# praedonum dux nauis, cum captae essent, incendi iussit



## Buonaparte

Forum,

My textbook translates the sentence, 'praedonum dux nauis, cum captae essent, incendi iusset', as:

'The leader of the pirates ordered the ships to be burned when they had been captured'.

My translation came up with:

'Since the ships had been captured, the leader of the pirates ordered them to be burnt'.

So I translated 'cum' as _since _rather than _when _and ended up with a rather different meanting for the sentence_. _Was my translation of incorrect? And if so, why?

Many thanks, Buonaparte


----------



## modus.irrealis

As far as I know, your translation is possible -- at least, that's how I read it at first, taking the cum-clause as stating the circumstances of the leader's giving the command (instead of the circumstances of the ships' being burnt, like the translation in your book).

To be honest, though, your book's translation does surprise me. From what I know, the construction with _iubeo _simply takes an infinitive (but not in indirect discourse) so I wouldn't have thought it was possible for there to be a cum-clause within the indirect command. With a verb like _impero_, on the other hand, I can see you saying something like _imperavit ut naves, cum captae essent, incenderentur_ -- or with something like _dixit navis, cum captae essent, eos incensuros esse _(switching to the active). But I couldn't find anything in the grammars I took a look at and it was difficult to search for examples. Anyway, I don't see anything that would make your translation wrong in the absence of a larger context.


----------



## brian

modus.irrealis said:


> As far as I know, your translation is possible -- at least, that's how I read it at first, taking the cum-clause as stating the circumstances of the leader's giving the command (instead of the circumstances of the ships' being burnt, like the translation in your book).
> 
> To be honest, though, your book's translation does surprise me. From what I know, the construction with _iubeo _simply *takes an infinitive* (but not in indirect discourse) so I wouldn't have thought it was possible for there to be a cum-clause within the *indirect command*. With a verb like _impero_, on the other hand, I can see you saying something like _imperavit ut naves, cum captae essent, incenderentur_ -- or with something like _dixit navis, cum captae essent, eos incensuros esse _(switching to the active). But I couldn't find anything in the grammars I took a look at and it was difficult to search for examples. Anyway, I don't see anything that would make your translation wrong in the absence of a larger context.



Hi there,

I'm not quite sure I understand how you're reading the sentence. First off, I see "incendi" as the passive infinitive of "incendo, -ere," thus making the sentence follow exactly what you say: _jubeo_ + infinitive. (Note, however, that here we have "navis" instead of "naves" as the accusative plural, "navis" being an i-stem noun.) Secondly, I don't think the verb or construction used in the main clause has any real bearing on the "cum" clause, but again, I'm not quite sure what you were saying in your post. Finally, when I first read the sentence, I took "cum" to mean "whenever" (or simply "when") or even "after." So.... a recap:

_Praedonum dux nauis, cum captae essent, incendi iusset._

Literally: _The leader of the pirates/plunderers ordered the ships, when(ever)/after they had been captured, to be burned._

Cleaner: _The leader of the pirates ordered the ships be to be burned when/after they had been captured.
_


----------



## modus.irrealis

brian8733 said:


> I'm not quite sure I understand how you're reading the sentence.



I read it as "when/since/although they were captured, the leader of the pirates ordered the ships to be burnt."

The problem for me is whether the cum-clause describes the circumstances of _iussit_ or of _incendi_. Or in other words, whether the statement is equivalent to

When they were captured, the leader of the pirates said, "Burn the ships."

or

The leader of the pirates said, "Burn the ships when they are captured."

I was just surprised to see _iubeo_ used to express the latter, because of its construction, but now I think I was just overthinking things. I still think both translations are possible, though.


----------



## wonderment

Buonaparte said:


> 'praedonum dux nauis, cum captae essent, incendi iusset'



Hi, Buonaparte: your translation is perfectly fine. And so is the textbook's.  But there must be a typo, 'iussit' ('he ordered', perfect indicative) and not 'iusset', no?



modus.irrealis said:


> To be honest, though, your book's translation does surprise me. From what I know, the construction with _iubeo _simply takes an infinitive (but not in indirect discourse) so I wouldn't have thought it was possible for there to be a cum-clause within the indirect command. With a verb like _impero_, on the other hand, I can see you saying something like _imperavit ut naves, cum captae essent, incenderentur_ -- or with something like _dixit navis, cum captae essent, eos incensuros esse _(switching to the active). But I couldn't find anything in the grammars I took a look at and it was difficult to search for examples.



