7

The basic sentence structure can broken down into three component parts: imperavi militi, "I ordered" - main clause, indicative ut flores conligeret, "the soldier to collect flowers" - indirect command, subjunctive qui in horto ambulabat/ambularet - relative clause inside the indirect command, also subjunctive. Inside the ut flores ...


7

Indicative seems to be correct for both languages. It's true that Latin has a so-called "subjunctive by attraction", whereby a verb in a subordinate clause that depends on a subjunctive will itself be subjunctive; but that probably wouldn't apply here. Gildersleeve and Lodge (sec. 629) give examples of the construction, but in all of them there is something ...


7

There aren't any special uses involved here; your incorrect assumption is that embolum (navis) aeneum is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of finiebat. Literally, "one part of which a sort of (quasi) bronze beak of a ship completed". The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, ...


6

The relative pronoun can also be used to start a new independent clause, and in this use it doesn't really function as a relative pronoun in the usual sense. This is sometimes known as a connecting or connective relative pronoun, and is often best translated as if it was is, ille, or similar. The same applies to relative adverbs like quo as well. See part F ...


6

Well, it is a simple answer to the question itself...ubi is not a relative pronoun, even if it is sometimes used as one. Ergo, it is always safe to simply use in quo, as, when translated idiomatically into English, simply means 'where'. However, I believe the question you are asking is more akin to whether you can use ubi and in quo interchangeably. As far ...


4

Equidem propono haec: Est pellicula cinematographica de puella cata, quae familiam amantem habere vult. Ecce Matilda, pellicula de puella acri ingenio, quae familiam amantem desiderat. Vocem est ponere potes in initio. Plerumeque in fine invenitur, sed hic clarius est vocem not ponere post enuntiatum secundarium. Pronomen relativum in forma feminina ...


4

I have never seen Latin allow a construction like "a town near the mountain". It would be more idiomatic to say "a town which is near the mountain", but this might feel too heavy. However, it is precisely this idea (a relative clause) used by the solution given to you. It is fine, but there is an option. As brianpck suggests in his comment, vicinus is a ...


3

Yeah, I'd go for either nomine Matilda ("Matilda by name") or cui titulus/nomen est Matilda ("to which the title is Matilda"). The only possible flaw I see in your word order is that usually (not always, at least not as far as I know) est as the first word in a sentence means "There is." So if you wanted to say "It's a movie about a smart girl," you'd ...


3

Your word order looks fineā€”but then Latin is not very particular about word order altogether. You could swap around a few words and it would still be fine. Est at the beginning is perfectly fine. While main verbs often come at the end of a clause or sentence, that is by no means compulsory. I suspect volo is generally not used without an infinitive; you ...


3

It seems that either mode was used, but each author seems to have chosen either one or the other, or both. Based on a cursory glance at the first couple of pages with quippe qui from the HP corpus, the following impressions present themselves: Plautus uses the indicative almost exclusively. Sallustius seems to use mainly the indicative, but also sometimes ...


3

I have always been taught that indirect questions are written as such: Rettulit mihi quid accidisset. Indirect questions are formed where the main part of the sentence, in this case to relate, is in the indicative, followed by the question word (what), and ending with the verb making up the question in the subjunctive. Let me make this more clear with ...


3

The relative pronoun qui is masculine plural, and you translate it as "those who". As you can see, in English, we have a demonstrative/personal pronoun "those" and a relative pronoun "who". In Latin (and some other languages), the demonstrative pronoun can be left out in certain such cases. You have left it out. I think that's acceptable, but you could add ...


1

The concept of embarrassment seems to be a tricky one, in Latin. The verbs offered "perturbo"; "impedio"; "confundo"; involve being disturbed; discomforted; perplexed; confused; disconcerted; knocked out of one's normal equilibrium. All of these may be related to embarrassment (a feeling of shameful discomfort). Similarly, "reluctance": "recuso" = decline, ...


1

As Figulus has noted, the neuter singular accusative/nominative form of the relative pronoun quod can definitely be used after quippe; any form of the relative pronoun can, really. However, that isn't what you have. In your passage, quod is functioning as the conjunction that means 'because.' You know this, because the verb in the relative clause (pendeant)...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible