interested in learning Latin but I cannot find any reliable resources. Are there any good app/website/books for learning Latin that you would recommand to a beginner who knows nothing? Thanks in advance.

From Chapter XLI of Roma Aeterna:

“Iam inde ab initiō Faustulō spēs fuerat rēgiam stirpem apud sē ēducārī, nam et iussū rēgis īnfantēs expositōs esse sciēbat et tempus quō ipse eōs sustulisset ad id tempus convenīre.”

I don’t know why Livy/Øberg uses “sustulisset” instead of “sustulerat.” Thanks!

Some questions about the passage below from Cicero De Divinatione:

1) Textbooks tell you that indirect statements follow from "mental action" verbs and the such. Is the "mental action" verb here: "historia est" (with its implication of writing) or "persecutus est" ("mentally tracked")?

2) Is "ut pergeret protinus" (towards the end of the passage) an indirect command ("that the god commanded him to advance further")?

3) And is "quid...fieret ne laboraret" a second strand of indirect command ("[and] not to worry about/belabor anything that was happening...") with asyndeton, or is it a negative purpose purpose clause ("in order that he not worry about/belabor anything...")-- and how can one sort this out?

Thanks in advance

Hoc item in Sileni, quem Coelius sequitur, Graeca historia est (is autem diligentissime res Hannibalis persecutus est): Hannibalem, cum cepisset Saguntum, visum esse in somnis a Iove in deorum concilium vocari; quo cum venisset, Iovem imperavisse, ut Italiae bellum inferret, ducemque ei unum e concilio datum, quo illum utentem cum exercitu progredi coepisse; tum ei ducem illum praecepisse ne respiceret; illum autem id diutius facere non potuisse elatumque cupiditate respexisse; tum visam beluam vastam et immanem circumplicatam serpentibus, quacumque incederet, omnia arbusta, virgulta, tecta pervertere, et eum admiratum quaesisse de deo quodnam illud esset tale monstrum, et deum respondisse vastitatem esse Italiae praecepisseque ut pergeret protinus, quid retro atque a tergo fieret ne laboraret.

What's the best way to render the perfect tense infinitives here in indirect statement? "Scriptum...est", as a perfect tense main verb, pushes the perfect tense infinitives into what sounds like pluperfect in English... or so the theory goes. But it doesn't sound right.

Here's the Latin, and my translation of selections below:

Apud Agathoclem scriptum in historia est Hamilcarem Karthaginiensem, cum oppugnaret Syracusas, visum esse audire vocem se postridie cenaturum Syracusis; cum autem is dies inluxisset, magnam seditionem in castris eius inter Poenos et Siculos milites esse factam; quod cum sensissent Syracusani, improviso eos in castra inrupisse Hamilcaremque ab iis vivum esse sublatum: ita res somnium comprobavit. (De Divinatione)

"It has been written...THAT Hamilcar HAD seemed to hear...; when that day HAD dawned, a great mutiny HAD been made; when the Syracusans had perceived it [quod], they HAD rushed in upon the camp...."

Sounds bad, and the last part is borderline illogical, since the perceiving should occur before the rushing in. Any thoughts? Thank you very much in advance.

I have been working through the duo latin course and just picked up latin make simple by Doug Julius. Already finished the 1st section and half of the 2nd of duo.

Is that book a decent place to start in earnest? I have seen a lot of opinions for duo being a decent starting point but only a beginning, more like a place to see if you like it.

I want to keep going learning the language and get to a point where I could be more conversational with it. As in really learn it for thr long term and really achieve proficiency with it.

Familia Latina - Capitulum XXVIII

1. "Medus vero multum cogitat [...]" (l. 6)

Here, should "multum" be translated to "a lot" or "for a long time"? I know the difference is minimal and non substancial, but it serves curiosity purposes.

1. In the context of quoting a passage from the Bible, Familia Latina introduces an alternative 2nd person (singular) form to an -a themed verb in the past tense, perfectum: "dubitasti" (l.106), instead of "dubitavisti". Does someone know the origin of this difference and whether it can be applied to other -a themed verbs?

