# ipsa in urbem



## fragilistic

Hello-
I have a sentence that I am translating from a story, and I don't understand the use of ipsa in it:
"Sed ego in animo habeo ipsa in urbem ire ad mercatorem quendam"
But I intend  to go into the (?) city to a certain merchant.
ipsa can mean herself or very, so it must modify urbem, because animo and mercatorem are both masculine. Perhaps it's just some sentence structure that I have yet to learn.
 Thanks


----------



## Breogan

fragilistic said:


> Hello-
> I have a sentence that I am translating from a story, and I don't understand the use of ipsa in it:
> "Sed ego in animo habeo ipsa in urbem ire ad mercatorem quendam"
> But I intend  to go into the (?) city to a certain merchant.
> ipsa can mean herself or very, so it must modify urbem, because animo and mercatorem are both masculine. Perhaps it's just some sentence structure that I have yet to learn.
> Thanks



If "ipsa" went along with "urbem" then both would be in acussative:

"Sed ego in animo habeo ipsam in urbem ire ad mercatorem quendam"

Perhaps "ipsa" goes with "ego", in this case is a woman who says the phrase:

"Sed ego in animo habeo ipsa in urbem ire ad mercatorem quendam"

But I myself intend  to go into the city to a certain merchant.


----------



## clara mente

Quite correct, Breogan, if the text contains no typos, the only correct translation would be to assume that the subject is a woman and hence, in apposition with "ego".


----------



## fragilistic

I thought ipse, ipsa, ipsum meant himself, herself, itself. Can it also mean myself?


----------



## Pincadilly

Hello,
I agree with Breogan and clara mente, but it occurs to me that when in Latin you express a personal pronoun as a subject, you automatically give a certain intensity to the subject: in fact, normally you can omit in Latin a generic subject; but if you don't, you give it relevance. For example,

_Romam eo_ = I go to Rome
_Ego Romam eo_ = I myself go to Rome

Therefore, I find it very pleonastic to say:

_Ego ipse (_or_ ipsa) Romam eo.

_Nevertheless, I cannot find another possible translation for fragilistic's sentence, apart from Breogan's and clara mente's ones, whom I agree with.


----------



## Pincadilly

fragilistic said:


> I thought ipse, ipsa, ipsum meant himself, herself, itself. Can it also mean myself?



According to the subject, it can mean _myself, yourself, himself-herself-itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves_, for instance:

_Ipsi Romam iimus_ = we ourselves went to Rome
_Ipsi Romam iistis_ = you yourselves went to Rome
_Ipsi Romam ierunt_ = they themselves went to Rome


----------



## modus.irrealis

I believe you could also the _ipsa_ with _ire_ and see it not so much as emphasizing the subject (of _habeo_) but as underlining the fact that they will go in person. Basically, just slightly reordering Breogan's sentence to:

But I intend  to go myself into the city to a certain merchant.


----------



## fragilistic

This makes more sense now- I didn't realize that ipse had all of the other translations.


----------



## fragilistic

one more thing- reflexive pronouns? Is it all right to say, instead of ego in animo habeo ipsa in urbem ire, ego in animo habeo me in urbem ire? 
Are the two interchangeable, because reflexive pronouns also mean myself, etc:

ego canem me ambulabo.
I will walk the dog myself.

ego canem ipsa ambulabo.
I will walk the dog myself?


----------



## clara mente

fragilistic said:


> one more thing- reflexive pronouns? Is it all right to say, instead of ego in animo habeo ipsa in urbem ire, ego in animo habeo me in urbem ire?
> Are the two interchangeable, because reflexive pronouns also mean myself, etc:
> 
> ego canem me ambulabo.
> I will walk the dog myself.
> 
> ego canem ipsa ambulabo.
> I will walk the dog myself?


 
In this case, no. Your first sentence would render the meaning ambiguous, as both canem and me could both be taken for accusative objects. The second sentence is at least gramatically correct, however, the Romans would not use "canem ambulare" in our modern sense. They would probably phrase it "canem ducere" or "cum cane ambulare".