Hi, modus.irealis: It _is_ the construction you expected , _iubeo_ with an infinitive (_incendi_) in indirect statement and subject accusative (_naves_). The _cum_ clause is just a dependent clause that can be appended to _any_ independent clause; it doesn’t have to be part of an indirect discourse. Perhaps what’s unclear is the distinction between two main types of _cum_ clauses: 

_cum_ + indicative = strictly temporal (translated with ‘when’)
_cum _+ subjunctive = can be circumstantial (‘when’, ‘after’, ‘since’, ‘once’), causal (‘because’, ‘since’) or concessive (‘although’) 

Depending on context, the sentence above can be translated as:

The leader of the pirates ordered that the ships be burned when (/since/after/once/because/although) they had been captured. 
(_nota bene_: the ‘when’ here is circumstantial, not temporal)

Edit add: ooops, I just missed your post. I think _cum _technically describes the circumstance of the ships' capture. Under this condition, the leader ordered that the ships be burned.

Second edit add: hmm...on second thought, because of the way the sentence is structured, I think the leader ordered that the ships be burned once they had been captured, i.e. _cum_ describes the circumstance of _incendi_.


----------



## brian

wonderment, you read my mind and captured the idea perfectly! 

The reason that it's not "When the ships were captured, the leader ordered..." (temporal) is because that would require the indicative. The subjunctive hear means we have a circumstantial clause, with one possible meaning being "when."  But that's also why I suggested "when_ever_," to sort of convey in English the circumstantial as opposed temporal meaning; but it's kind of difficult...


----------



## modus.irrealis

wonderment said:


> I think _cum _technically describes the circumstance of the ships' capture. Under this condition, the leader ordered that the ships be burned.


But why the circumstance of the ships' capture and not the circumstances of the ordering? For me, it's not the word used to translate _cum_, but how it fits in to the structure of sentence. I don't see what's wrong with translating it as, say, "since they were captured, the leader of the pirates ordered the ships to be burnt", where "since ... captured" describes the circumstances of the ordering?


----------



## wonderment

modus.irrealis said:


> But why the circumstance of the ships' capture and not the circumstances of the ordering? For me, it's not the word used to translate _cum_, but how it fits in to the structure of sentence. I don't see what's wrong with translating it as, say, "since they were captured, the leader of the pirates ordered the ships to be burnt", where "since ... captured" describes the circumstances of the ordering?



eeek...we keep cross posting (I've now edited my post above twice, in case you missed it ) and now I'm lost...

_praedonum dux nauis, cum captae essent, incendi iussit_

If you read from left to right, "the ships, once they had been captured, that they be burned, he ordered." The _cum_ clause seems embedded within the indirect statement, so I take it as the condition governing the burning of the ships.

Edit add (for clarification):

_cum captae essent, praedonum dux nauis incendi iussit_

Again, translating from left to right, "Once the ships had been captured, the leader of the pirates ordered the ships to be burned." Had the sentence been written thus, I would take the _cum_ clause as governing the condition under which the leader made the order.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

'Th


Edit add (for clarification):

_cum captae essent, praedonum dux nauis incendi iussit_

[/quote]

I am wondering if it's possible to write the sentence this way without expressing the subject of "captae essent" at the very beginning : "Naves cum captae essent " and as a result using a passive form and a possibly wrong structure to end the sentence : " a praedonum duce incendi jussae sunt ." The real sentence is much better by underlining the agent "praedonum dux".
I 'll add the form "navis" may be a plural accusative like "naves", subject of "incendi"; as for "cum+ subj." it expresses very commonly the time and the cause at the same time  ,  something like "as" ( ? ) , called by some scholars " Cum historicum". So I'd favour translating :
"The leader of the pirates ordered the ships to be burned once they had been captured."


----------



## Buonaparte

Thanks very much for your help here, folks, it is much appreciated. It helps having these possible translations debated openly as you can learn much from considering the thinking behind them. 

Wonderment, you are correct, there was a typo and it should be 'iussit', not 'issuet' as stated above. 

Buonaparte


----------



## modus.irrealis

wonderment said:


> eeek...we keep cross posting (I've now edited my post above twice, in case you missed it ) and now I'm lost...
> 
> _praedonum dux nauis, cum captae essent, incendi iussit_
> 
> If you read from left to right, "the ships, once they had been captured, that they be burned, he ordered." The _cum_ clause seems embedded within the indirect statement, so I take it as the condition governing the burning of the ships.
> 
> Edit add (for clarification):
> 
> _cum captae essent, praedonum dux nauis incendi iussit_
> 
> Again, translating from left to right, "Once the ships had been captured, the leader of the pirates ordered the ships to be burned." Had the sentence been written thus, I would take the _cum_ clause as governing the condition under which the leader made the order.



But left-to-rightism (can't think of a better word right now ) doesn't seem to be decisive in Latin, although now that you mention it, I think it is what the author of the textbook intended. But even in English, take something like:

The leader ordered the ships, since they had been captured, to be burnt.

Now that's admittedly not the most normal of sentences, but I could read it so that the since-clause states the circumstances of the ordering.

But back to the Latin, I'm not sure that the cum-clause is embedded in the indirect statement. I tried reading up on this and this verb does not seem to be classified as having an indirect statement. I think their point is that _navis_ is also the object of _iussit_ as well as being the subject of _incendi_, unlike say the _navis_ in _navis incendi dixit_. There's also the difference of how the tense of the infinitive comes into play with _dico_ but not with _iubeo_ (can an infinitive of a different tense even be used with _iubeo_?)

