Caelum iterum serēnum erat. Iam Rōmānī in Campō Mārtiō iterum ambulābant,
sed rēgem nusquam vidēbant. Mox autem Iūlius, iuvenis Rōmānus, per viam
Rōmānam iter ad urbem tenēbat. Subitō ā sinistrā, magnum et serēnum,
Rōmulum prope viam vidēbat.
The sky was clear again. Now / already the
Romans were walking again in the Campus Martius, but
they did not see the king anywhere. Soon, however, Julius, a
young Roman, was well on his way to the city by the Roman
road. Suddenly on the left he saw the great and serene Romulus
near the road.
1. Rōmānī in Campō Mārtiō iterum ambulābant. │The
Romans were walking again in the Campus Martius, i.e. like the English
past continuous; this was an ongoing action, an action in progress
… sed rēgem nusquam vidēbant. │… but they did
not see the king anywhere. [“They couldn’t see him
anywhere” would work] i.e. they were looking around for him but “weren’t seeing
him”; of course, we don’t translate it that way but that is what’s implied as
is the sense of this action going on for a length of time
nusquam vidēbant │ literally: they
saw him nowhere; there is a suggestion of "randomness"
i.e. everywhere they looked, they couldn't see them. Other examples of that are
in the next post.
2. iter ad urbem tenēbat │ [1] literally:
he was holding the road to the city (we still have it in: the
ship maintained its course towards the port) > [2] He was well on his way to
the city.
It’s a simple example but it makes the point. When
translating from Latin into your native language, I suggest the “two steps”:
[1] Translate it literally even if it sounds clumsy because
the literal translation matches the grammatical uses of the original Latin. [2]
Sit back and only then think about how it would be more fluently rendered in
your own language. But don’t bypass step [1]
And be wary of online translations of the Roman authors –
poetry in particular - because some translators think that they wrote
the Aeneid, and not Virgil, and sometimes go off on flights of fancy, writing
what they want to say, rather than what the original author
said! Schoolbooks and other textbooks stick as closely as they can to the
original and, if I’m translating quotations, I also try to do that otherwise
the translation can be misleading.
3. Here is a good example from Aquinas which also shows
another way the imperfect tense can be used.
nōn [hūc et illūc] [i] ībat, nec perambulābat vīcōs
et mūnicipia, sed [iī] iter tenēbat versus Ierusālem. │
He was not going [here and there] traversing the
villages and towns, but kept on his way straight towards
Jerusalem. Note the use of the imperfect to suggest [i] ‘randomness’ with no
sense of end, and that [ii] he kept on doing something but,
again, no suggestion that the action was completed.
A Russian speaker would recognise [i] immediately: Ya khodil
v parke; Russian uses an imperfective aspect meaning “I was
walking about in the park i.e. with no particular sense of
direction.
4. Subitō ā sinistrā … Rōmulum prope viam vidēbat.
│Suddenly he saw [could see]… Romulus near the road.
Think about: “I saw a little bird in a tree” but there is a
suggestion of a length of time; you didn’t suddenly see the bird and then look
away; you saw it / you could see it for a while. Latin is conveying that idea.
And that is also a general point: Roman authors may use different tenses to convey different ideas, but just stick to the main uses otherwise you end up tied in knots trying to work out why they used them!
No comments:
Post a Comment