----------



## fragilistic

I see what you mean about the accusative being confusing. So when would the reflexive be used?
Reflexive pronouns:
---
mei (of myself)
mihi (to/for myself)
me (myself)
me (bwf myself)
mecum (with myself)
are these words/translations correct?

Ego templum in foro me aedificavi.
I built the temple in the forum myself.

Does this one make sense, or should it be,
Ego templum in foro ipsa aedificavi?
I built the temple in the forum myself.


----------



## judkinsc

There's a possibility that "ipsa" is a neuter, but it would be rare: "But I hold within my spirit these things themselves, to go into the city to a certain merchant..." It would seem rather loquacious for the Romans.

I rather agree with Modus' suggestion; it's simpler and more elegant to infer the subject of _ego_ is complementary with _ipsa_.



fragilistic said:


> I see what you mean about the accusative being confusing. So when would the reflexive be used?
> Reflexive pronouns:
> ---
> mei (of myself)
> mihi (to/for myself)
> me (myself)
> me (bwf myself)
> mecum (with myself)
> are these words/translations correct?



They're only reflexive in the sense that they refer back to the subject here. The idea of reflexive verbs, such as exist in French, are not the same in Latin. "_Me_" would not work in the example you gave. It would mean something like "I built the temple in the forum...on top of myself, on my own behalf..." etc. It would be very unclear without a certain preposition to explain the context of that accusative "_me_." "Mihi" would not be a much better choice; it would be rare and unwieldy to use a dative to indicate "for someone" in the sense of the English usage there. The preposition "_pro_" is used instead, with the accusative. "_Pro me," i_f you wanted to use "_me_," would mean "on my own behalf," but it still does not appear very elegant to me.
----

"_Ego templum in foro ipsa aedificavi_?
I built the temple in the forum myself."

You could use this one, but it unnecessarily emphasizes the speaker twice. It's grammatically fine, just very emphatic. "Ego" is rarely used, and it's very intensive when it occurs. "Ipse, Ipsa" is more common by far, and it would likely emphasize the female gender here (since otherwise the male will be inferred unless there is a preceding reference). The more common phrase would be "_Ipsa templum in foro aedificavi._" It is already clear that you built the temple, without need for further emphasis. The use of either "ipsa" or "ego" emphasizes the speaker, as though to suggest the speaker did indeed have a great hand in the matter.

Latin, unlike Greek, does not use a middle voice to indicate orders carried out, etc. Xenophon could have said "I set up camp" or "I razed a city" for instance (no, those aren't very good or accurate quotes) and meant that his men did it, while he ordered it.


----------



## fragilistic

judkinsc - your response is very helpful. My prof explained reflexive verbs in latin just like the reflexive verbs of french, so I assumed they were similar. Silly me. My prof also gave the sentence "ego templum in foro me aedificavit" as an example for the reflexive uses in Latin. I suppose I don't have a very good prof. Thank you everybody for setting me straight!


----------



## Mezzofanti

I'm voting that "ipsa" is a typo for "ipsam".


----------



## Anne345

I'm votig that the complete texte is : 

 _ *Aurelia* respondit, "Pater tuus amicos quosdam, in quibus sunt senatores praeclari, ad cenam hodie invitavit.  Porcum servus iam emit, sed *ego* in animo habeo *ipsa* in urbem ire ad mercatorem quendam cuius taberna non procul abest, nam glires optimos ille vendere solet.  Si tu vis mecum ire, me in atrio exspecta!  Interea servos iubebo sellas ad ianuam ferre."_

(http://www.iasd.cc/senior high web/Teacher Files/Lascelles/Advanced Latin/chapter 28.htm) 

and as says Clara mente, the subject is a woman and hence, in apposition with "ego".


----------



## fragilistic

Yes, that is the complete text! .. I would hope that it doesn't have any typos since it is a textbook. However, based on everything I've learned from this thread, this isn't a very good textbook.


