# Non voluisti incendium quod movebas [apagar, turn off] word?



## Casquilho

Please, verify my text below, and help me to fill the [ ]:

_Pulchrissima Atalanta, formosa crudelitas, atqui formosa, quae non miseruiusti puerum abs te ferventem! Non voluisti incendium quod movebas [apagar, turn off]._


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once again Casquilho



> _Pulchrissima Atalanta, formosa crudelitas, atqui formosa, quae non  miseruiusti puerum abs te ferventem! Non voluisti incendium quod movebas  [apagar, turn off]._




1. The superlative of _pulcher_ is _pulcherrimus._
2. _misereor_ is usually deponent in classical Latin - the active form is admittedly found in Plautus, but you were best advised to stick to the main-stream usages in e.g. Lucr., Cic. &c.
3. _misereor_ in any case classically takes a genitive object: so you should have _pueri...ferventis_.
4. abs te does not work with _ferveo_ or synonyms (such as _ardeo_). You could say "_...pueri amore tuo/tui ferventis_".
5. I am not quite sure what the last sentence is intended to mean: "You did not want to turn off the fire which you started" appears to be the sense, but can you elaborate on this?

Best wishes,

Scholiast


----------



## Casquilho

Scholiast said:


> Greetings once again Casquilho
> 
> 1. The superlative of _pulcher_ is _pulcherrimus.
> _



Hi Scholiast, thank you once again.

"Pulcríssima" in Pt I found in translations of Homer, but I think in cultivated Latin it follows the rule for adjectives in -_er,
__celeber - celeberrimus
__asper - asperrimus
_
Is _pulchrissima _unappealably wrong, or is it just not good classical Latin?


Scholiast said:


> 3. _misereor _in any case classically takes a genitive object



My grammar has some examples of indirect objects which can be expressed either by the dative or genitive. Would this be the case with _misereor_? How can I know it?



Scholiast said:


> 5. I am not quite sure what the last sentence is intended to mean: "You did not want to turn off the fire which you started" appears to be the sense, but can you elaborate on this?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Scholiast



I think it's exaclty that, "You did not want to turn off the fire you started, which you used to start". Portuguese verb "apagar" translates to erase, to delete, to turn off and, in reference to fire, I'm not sure which verb in English best translates it, let alone in Latin.


----------



## uchi.m

extinguere, perhaps?


----------



## jazyk

Extinguere (or exstinguere) is a great suggestion.



> Portuguese verb "apagar" translates to erase, to delete, to turn off  and, in reference to fire, I'm not sure which verb in English best  translates it, let alone in Latin.


_To put out_ or _to extinguish_, the latter more formal, _the fire_ would have been better options in English.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings



> _To put out_ or _to extinguish_, the latter more formal, _the fire_ would have been better options in English.



Jazyk is right about this (and uchi.m about Latin _exstinguere_). To Jazyk's contribution one might add, in English, "to quench".


----------



## Scholiast

Salve Casquilho



> "Pulcríssima" in Pt I found in translations of Homer, but I think in cultivated Latin it follows the rule for adjectives in -_er,
> __celeber - celeberrimus
> __asper - asperrimus
> _
> Is _pulchrissima _unappealably wrong, or is it just not good classical Latin?



I cannot recall ever seeing _pulcrissimus _, except in pupils' work, and find no attestation in my L&S or in Gildersleeve/Lodge. At least with _pulcherrimus_ you cannot go wrong.



> My grammar has some examples of indirect objects which can be expressed  either by the dative or genitive. Would this be the case with _misereor_? How can I know it?



As far as I know, with _misereo_/_misereor_ only the genitive is allowed in classical usage (though I will cheerfully bow to superior authority). There seems to be some confusion among Latin writers themselves as to whether this should be treated as an intransitive verb or as an impersonal (witness the construction _tui me miseret, me piget_ (Ennius, quoted in Cic. _Div_. 1.66)), and as grammatical sources such as Festus cited by L&S show, there was an awareness (or a presumption) that _miseret_ could be used analogously with impersonal verbs such as _taedet_, _paenitet_, _piget_ &c., which are regularly found with a genitive (_taedet me laboris_ - "I am fed up with work").

All good wishes,

Scholiast


----------

