Temporibus antīquīs portus celeber hīc erat, cui nōmen erat Portuī Rutupīnō; nāvēs ex Galliā in Britanniam nāvigantēs ad hunc portum plērumque applicābantur. Nam omnium portuum Britannicōrum hic optimus erat. Castellum in lītore portūs stābat. Intrā mūrōs castellī est ārea lāta. In mediā āreā fundāmentum aedificiī antīquī vidēs, quod fōrmam crucis habet. Hodiē "Crux Sānctī Augustīnī" vocātur, sed temporibus Rōmānīs fundāmentum phārī erat, ut cūstōs castellī affirmāvit. Sub hāc cruce est aedificium subterrāneum, quattuor et quadrāgintā passūs longum; quod intrāvimus. Cēreōs in manū tenēbāmus, quōs cūstōs dederat; nam locus obscūrus erat. Ab hōc aedificiō cunīculus, in fōrmam quadrātam excavātus, sub magnam partem āreae pertinet.
Dum per cunīculum
ambulāmus, amita mea "Cui erat ūsuī hic cunīculus?"
inquit.
Et cūstōs sīc
respondet: "Piget mē quod dē ūsū cunīculī nihil affirmāre
possum. Ūsuī fortasse erat, sī castellum obsīdēbātur: ecce puteus altus, ex
quō aqua praebērī poterat."
Postquam haec
spectāvimus, iterum circum mūrōs ambulāvimus. Dum ad dextrum cornū castellī
stāmus, patruus meus nōbīs reliquiās amphitheātrī Rōmānī mōnstrāvit, quod
nōn procul aberat. Magna multitūdō nummōrum Rōmānōrum in castellō
servantur; ex quibus ūnum mihi cūstōs vēnumdedit. Tum cūstōdem
valēre iubēmus, et ad cēnam properāmus.
Notes:
[1] Difference in
the meaning of quod between the first two extracts, and the third:
[i] In mediā āreā
fundāmentum aedificiī antīquī vidēs, quod fōrmam crucis habet │ In the
middle of the open area you see the foundation of a building which has
the form of a cross.
[ii] Patruus meus
nōbīs reliquiās amphitheātrī Rōmānī mōnstrāvit, quod nōn procul aberat. │
My uncle showed us the remains of the Roman amphitheatre which was not
far away.
[iii] Piget mē quod
dē ūsū cunīculī nihil affirmāre possum. │ It annoys me ¦ that I can
state nothing about the use of the tunne; see previous post
[2] Examples of
the dative of the relative pronoun:
[i] portus celeber
hīc erat, cui nōmen erat Portuī Rutupīnō │ There was a famous
port here [literally: to which was the name] > which had the
name Portus Rutupinus; note that the name of the port is in the dative case,
and that will be explained in the next post with further examples
[ii] Cui erat ūsuī hic cunīculus? │ To whom was this tunnel of use?
[3] Connecting
relatives
When we see forms
of quī, quae and quod, the immediate
translation which comes to mind is ‘who’ or ‘which’; in
grammar this is known as a relative pronoun as it is referring back to a person
/ thing in the same sentence (the antecedent) i.e. they introduce a relative
clause.
Tum in [i] silvās
[antecedent] ¦ [ii] in quibus leō habitabat [relative clause]
¦ statim iter fēcit. │ Then he immediately travelled into the [i] forests ¦
[ii] in which the lion lived.
[i] Omnēs
[antecedent] ¦ [ii] quī eam regiōnem incolēbant [relative
clause] ¦ erant laetissimī │[i] Everyone ¦ [ii] who inhabited
that region ¦ was very happy.
However, the
relative pronouns quī etc. can also start a
sentence referring to [a] a specific person or thing in the previous
sentence or [b] the entire idea of the previous sentence.
The relative
pronoun, therefore, is making a connection with the preceding sentence which is
why, in grammar, it is known as a connecting relative.
In this position
it is not translated as “who” or “which” but by a pronoun or demonstrative that
refers to the antecedent.
(a)
[i] Caesar Rubicōnem
trānsiit. [ii] Quī posterā diē adversus Rōmam profectus est. │
[i] Caesar crossed the Rubicon. On the next day [ii] he set
out towards Rome.