2. "Ille curavit ut nos e tempestate servaremur neve mergeremur -- vel potius nos ipsi qui merces eiecimus." (ll. 127-129)

I'm not getting the meaning of the segment starting in "vel", particularly the meaning of the word "potius".

Could you help me, please?

✅ Latin text synchronized with audio (classical pronunciation)

✅ literal Legentibus translation

✅ Latin commentary

✅ glossary

✅ built-in dictionaries

Bella puella in silvā sōpīta is an excellent Latin translation (by Laurent d’Aumale) of Charles Perrault's French version of the fairy tale ("La Belle au bois dormant").

Our book includes a Latin commentary and a literal English translation. Somewhat more difficult or rarer words and expressions are translated into English, French, and Spanish in the glossary.

The fairy tale is suitable for advanced readers. We hope you enjoy the book! You can find it in the Legentibus app (available in the App Store and on Google Play).

Read more about learning Latin by reading and listening on https://legentibus.com/

Or used to be in Medieval or Early Latin? I'm curious because some language has these participles.

The answer is just wrong, and not some bizarre idiom, right?

So, I've been trying to translate parts of Cicero's De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum and I've come across the same problem multiple times, without ever finding a satisfying resolution.

Here's my problem: I've always learned that a relative (usually qui, quae, quod) at the beginning of a sentence should be translated as such : Qui = Et is ; Quod = Et id ; Quas = Et eas, and so on. And it's never been a problem until Cicero's De Finibus, where I've found multiple instances where this is falling short.

Here's an example :
Quod enim efficiebatur ex iis duobus quae erant sumpta, in eo vides esse conclusum.

If I try and apply this trick, it becomes :
Et id enim efficiebatur ex iis duobus quae erant sumpta, in eo vides esse conclusum.

The problem is, this seems wrong. Why ? Because as such, we have two main sentences that aren't linked with any "et" or "-que", or anything else similar.

My only guess is to put it as follows :
In eo, quod enim efficiebatur ex iis duobus quae erant sumpta, vides esse conclusum.

Is this what it is ? Or am I missing something ?

Hi everyone! I came across this sentence in LLPSI and got a bit confused:

Post hoc prīncipium Cornēlius aliquot epigrammata Mārtiālis recitat, in iīs haec quae scrīpta sunt in aliōs poētās.

Why does it say haec quae scrīpta sunt instead of simply haec scrīpta sunt? Also, is aliquot epigrammata plural here, since we have iīs agreeing to it?

Thanks a lot!

Hello,

First of all, English is not my native language, I will do my best but I’m already sorry for my mistakes. I hope I used the good flair for this post.

My fiancee and I would like to engrave Latine sentences in on our wedding rings.

On mine will be engraved « Abyssus abyssum invocat » / in English « the abyss calls the abyss » from Psaum 42:8.

On her we would like to engraved the Latin translation of « and my heart calls your heart » which I translate as « et cor meum cor tuum invocat ».

I didn’t study Latin so I tried to find by myself on internet.

I found a lot of translation for Heart :

•Cor •Cordis •Animus •Pectus

Here we want to use heart as the symbol of love, desire, passion, not the organ. I choose cor but I’m not really sure. May you help me on this term ?

We use invocate instead of vocat because we want to insist on the vital necessity for our hearts to be united if they are separated.

Thank you in advance for your help in this project.

I recently acquired an original folio from the Nuremberg Chronicle and I was trying to read/translate it (I dont know Latin) and I came across some weird digraphs/symbols in the text. I was wondering if anybody here knows what they represent? I’m assuming that the line over many vowels represents an “n”, but I’m at a loss for the rest. I know that the thing the looks like an f but isn’t an f is an “s”.

What’s the best book about Ovid and why?

