Here's a literal translation of the four chapter titles:
Christiani victores obsessi
The Christian victors [are] besieged
N.B. "obsessi" is the past participle of obsideo.
Enumeratio civitatum persequitur
The enumeration of cities continues
Without context, this is harder to understand: I presume that a previous chapter began listing cities and ...
It is an indirect question.
The question words are quantae and quam.
The direct version would be:
How great are the forces of the enemy, and how impregnable is their position?
Quantae sunt hostium copiae et quam inexpugnabilem locum tenent?
Indirect questions always get the subjunctive (conjunctive), no matter how certain the matter is.
The Latin for &...
The quote is an adaptation from Varro's Res rusticae 1.2:
Sane, inquit Agrius, et simul cogitans portam itineri dici longissimam esse ad subsellia sequentibus nobis procedit.
The English translation by W. D. Hooper and H. B. Ash is available online and reads:
"By all means," replied Agrius; and reflecting that the longest part of the journey is ...
This is a double pun.
Cum chordis means "with the chords" or "with the strings"; corda means "the hearts". Similarly, cum fidibus means "with the lyre" or "with the strings"; fides means "faith".
So literally: the hearts [should align] with the chords, and the faith [should align] with the strings. ...
This kind of metonymy is very common in Latin.
For a simple example, vir mortuus is literally "a dead man" but can also mean "the death of a man".
This is somewhat similar to how summus mons can be "the highest mountain" and "the peak (= the highest part of a mountain)".
The point is that reading very literally can ...
The ea (= eā) modifies causa, using the very common adjective–preposition–object of preposition arrangement: 'for this reason.'
The forte is from the noun fors, 'chance' (not the adjective fortis, 'strong, brave'); so the ablative/adverbial form means 'by chance.'
Like fdb said, it should be 'profitentes' instead of 'profites'.
Nicolaus Cusanus cited Ketton's translation like this: "Profitentes etiam se suae caedis authores cordibus suis non minimam ambiguitatem inde gerunt, [sed eum nullatenus interfecerunt]" (https://books.google.nl/books?id=mQ-KDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA46).
Translation by Hagemann and Glei: "Selbst wenn ...
The ut follows ea lege:
ea lege, ut …
under the condition that …
The key is to question what ea lege is doing in that sentence, especially since there is no context talking about some legislation or other. Lex can occasionally be used with ut + subjunctive (e.g. lex erat apud Romanos, ut …, the Romans had a law stipulating that …). So an overly literal ...
Est, ut can indeed mean something like “there is reason to,” and conversely, when negated, something like “it is unnecessary.”
This applies to non est, ut (+ subjunctive) and similar forms like: non est, quod (+ indicative or subjunctive) / nihil est, quod / nihil est, cur etc. All these mean “there is no reason, it is unnecessary, not worthwhile.”
I cannot ...
The quem is part of quem ad modum (= ad quem modum), which is a common fixed phrase mean "how".
The rest of the sentence
The first thing to notice is the parallelism between the two halves of the second sentence:
Si enim vere agere volueris, omnia tibi relinquo;
sin dissimulare [volueris], tu quem ad modum his satis facias videris.
The verb ...
It literally means "[The] gods better!": di is the nominative plural of deus 'god', melius is the comparative adverb of bonus 'good'. The verb is omitted and will have to be deduced from whatever context you use it in; in the quoted case it's presumably something like viderunt (literally "the gods saw better"), but for exclamations ...
some additional information (work in progress)
Robert H. Rodgers, who has been working on a new edition of Varro’s De Re Rustica, writes that “we have here a second proverbial expression” (Rodgers 2015, p. 170).
Rodgers claims that “in direct speech the thought would then be porta itineri longissima est, ‘in contemplating a journey, the gate is the most ...
In this passage, Avicenna is saying that when a sense is greatly affected by the contrary of its object, it ceases to be able to sense.
Here's a literal translation of your passage:
But this kind of thing occurs from a great pain, as [our] sense is injured from the burning of fire or the sting of ice so that the body cannot sense it [i.e. the pain], but, ...
I think rather, that this "ille" is the translation of Mileny´s joke: As Christopher Robins father objects, tat he schould not call him "winnie", because he was a boy, Christopher Robin answers that therefore he calls him Winnie the Pooh. "Don´t You know, what "the" means?"
The names as they appear in that document seem to be "Dominum Conradinum Tognionum", "Domino Jacobo Togniono", and "Dominâ Malgaritâ Biveronâ". The first is inflected into the accusative case, the second two are inflected into the ablative case.
When mentioning a Latin name in English, the usual form used is the nominative case form. In the nominative case, ...
The short answer is this;
The -i ending is used to indicate a group of people, when they are the chief participants. There is a useful check, that the verb will end in -nt or -ntur.
The -i ending is also used to indicate possession (genitive): 'the house of,' the 'the gift, donum, of;' and relationship, as Filius Tognoni, 'Son of Tognonus,' Mater Biveroni,...
I think both the literal reading "man and arms" and the more creative reading "armed man" are justified at superficial level.
The second one does indeed look weird, but is based on a figure of speech called hendiadys.
(There are slightly different forms of this concept. I learned to call it hendiadyoin.)
The name of this figure of speech means "one through ...
In this case ita and ut are unrelated.
There is a construction ita…ut, but it is not used here.
You can drop the intensifier "so" or ita and the sentence works equally well.
(The emphasis is good to have, but not strictly necessary.)
The suggestion from the book is unnecessarily complicated.
One might even argue that it has two elements reversed by ...
As the Latin preposition 'in' can govern either the accusative or the ablative case, depending on whether movement or place is expressed, it is grammatically correct to speak of (for example) an author plunging in medias res (into the midst of matters) to begin the presentation of a story, but (theoretically, at any rate) incorrect to say that a story begins ...
1 - I don't think Latin makes much of a distinction between substantia est corporea and est substantia corporea. In either case, I think you'll need to rely on context to determine which English translation to use.
2 - Eatenus is the correlative to quatenus. Both translations use "insofar as" to translate quatenus. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong ...
quaedam and nōn quaedam
Most fundamentally, quīdam/quaedam (plural) means "certain ones", i.e. some instances. But I gather (I'm not an expert) that unless some adjective of quantity is supplied, it usually suggests a small, manageable number—"a few".
Googling "quaedam dicenda" turned up enough examples that that itself appears ...