# Haud difficile est me excusare, quod neglegens <fuerim> in scribendo



## UkrainianPolyglot

This sentence is from "Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata, Familia Romana"

I'm having very hard time figuring out why the Subjunctive "fuerim" is used here.

It is not difficult to excuse me (or myself), that (or because) I was negligent in writing.

Why in the world is the subjunctive used here? "Quod" when it means "that" or "the fact that" always takes the Indicative. "Quod" as a causal particle "because" usually takes Indicative unless the reason is not of the writer or speaker, or if it's used with verbs of thinking and saying.

This is driving me INSANE.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!

The eplanation is that _fuerim_ is in virtual reported speech (_oratio obliqua_): "It is not difficult to excuse me, _on the grounds that_ I was negligent/careless" (or else "for having been negligent..."). In other words, this is a putative explanation attributed to the addressee of the sentence, rather than that of the writer (or speaker) _in propria persona_.

I hope this helps UkrainianPolyglot evade the impending insanity!

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Another things, rule in dictionary applies to strict classical Latin but even some year later most were not followed so not be so strict. You have also to consider that a lot of people even at time weren't able to speak it properly. At example Velleius was classical but didn't followed strictly most of them and because this is considered a bad writer.


----------



## UkrainianPolyglot

Scholiast said:


> salvete omnes!
> 
> The eplanation is that _fuerim_ is in virtual reported speech (_oratio obliqua_): "It is not difficult to excuse me, _on the grounds that_ I was negligent/careless" (or else "for having been negligent..."). In other words, this is a putative explanation attributed to the addressee of the sentence, rather than that of the writer (or speaker) _in propria persona_.
> 
> I hope this helps UkrainianPolyglot evade the impending insanity!
> 
> Σ



I just came up with another explanation.

Could it be that "haud difficile est" is a phrase that takes the accusative/infinitive? So "me" in this case is not the object, but the accusative subject? In this scenario it would likewise be oratio obliqua and thus take subjunctive. So the translation would be "it is not difficult (for) me to excuse/make excuses, because I have been negligent in writing." I've noticed that a lot of impersonal phrases take the Accusative/Infinitive, could this be one of them?

EDIT: I prefer your explanation, however.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again



UkrainianPolyglot said:


> So "me" in this case is not the object, but the accusative subject



I regret to say I don't think this works, as it would then have to mean "It is not difficult for me to excuse..."(?), and as _excusare_ is a transitive verb, it would now need an object. This to me does not make sense.

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

UkrainianPolyglot said:


> Quod" as a causal particle "because" usually takes Indicative unless the reason is not of the writer or speaker, or if it's used with verbs of thinking and saying.


Thinking of it  causal quod should have the subjunctive when it express a subjective truth seen in the point of view of the author and not an objective one.  And excusare can also be absolute with the meaning of apologize. So I think the meaning is:
Isn't difficult to excuse me because [in my opinion] I was negligent in writing. 
or, considering the possible absolute value of the verb also:
"For me isn't difficult to apologize because I was negligent in writing


----------



## UkrainianPolyglot

Scholiast said:


> Greetings again
> 
> 
> 
> I regret to say I don't think this works, as it would then have to mean "It is not difficult for me to excuse..."(?), and as _excusare_ is a transitive verb, it would now need an object. This to me does not make sense.
> 
> Σ



But transitive verbs can be used absolutely...


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo

OK, plese allow me to explain it another way. Consider the following two sentences:

(a) _amicus me castigavit, quod iratus fueram_
(b) _amicus me castigavit, quod iratus fuissem
_
Both are perfectly good Latin. In both, the main clause is of course _amicus me castigavit_, "A friend scolded me..."

(a) however means "he scolded me because I had been angry [and I really had been]"
(b) means "he scolded me because [he said/thought/claimed/believed] I had been angry"

In (a) the reason given in the _quod_-clause is acknowledged as a true cause.
In (b), however, the reason in the _quod_-clause is merely alleged, and the speaker reserves the right to deny its truth.

This distinction is actually quite basic, and very clearly apparent from numerous passages of Caesar and Cicero, among others.

Applied to the sentence which originally prompted this thread, the principle is clear, and so is the translation: "It is not hard to pardon me for _what you regard_ as my carelessness in writing".

Σ


----------



## Pugnator

Just one thing, I wouldn't put "for what you regard as" because it is just an undertone, not enought to justify the adding of more words. In fact in most of the professional tradition (at least at my place) it got completely ignored. It is one of the various undertone things that got lost in translation, every language has his own undertones that has to be ignored in translation.


----------



## Scholiast

With respect to Pugnator (# 7)...


Pugnator said:


> Just one thing, I wouldn't put "for what you regard as" because it is just an undertone, not enought to justify the adding of more words. In fact in most of the professional tradition (at least at my place) it got completely ignored. It is one of the various undertone things that got lost in translation, every language has his own undertones that has to be ignored in translation.


...attempting to _translate_ something is not the same thing as trying to _explain_ it. In my last post I was only attempting to explain - hence my square brackets, to show that these words are not part of the original, but reflect its nuances.
Σ.


----------



## Pugnator

Scholiast said:


> ...attempting to _translate_ something is not the same thing as trying to _explain_ it. In my last post I was only attempting to explain - hence my square brackets, to show that these words are not part of the original, but reflect it's nuances


Pardon me If I seemed hostile or intrusive, I just wanted to give this "suggestion" to new translator, I don't want to put in doubt the rightness of your affirmation or contestate you in any way.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete et iterum!



