# Hunc pontem dono dedit classis studentum quae ....



## MellamoGordon

Hello, would someone please translate this from Latin to English, Spanish, or French? 

HUNC PONTEM DONO DEDIT CLASSIS STUDENTUM QUAE IN ANNO MDCCCCX FORAS EXIIT NE MEMORIA SUA APUD POSTEROS PEREAT Phoebe Appearson Hearst IMPENSIS SUBVENIT


Thank you!


----------



## Starfrown

The Latin may have some problems, but I think the following is what was intended:

"This bridge [which] I present, the class of students which graduated in the year 1910 gave, that their memory might not perish among posterity.  Phoebe Appearson Hearst was of the greatest aid."


----------



## MellamoGordon

Tibi gratias ago!


----------



## Imber Ranae

I believe _dono_ is dative of _donum_ rather than from the verb _donare_. Taking that into account, the grammar appears correct with the single exception that _studentum_ should be _student*i*um_. I would translate: "The class of students which departed forth in the year 1910 has presented this bridge as a gift so that their memory may not perish amongst their successors. Phoebe Appearson Hearst assisted with expenses."


----------



## Starfrown

Imber's analysis is undoubtedly the correct one.  I made two blunders in not recognizing the dative here, both of which he caught.  I especially don't know how I overlooked the dative with _subvenio_!

I still think it is fine to translate _foras exiit_ as "graduated," as that clearly seems to be what was implied, though I have no problem with Imber's more literal interpretation.


----------



## Rallino

I thought you couldn't use the same roman number four times in a row like here:* MDCCCCX*. Shouldn't it be: *MCMX ?*


----------



## XiaoRoel

La traducción de *Imber* es buena, pero no estoy de acuerdo con que _dono_ sea dativo, _dono dare_ es dar en calidad de regalo, es decir, _dono_ es un complemento circunstancial en ablativo. En vez de _studentium_, nada clásico, sería mejor _scholarium_.
El orden de palabras de la frase en buen latín debería ser:


> STUDENTIUM CLASSIS QUAE IN ANNO MDCCCCX FORAS EXIIT HUNC PONTEM DONO DEDIT NE MEMORIA SUA APUD POSTEROS PEREAT. Phoebe Appearson Hearst IMPENSIS SUBVENIT


----------



## Starfrown

Rallino said:


> I thought you couldn't use the same roman number four times in a row like here: MDCCCCX. Shouldn't it be: MCMX ?


I think the Roman practice was somewhat variable.  According to Wikipedia, the subtractive notation (i.e. IV instead of IIII) only became the standard in modern times.



XiaoRoel said:


> La traducción de Imber es buena, pero no estoy de acuerdo con que dono sea dativo, dono dare es dar en calidad de regalo, es decir, dono es un complemento circunstancial en ablativo. En vez de studentium, nada clásico, sería mejor scholarium.


I have to disagree.  If _dono_ were an ablative, it seems to me that the phrase _hunc pontem dono dare_ would be read "to give this bridge with a gift," which can't be correct.  Here, the dative is what Gildersleeve terms a "dative of the object for which"; it expresses the object for which the bridge was given, namely to serve as a gift.  It is really no different from the dative in such expressions as _auxilio esse alicui_. 

The ablative does commonly occur with _donare_, where the latter also has an accusative object, and the combination has the translation "to present [someone] with [something]."



XiaoRoel said:


> El orden de palabras de la frase en buen latín debería ser


Your order is completely neutral, yes, but in this case, I think the composer was probably at least justified in placing _hunc pontem_ first in the sentence.


----------

