# Imperator militibus proeliō caruit.



## half monty

Are both of the following translations possible for "Imperator militibus proeliō caruit."?

The general was without soldiers for the battle.

The general was without battle for the soldiers.


----------



## Cagey

In a case like this, you pick the most sensible translation. Both are possible, but it's more likely that we would be discussing the lack of soldiers than the lack of a battle.  

Also, in real life there would be more information to help you decide. If the next line is "so he decided to retreat," we would say 'The general lacked soldiers." If the next line tells us that the soldiers went home, then we would say "The general lacked a battle."


----------



## half monty

Thank you.


----------



## wandle

half monty said:


> Are both of the following translations possible for "Imperator militibus proeliō caruit."?


What is the source of this sentence? It does not seem to be good Latin.


----------



## half monty

Really? I got it from Wiktionary's entry for "careo".


----------



## wandle

That page gives no source for it. Google brings up only a similar page in Hungarian, with the same phrase, but again no source.

In classical Latin, I would have expected _*ad proelium egebat.*_


----------



## half monty

I see.
But my textbook says that "egere" ("to need", "to lack")  is used with an ablative or genitive. It doesn't say anything about "ad".


----------



## Scholiast

salvete collectores!


half monty said:


> Really? I got it from Wiktionary's entry for "careo".


With all respect and due willingness to co-operate here: 'Wiktionary' is a poor source or guide for anything to do with classical languages. Far better consult wandle, who (despite being English and vaunting his Rolls-Royce) knows Latin rather well.

Σ


----------



## wandle

Thanks to Scholiast for the kind words (though my family background is Irish and Scottish rather than English, while the car - not a Rolls, but a 1930s Bugatti - is not mine, unfortunately, but is one on which I did restoration work many years ago).


half monty said:


> "egere" ("to need", "to lack") is used with an ablative or genitive.


Yes. The ablative _*militibus*_ would not be changed: *imperator militibus ad proelium egebat*.
*Ad* is not part of the construction of *egere*. It means 'towards', 'for the purpose of' and makes a prepositional phrase with _*proelium. *_That, rather than a noun on its own in the dative, would be normal in classical prose.


----------



## half monty

Oh, I see. Thank you.
If "ad proelium" is not part of the construction of egere, what is it? Is it an adjective of "militibus"?


----------



## wandle

Its function is adverbial, explaining the purpose for which soldiers were needed.


----------



## half monty

Thank you.


----------