I wonder if _iubeo_ has basically the same construction as _doceo_. What about something like (ignore the meaning if you would )

_dux praedones, cum mali essent, bona facere docuit._

If something like that is normal, I would take the cum-clause with _docuit_. But with something like

_dux praedones, cum militem captissent, eum interficere docuit._

if that works, I would take the cum-clause with _interficere_. With Buonaparte's original example, though, both interpretations seem plausible to me.

I may be overthinking things again, so hopefully that's not too far from right.


----------



## wonderment

J.F. de TROYES said:


> I am wondering if it's possible to write the sentence this way without expressing the subject of "captae essent" at the very beginning : "Naves cum captae essent " and as a result using a passive form and a possibly wrong structure to end the sentence : " a praedonum duce incendi jussae sunt ."


Why not?  In Latin prose, words needed to complete the meaning get postponed all the time. In any case, I’d simply add ‘eas’: 

_Naves cum captae essent, praedonum dux eas incendi iussit._
Once the ships had been captured, the pirates’ leader ordered them to be burned. 

_Praedonum dux nauis, cum captae essent, incendi iussit._
The pirates’ leader ordered the ships to be burned once they had been captured. 



modus.irrealis said:


> But even in English, take something like:
> 
> The leader ordered the ships, since they had been captured, to be burnt.
> 
> Now that's admittedly not the most normal of sentences, but I could read it so that the since-clause states the circumstances of the ordering.


I think this sentence would be more 'normal' in speech than in formal writing. To prevent this kind of ambiguity, there is a general rule in writing that modifiers (be they words, phrases, or clauses) be placed as close as possible to the word or words they modify. (Should you have any doubt, this link is helpful.) So I would take the since-clause, as you’ve written it, as stating the circumstances of the burning. 



> But back to the Latin, I'm not sure that the cum-clause is embedded in the indirect statement. I tried reading up on this and this verb does not seem to be classified as having an indirect statement. I think their point is that _navis_ is also the object of _iussit_ as well as being the subject of _incendi_, unlike say the _navis_ in _navis incendi dixit_.



ok, indirect statements follow verbs of saying, knowing, thinking, perceiving, and _iubeo_ doesn’t fit perfectly into this pattern. Lewis and Short tell us that _iubeo_ can take an “object clause.” But I’m not sure I see a real distinction between the indirect statement (_navis incendi dixit_) and the object clause (_navis incendi iussit_). One could argue that _navis incendi_ is an object clause of _dixit_; isn’t that the point of a subject accusative (accusative because it’s the object of _dixit_, as well as being the subject of the _incendi_)? Isn't an indirect statement a type of object clause?



> I wonder if _iubeo_ has basically the same construction as _doceo_. I think that it does. What about something like (ignore the meaning if you would )
> 
> _dux praedones, cum mali essent, bona facere docuit._
> 
> If something like that is normal, I would take the cum-clause with _docuit_. I would take the _cum_ clause with _facere_ because of its placement within the indirect statement, even though it makes less sense in terms of meaning to do so. It's the writer's job to be clear; he knows where to place the _cum_ clause to say exactly what he intends.
> 
> _dux praedones, cum militem captissent, eum interficere docuit._
> 
> if that works, I would take the cum-clause with _interficere_. I would, too. With Buonaparte's original example, though, both interpretations seem plausible to me.



Well...both seem plausible, but one more so than the other (IMHO). I'm open to be persuaded otherwise.


----------



## Cagey

A few thoughts.

Here is my own take the Latin version of the sensible discussion on word order at Wonderment's link: 

Latin adjectives/ nouns/ participles can be positioned more freely insofar as (as long as) their case endings contain enough information to tell us what goes with what.  e.g., We don't depend on word order to know what was captured. 

We have to rely on position when we consture adverbs (and adverbial clauses).  Since they don't decline we have no other guide.  Thus, I agree that the most natural way to understand the _cum _clause is as part of the indirect speech.​
I am content to see_ iubeo_ as governing an accusative infinitive construction as Wonderment does.  Alternatively,  Gildersleeve classifies _iubeo _as a "verb of creation" ("they help the infinitive into existence").  He explains the infinitive with _iubeo_ as "an infinitive taken as a second accusative" (similarly: _doceo, veto, sino_) ( 423 n.6.).

Back to the subjunctive in the _cum_ clause: isn't there a tendency for subordinate clauses in indirect speech to be in the subjunctive? I.e., the _Dux_ may have said "_cum captae sunt_" but  in indirect speech, the subordination and sequence of tenses requires "_cum captae essent_".  

I guess I agree with the textbook's translation in post #1. 


> 'The leader of the pirates ordered the ships to be burned when they had been captured.'


----------