I am just now reading thorugh the Aeneid and I have noticed that Vergil only ever talks about blood as "black" (predominantly in the later books but also earlier) rather than "red":

"Cum gemitu atque atros siccabat veste cruores" (4,687 Dido's suicide) "[…] atro tepafacta cruore / terra torique madent […]" (9,333f. Nisus's and Euryalus's killing spree) "[…] huic atro liquuntur sanguine guttae / et terram tabo maculant. […]" (3,29f.)

As you can see, "ater cruor / sanguis" but never "ruber / rufus cruor / sanguis" or even "fuscus cruor / sanguis".

Is there any reason for this? Did the Romans not think of blood as red but rather as black or is this terminology being used because of metrical reasons / restrictions? Or does Vergil just want to make his epic sound more "dramatic" or "shocking" to readers?

I've been reading Latin for several years, making steady progress, but never studied Latin's grammar. I've mostly avoided looking at any of the explanations even when my books did contain some.

None the less, I've picked up many of the "rules" by observation while knowing little about what they're called or why they're there.

I have no intention of taking a break from reading to do a grammar deep dive. But I'm starting to feel a desire to learn some grammar in small chunks.

Is there a logical order for studying these things?

For instance, does it make sense to start studying nominitive case by itself as a starting point?

Or what is a good entry point for grammar, if I'm going to take it slowly and learn bit by bit over an extended period of time?

A suggested order would be helpful.

Thanks!

A church has the following Latin chronogram inscribed above its entrance, Cunctis his optantibus a mando proelato surrexi, but I'm doubting my translation of it. I'm reading it as "With all of these people desiring, I rose from my proffered calling," maybe alluding to the church (or the patron behind the inscription) as rising to meet the desires and needs of the parishioners, possibly referencing a past rebuilding of the church. Does that seem right?

I'm interpreting mando as the ablative of the medieval Latin noun mandum, given in du Cange as a calling or disposition, though the former is usually a calling to military service. I don't think this inscription would use a tricky word order, so I'm treating a mando as a unit and therefore ruling out mando in its more familiar senses as a verb (either mando, -are or mando, -ere) or as the noun for "glutton" (mando, -onis). I don't think it's using the ablative of mandus meaning a coat (specifically a woman's coat, according to Hederich) unless it's being very metaphorical.

I'm taking proelatus as a variant of praefero, praelatus even though I haven't found proefero in any dictionary. I'm assuming the plural optantibus probably refers to the church's parishioners because it can't refer to the first person singular subject of surrexi, and I don't see what other plural group might be wishing for anything.

The chronogram, CVnCtIs hIs optantIbVs a ManDo proeLato sVrreXI, adds up to the year 1779. The fact that it's a chronogram obviously constrained the author's available word choices, so there's some leeway due to that.

Is there a way of knowing when a noun is masculine, feminine or neutral? The AI said look at the genitive singular, but I cannot make head or tails with it

Hi, newbie here. I'm trying to learn ancient Greek but my various rabbit holes of study have of course led me to Latin resources. I'm trying to better understand the various translations of these sections, Erictho's call to and threat against the chthonic gods. "Hennaea" is related to Proserpine, but from my preliminary search, henna as we know it today was not called that in Latin, so does that preclude any relation? Why was "Henna" attached to Proserpine? Was it a place? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of these things. Thanks very much for reading and any help you can offer.

Augustine’s Confessions, Latin Readers with Macrons – just out!

See timothyalee.com/augustine

Available:

• Books I-IV ($22.99, $29.99 hardcover)
• Books V-IX ($24.99, $32.99 hardcover)
• Books X-XIII (coming soon!)

New Series: Latin Patristic Readers – helps to read the Church Fathers!

𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑒!

Timothy A. Lee and Lachlan J. Hodgson

Hello! So I want to learn Latin because i think it’ll be cool, issue is I struggle with sitting down and working on workbooks and even when I do I get overwhelmed and intimidated by new concepts/learning. Do yall have any tips or tricks that I could use in order not to get overwhelmed? Big thanks!