# The foolish fish was afraid to swim in deep water



## Lamb67

The foolish fish was afraid to swim in deep water lest larger fish should eat him.
Stultus piscis timuit natare in altam aquam ne maior piscis ederet.

Am I correct in translating 'lest' by 'ne+subj.imperfect' here ?


----------



## Etumon

Yeah, 'ne' is best translated as 'lest' here, and Subj. Imp. is correct, too.


----------



## Cagey

The English "larger fish" is plural here.  If it were one fish, the English would have "a larger fish."

In general, Latin adjectives _follow_ their nouns.  You are using English word order.


----------



## Lamb67

Piscis stultus timuit natare in altam aquam ne pisces mairores ederent.(changed to plural forms and correct word order).


----------



## Cagey

That looks better to me. 

There is something I missed on the first pass, which is the pronoun in_ lest larger fish should eat *him*_. 

The question is whether or not to use the reflexive _se _here.  The reflexive usually refers to the subject of the verb; in a subordinate clause, it would usually refer to the subject of the clause, here, to the big fish.  An exception is when the subordinate clause refers refers to the thought, not of the author, but of the subject of the principal clause.  I would say that that applies here; this is what the foolish fish is worried about, and you could use _se_:
_ne pisces mairores se ederent._ ​ I think that _eum_ would also be acceptable.  You might prefer it, because it more clearly refers to the single fish, and _se_ could be either singular or plural.


----------



## Starfrown

In this case, "in deep water" suggests to me _in alta aqua_, not _in altam aquam_, which I would render in English as "into deep water." I'm not sure which Lamb intended.
----
Here, I think _metuit_ might be better than _timuit_; the latter generally suggests an urgent fear of imminent danger, while the former indicates a reasoning fear that is ever-present in the subject's mind and may also be translated "to be apprehensive."
----
I have not been able to verify that Lamb's structure would be allowed in Latin. Of course, _timeo_ (or _metuo_) may take either an infinitive or a clause introduced by ut/ne, but can it take both in the same sentence?
----


Cagey said:


> The question is whether or not to use the reflexive _se _here. The reflexive usually refers to the subject of the verb; in a subordinate clause, it would usually refer to the subject of the clause, here, to the big fish. An exception is when the subordinate clause refers refers to the thought, not of the author, but of the subject of the principal clause. I would say that that applies here; this is what the foolish fish is worried about, and you could use _se_:
> _ne pisces mairores se ederent._ ​I think that _eum_ would also be acceptable. You might prefer it, because it more clearly refers to the single fish, and _se_ could be either singular or plural.


Because of the paratactic nature of fear clauses, I would be quite wary of using _se_ here. Of course, I may be worrying over nothing.


----------



## Lamb67

Previous :ne pisces mairores ederent
Now : ne pisces mairores ipsum ( eum) ederent

Example in my book regarding relflexive pronouns: Ducem oraverunt ne sibi noceret,
they begged the general to spare-whom ? Himself or them ? Add ipsi or ipsis and the sense is clear.( my try will be : Ducem oraverunt ne ipsi noceret for HIMSELF and ne ipsis noceret for Themselves. Sibi was replaced in both cases). 

I might have a bigger chance if the sentence is a Reported Speech


----------