UkrainianPolyglot said:


> So "me" in this case is not the object, but the accusative subject?





Scholiast said:


> I regret to say I don't think this works, as it would then have to mean "It is not difficult for me to excuse..."(?), and as _excusare_ is a transitive verb, it would now need an object. This to me does not make sense.



I have had second thoughts: UkrainianPolyglot may be right, that _me_ can be construed as accusative subject of _excusare. quod neglegens fuerim in scribendo_ then becomes a noun-clause, syntactically the object of _excusare. _But I would still claim that the subjunctive _fuerim_ is attributing to the addressee the suggestion of carelessness. So to paraphrase (rather than translate), we would have:

"It is not difficult for me to excuse [the fact] that [as you say/think/allege] I was careless..."

Hence in smoother English:

"It is not difficult for me to excuse _what you regard as_ my carelessness..."

Σ


----------



## Ben Jamin

Pugnator said:


> ...every language has his own undertones that *has to be ignored *in translation.


It is a very strange principle, how did you conceive it?


----------



## Pugnator

Ben Jamin said:


> It is a very strange principle, how did you conceive it?


I'm speaking about little detail that got lost in translation or because doesn't exist a corrispettive on the other language or because the difference is very small. I'll do an example: On Italian the possessive adjective normally is put  after the name, but if you want to put the focus  and emphasis on the adjective himself you could put it before, here an example "Ho preso una decisione importante"  is translated with " I took an important decision" and here there is no special focus but if I say "Ho preso un'importante decisione" it is still translated with "I took an important decision" but there is a slightly  focus and emphasis  on "important" that is lost in translation. Another example is when you translate from a language with gender to a mostly genderless language. At example if I say  "Oggi esco con una mia amica" I say "Today I go out with a my friend" but the interlocutor on first case know that the friend is female while on second case he doesn't know. And translate with "Today I go out with a my female friend" is wrong because  seem that I want to specify that she is female.  I hope to have explained me well.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Pugnator said:


> I'm speaking about little detail that got lost in translation or because doesn't exist a corrispettive on the other language or because the difference is very small. I'll do an example: On Italian the possessive adjective normally is put  after the name, but if you want to put the focus  and emphasis on the adjective himself you could put it before, here an example "Ho preso una decisione importante"  is translated with " I took an important decision" and here there is no special focus but if I say "Ho preso un'importante decisione" it is still translated with "I took an important decision" but there is a slightly  focus and emphasis  on "important" that is lost in translation. Another example is when you translate from a language with gender to a mostly genderless language. At example if I say  "Oggi esco con una mia amica" I say "Today I go out with a my friend" but the interlocutor on first case know that the friend is female while on second case he doesn't know. And translate with "Today I go out with a my female friend" is wrong because  seem that I want to specify that she is female.  I hope to have explained me well.


The main principle of translation is to reproduce the meaning of the source text as precisely as possible. A good translator will never treat nuances as irrelevant, this is a domaine of machine translators. A good translator will always try to render all nuances of the text, and give up only if this is impossible.
I don't agree that the sex of a friend is of little importance, and can be freely ignored in translation to English, Estonian,  Finnish or Hungarian (the only major European languages that have no gender). In many contexts it will be very important.


----------



## Pugnator

Ben Jamin said:


> The main principle of translation is to reproduce the meaning of the source text as precisely as possible. A good translator will never treat nuances as irrelevant, this is a domaine of machine translators. A good translator will always try to render all nuances of the text, and give up only if this is impossible.


Well, so try to translate differently "Ho preso una decisione importante" and "ho preso una importante decisione" respecting the difference nuance, it is literally impossible. Same thing on latin for impersonal/objective view. You have to consider that it has to remain a nuance. 


Ben Jamin said:


> I don't agree that the sex of a friend is of little importance, and can be freely ignored in translation to English, Estonian,  Finnish or Hungarian (the only major European languages that have no gender). In many contexts it will be very important.


But, except it is important in contexts, it will be a lot more of a nuance in the translated version. If I say "Today I go out with a female friend" seem that I give a lot of importance to the fact that she is female, a good translator wouldn't write it but instead use "Today I go out with a friend"


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all


Pugnator said:


> Well, so try to translate differently "Ho preso una decisione importante" and "ho preso una importante decisione" respecting the difference nuance, it is literally impossible. Same thing on latin for impersonal/objective view. You have to consider that it has to remain a nuance.


On the contrary. Into German, for example, word-order can convey emphasis like this: instead of _Ich habe eine wichtige Entscheidung gemacht_ you can say _Eine wichtige Entscheidung habe ich gemacht_, and in English, "I have taken a decision of great importance", or *The decision I have made is important", even "An important decision I have made is to..."



Pugnator said:


> But, except it is important in contexts, it will be a lot more of a nuance in the translated version. If I say "Today I go out with a female friend" seem that I give a lot of importance to the fact that she is female, a good translator wouldn't write it but instead use "Today I go out with a friend"


Similarly here: there is nothing wrong with "Today I am going out with a girlfriend/lady-friend", which may - but absolutely _need _not - imply any degree of sexual intimacy.
Σ


----------

