6

In an excerpt from Livy XXI, Lingua Latina per se illustrata has this:

. . . Haud ferme plures Saguntini cadebant quam Pœni. Ut vero Hannibal ipse, dum murum incautius subit, tragula graviter ictus cecidit, tanta circa fuga ac trepidatio fuit ut non multum abesset quin opera ac vineæ desererentur.

How is the ut at the beginning of the second sentence to be understood? The English version I found doesn't translate it at all. It seemed to me that some of the gajillion meanings in Lewis & Short given for ut + indicative could be shoved in somehow, but they all seemed a stretch to me.

5

After the latest change, the question has become less urgent, but I'll leave this answer up anyway.

This is just ordinary ut + perfect "when", introducing a subordinate clause. Some editions have a semicolon:

...quibus tumultuariis certaminibus haud ferme plures Saguntini cadebant quam Poeni. Ut uero Hannibal ipse, dum murum incautius subit, aduersum femur tragula grauiter ictus cecidit; tanta circa fuga ac trepidatio fuit ut non multum abesset quin opera ac uineae desererentur.

Hannibal is besieging Saguntum: "...and in those tumultuous battles about as many Saguntines fell as Phoenicians. But, when Hannibal himself, as he went recklessly up (to) the wall, was hit gravely in the thigh by a tragula and fell; there was such flight and terror all around that the siege works and mantlets were almost left behind."

A semicolon can be used to mark a subordinate clause in a long sentence, especially in older print. And the Romans didn't use punctuation as we do at any rate, so we should not pay it too much heed. The Hewlett-Packard edition uses a comma there, as does your excerpt.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.