----------



## judkinsc

fragilistic said:


> Yes, that is the complete text! .. I would hope that it doesn't have any typos since it is a textbook. However, based on everything I've learned from this thread, this isn't a very good textbook.


Well, it doesn't look like it's a textbook based on Classical literature.

_*Aurelia* respondit, "Pater tuus amicos quosdam, in quibus sunt senatores praeclari, ad cenam hodie invitavit. Porcum servus iam emit, sed *ego* in animo habeo *ipsa* in urbem ire ad mercatorem quendam cuius taberna non procul abest, nam glires optimos ille vendere solet. Si tu vis mecum ire, me in atrio exspecta! Interea servos iubebo sellas ad ianuam ferre."_

"Aurelia replied, "Your father invited certain friends, among whom are famous senators, to dinner today. The manservant is acquiring a pig, but I intend to go into the city myself to a certain merchant whose tavern is not far away, for he is in the habit of selling the best dormice. If you wish to go, await me in the atrium. Meanwhile, I will order the servants to bring the chairs to the door."

"_Sellas_" there should mean "sedan chairs," as in the litter carried around by servants with the passenger sitting in it.

That's not the worst thing I've ever read...but it's not Classical and it doesn't provide a good view of what real Latin is like. It does teach you some vocabulary, but the use of some of those words is uncommon. Why the heck would you want to learn the word for dormice... And I've never seen that usage of "_ianuam_" for a door before... Janus is the god of doorways, certainly, and the word exists... but _porta_ is really much more common.

I used _Wheelock's Latin _(the traditional textbook for decades) my first year of Latin. I think it's in its 6th edition still. There's even a little book of chopped down versions of Caesar and Cicero that a couple of people (Groton & May) published to go along with it called _Thirty-Eight Latin Stories_. In my opinion, it's always best to read something written by a native speaker, if possible. _Wheelock's _teaches you to read Caesar, which is the standard introductory text for most Latin students.

If you're really interested in Latin, don't worry about this class. It will teach some important parts of grammar, most likely, and if there are any kinks you can work them out reading the real thing (Caesar, then Cicero, then others) and checking a good Latin dictionary or grammar. _Wheelock's_ is only about twenty dollars, I think, and Amazon has copies of it. It's paperback and tends to fall apart after hard reading, but you can call yourself a Latin student after beating a copy of it to death. I use a pocket dictionary called _The New College Latin & English Dictionary,_ by John C. Traupman, which I've found to be very good; and the other good Latin dictionary that's a little more extensive is Cassell's. There are a couple of others too, but no need to go into that. The textbooks usually have most of the vocabulary that you'll need for the first year, at least for the assigned readings, as well. The dictionary will help you starting to read the real thing.

Also, Notre Dame has a nice website with a downloadable Latin dictionary called WORDS. It's in the Latin resources page on this forum. I posted it up there a bit ago.
There's also the Perseus project at Tufts University, but they've been updating and moving their server due to high traffic and there have been some connection problems recently. The Perseus project has online versions of many original Latin and Greek texts, as well as dictionaries, grammars, etc. It's very detailed; just has a few connection problems unless they've fixed it since I checked it last. It's a good resource for getting the real texts to read yourself.

No worries. The professor may be good or not, but it doesn't matter what the professor is as long as you want to learn it and have access to the texts and other tools. Going to class daily will be good for keeping on track and working on things, and that's probably the most valuable of all reasons to take a language class.

If you want to have some fun, and you like Harry Potter, there is a fairly good translation of Harry Potter into Latin. There's also one in Greek. I believe the first in the series is called _Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis_, translated by Peter Needham.


----------



## fragilistic

Yeah, it's just a textbook that I think makes up its own stories about Cornelius and his family.

Thanks for all the resources - they will defnitely be helpful. I've heard of Wheelock's latin before.. I think I may look for that. Also, my teacher recommended something about a Latin "intensive course" book - bright blue cover - for the forms. I don't know if that's any good.