It is common in
translation to connect the two sentences with ‘and’:
Caesar crossed the
Rubicon, and he set out towards Rome on the next day.
[i] Ancilla tandem
advēnit. [ii] Quam ubi vīdī, laetissimus eram │ [i] The slave
girl arrived. When I saw [ii] her, I was very happy, or The
slave girl arrived, and when I saw her, I was very
happy.
[i] Ille servus effugit.
[ii] Quem posteā captum graviter pūnīvī. │ [i] That slave escaped,
and afterwards, when he had been caught [ii] I punished him severely.
(b)
In the following
examples, the connecting relative does not refer to a specific noun, but to the
entire statement made in the preceding sentence:
[i] Canis
equum adiūvit. [ii] Quod ubi vīdimus, mīrātī sumus │
The dog helped the horse. When we saw that, we were amazed, i.e.
the connecting relative is not referring to the dog or to the horse, but to the
whole event.
Similarly:
[i] Mīlitēs
nostrī omnēs effūgērunt. [ii] Quod ubi vīdimus, laetissimī
erāmus. │ [i] All our soldiers escaped. [ii] When we saw that,
we were very happy.
Note in the next
example the inclusion of verbīs to indicate that the
connecting relative is referring to something that was heard.
[i] Victōria
tandem Rōmae relāta est. [ii] Quibus verbīs audītīs
omnēs gāvīsī sumus. │ [i] The victory was finally reported in Rome,
[ii] and with these words having been heard [= and
when these words had been heard, we all rejoiced.
[i] Pȳthia iussit eum ad urbem Tiryntha discēdere
et ibi rēgī Eurystheō sēsē committere. │ Pythia commanded him to depart to the city of Tiryns and
there commit / entrust himself to Eurystheus.
> [ii] Quae ubi audīvit, Herculēs
ad illam urbem statim contendit │ and when he heard these
things Hercules immediately hurried to that city.
In the
Sonnenschein text, there are examples of this. Most of them could be translated
as a relative clause like all the others, but the inclusion of the semi-colon
in the text also invites the translation of a connecting relative.
[1] Sub hāc cruce
est aedificium subterrāneum, quattuor et quadrāgintā passūs longum; quod intrāvimus.
Beneath this cross
is an underground building, 44 yards long, …
The translation
could continue as either [i] … which we entered, or [ii] … and we
entered it
[2] Magna
multitūdō nummōrum Rōmānōrum in castellō servantur; ex quibus ūnum mihi
cūstōs vēnumdedit.
A very large
number of Roman coins are kept in the castle …
The translation
could continue as either [i] … one of which the guard sold to me, or
[ii] … and the guard sold one of them to me
From earlier parts
of this text:
[a]
… posteā autem
ipse aegrōtāvit et Eburācī exspīrāvit. Quō annō quīnquāgintā
mīlia Rōmānōrum ā Calēdonibus trucīdāta fuisse narrantur. │ … but afterwards he
himself also died in York. And in that year 50,000 Romans are said to have been
slaughtered by the Caledonians.
[b]
[1] Et Antōnīnus
Pius … alterum vallum in ipsā Calēdoniā … aedificāvit: [2] cui nōmen
hodiernum est Graham's Dyke.
[1] And Antoninus
Pius built a second rampart in Caledonia itself …
[2] [i] literally:
to which the name today is … > … which today has the name …; [ii]
… and its name today is … / … and today it has the name …
[c]
[1] Itaque necesse
fuit Hadriānō … magnum illud vallum … aedificāre; [2] cuius reliquiae
hodiē spectantur.
[1] Therefore, it
was necessary for Hadrian to build that large rampart
[2] [i] … the
remains of which are seen today; [ii] and its remains are seen
today
The key point is
to translate the relative pronoun into a grammatically correct English
structure i.e. Latin can begin a sentence with the equivalent of ‘which’,
whereas English cannot.
He told me he was
leaving. *Which* wasn’t true. Latin can express it that way, but it is
incorrect in English.
> He told me he was leaving, and it wasn’t true. / He told me he was leaving, which wasn’t true.