I've finished my first year of Latin and right now I am taking second year of Latin over the summer, which means that there are no classes, just me and my books, and my friend, when she's available.  But I really love learning Latin, so I'm having fun, although I do run into the occasional snag..


----------



## Mezzofanti

Thanks, Anne345, for giving us the full text - I agree that seen in context there is no need to assume a typo.  Very often on this forum I find that a bit more context, both before and after the passage in doubt, makes a lot of difference.

I don't agree with Judkinsc that classical Latin is the only real Latin or the only Latin worth knowing, but that is a big debate and this is probably not the right place for it.


----------



## judkinsc

Mezzofanti said:


> I don't agree with Judkinsc that classical Latin is the only real Latin or the only Latin worth knowing, but that is a big debate and this is probably not the right place for it.



I didn't say it was the only one worth knowing. I just think it's the one that should be learned first. Later Latin, including medieval, is more influenced by the native tongues of the speakers of it. The syntax changes, the meanings of some words change, and the pattern of thoughts is different. Classical Latin has a different tone and feel to it, which occasionally surprises one with forms that are much different than what would occur in later Latin. I prefer Classical Latin for the same reason that I prefer to read works in French written by a Frenchman rather than an Englishman, say. The foreign speaker always has a slightly different tone, unless he's truly bilingual.


----------



## Mezzofanti

Not until about the year 900 AD can you assume that anyone writing Latin is not using his mother tongue. Even then there are exceptions and I have myself known a living man whose habitual language of thought, and often of communication, was Latin.

The Latin of St Gregory the Great is not classical, but he is not in the position of an Englishman writing French.

Latin evolved like other languages.  The English of Chaucer, Shakespeare or even Addison is very different from ours, and no doubt in many respects superior, but it is not the one we teach first, even to non-native speakers.


----------



## Cagey

fragilistic said:


> Yeah, it's just a textbook that I think makes up its own stories about Cornelius and his family.
> 
> Thanks for all the resources - they will defnitely be helpful. I've heard of Wheelock's latin before.. I think I may look for that. Also, my teacher recommended something about a Latin "intensive course" book - bright blue cover - for the forms. I don't know if that's any good.
> 
> I've finished my first year of Latin and right now I am taking second year of Latin over the summer, which means that there are no classes, just me and my books, and my friend, when she's available.  But I really love learning Latin, so I'm having fun, although I do run into the occasional snag..



One great advantage of _Wheelock_, for an independent learner like yourself, is that it has optional exercises in the back for each chapter, along with an answer key.  The exercises are very well constructed and you can check how well you understand the material if you do some of them as a tests.  

_Moreland & Fleischer_ (the text for a Latin intensive course) may help you by offering alternative explanations.  

There is also a book of conjugated verbs _500 Latin Verbs_ that can be useful.

A summer of learning Latin sounds like fun.


----------



## judkinsc

Just another note to help. Remember that if nouns and adjectives (and pronouns, etc.) agree in number, case, and gender that they modify each other. That's the root to figuring out the "ego ipsa" idea in the sentence at the beginning of the thread. Just ask yourself those three questions concerning the nouns. It's rare that there is any conflict in that rule within a single sentence, and if there is, say a list of items for instance, it should be apparent.


----------



## fragilistic

I knew that nouns and adjectives had to agree in number, case, and gender.  I think the problem was I didn't realize that ipsa meant much more than just him/her/itself, so I just tried to make it work as best I could, even though something was obviously wrong..


----------



## virgilio

fragilistic,
            I suggest:" I intend to go downtown personally to a certain merchant"
Re your second question:
The sentence "ego in animo habeo me in urbem ire" is OK but it would mean something different from the original sentence. It would mean: "I have in mind the idea (or "mental image") of me going into the city".
If you tried to make it mean the same as the other sentence, it would break a rule of syntax, which prescribes that substantives in apposition to each other must share the same case.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------

