It's ironic that this is a so-called "complex" sentence, because I actually found it the easiest to sight read through of the 3 videos I have seen in this series so far. Go figure!

I just discovered this channel and I'm starting to watch the videos. Thanks!

Dang, this was much harder than I thought it was gonna be. NGL, I'm a bit depressed by how much I struggled to decipher this

That use of 'evadere' to mean 'become' tripped me up. Thought that word just meant 'escape' or 'avoid'. I hate it when words you thought you had nailed down have some other less common meaning that is totally different from the more usual ones - feels like I just got sucker-punched!

Thank you for your teaching. Really glad I hung in there with this series (my first Cicero series) through to the end (so far). Apart from a couple of the early videos which really bamboozled me, the rest have been easier than I thought. I was sight reading them from scratch with 80-90% accuracy, before listening to your analysis. Maybe I might one day actually like reading this guy!

Man, I got all excited that I was finally mastering Cicero in the last episode, because I could translate it by myself from sight, and then Cicero throws this at me! It's like someone finally solving some algebra and then going straight to calculus!

Well, that was truly cringeworthy in its obseqiousness. Thanks for the grammar analysis though!

thank you brother!

UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I think 'sepulturae' has to be genitive, but what about 'malae bestiae'?

Could not the 'sepulturae' and the 'malae bestiae' be read as datives? Certainly that fits the English better.

My favorite Latin author and my favorite teacher!

Great stuff! I love Lactantius' style and your analysis. By the way, do you plan to do a few videos on Thomas a Kempis' De Imitatione Christi at some point?

Gratias!

Great work sir. This helps for two reasons: I will now read the book, and I have improved my Latin by at least a speck. How can I improve my reading and speaking of Latin?

I think it is "adserens", not "adferens" (as you pronounced it).

praeclara splendide

How can he say "inpassibilis" when God, through Jesus Christ, suffered His Passion on the cross?

Wow, thanks, that's amazing😍

Great analysis of this seminal work.

Thx, I speak Portuguese so I pick up on some of the words 😅

Why is the ut clause a purpose clause and not a result clause?

I've been watching one of you short video per day. When i crack open my Loeb account, I've found my Latin reading so much better. Thank you for these, from a non-academic classics reader.

plurimas gratias nunc intelligo

Thank you for this video ! Much love

The answer is rather simple: Establish as much as possible a natural feeling by extensive exposure to original literature and then form the words from that acquired sensitivity rather than by artificially meditated cross-copying and accept the products thereof without too much classicism as long as the folds of grammar are not breached (as with the case of half-Greek hybrid words, which Romans only used when being mockful of the overcompounding of the Greeks if at all and which forego the rules of Latin composition) It attests to the lack of ingenuity of the current lexicopoesis that vast swaths of neolatinisms are just bland recastings of our bastardised anglo-greco-gallico-latin word monstrosities into unskillfully simulated trickery-moulds. But at the same time it still remains true that the Romans let themselves be inspired in an indegenerative manner by the Greeks when forming words already, leading often to literal tanslations like relatio - αναφορα and more. Vacuipurga, æ or vacuisuga or indomis for homeless (indomia for homelessness) would be pleasing to Plautus and perfectly loyal to grammer and the semantic nexus, I am near certain. Some medieval scholars turned theologos into deiloquus which is a far leap because the stem _loqu-_ has never extended as wide as the Greek _log-_ . Deiscientius would be more like it. Or also the question why all the _auto-_ compounds should not follow suit to medieval suicidium and thus suimotus for αυτοκινετον or propri- as some said propricidium. Though doing all of these is in line with grammar, why not be content with movens proprie.

Extremely helpful. Thank you.

Just don't understand the deponent verb. Why is it pollicetur, which looks to be to be passive, and not simply promittit? I've got so far too go....

“dēgerat” is perhaps pluperfect.

2:35 The reason it tastes better is because shredding it increases the surface area to volume ratio. It's the same reason you want your deli meat sliced super thin.

Yours is a civilizational work. Thank you!

Finally! An easy Ambrose sentence!

Is this why they say Rome never fell ? 😄

Am i the only nerd listening to this ? 😁

It seems to me that you pronounce Latin with strong English accent ...

Is it possible to read consideratis as from the participle and hence consideratis...litteris vestris as an ablative absolute opener ('having considered your letters...')?

Bring it

min 1:54, “quis” est pronomen; adiectivum, “quī.”

C'est vraiment stimulant.

at 42 seconds in, first singular

Where can I access more Aeneid lessons?

As always, great analysis, Dr. Noe! Two comments: (i) I was wondering if the prefix "ex-" of the deadjectival verb "extenuare" must (?)/can be associated with an intensifying meaning here and (ii) as you rightly note, "ducibus" is dative (it's the typical dative that (co)appears with compound/prefixed verbs, right?). I guess that if "ducibus" was ablative, the expression would be "ab ducibus", i.e. besides the argumental pattern found here (i.e. "detrahere aliquid alicui"), I guess that an alternative one could be with a prepositional ablative: "detrahere aliquid ab aliquo". I don't think that "ducibus" can analyzed as a non-prepositional ablative ('from the generals/leaders') here, in a prose text, but I'm not sure if, in this context (i.e. with the verb "detrahere"), "ducibus" could also (?) be a (non-prepositional) ablative in poetry.

Just found this channel and it looks like the best greek on youtube by far.

Could clamoribus be taken as a dative within the passive periphrastic construction?

Very elegant analysis! As for the last sentence commented from min. 3:25 on ("sed tamen sunt alia maiora"), I was wondering if its word order (i.e. with the verb "sunt" before the subject) should lead one to interpret it more precisely as an existential construction ('But there are other actions greater (than those)") rather than as a merely attributive construction ("But other actions are greater (than those)").

might “elaborandī” be from “ēlabōrāre,” to work out? To show the difference between calibrating the watch and assembling it?

Might “tale Organon” be the object of “struendi,” and refer to the watch?

Might “sī memorāret” introduce an oratio obliqua: “illam constāre”? “If the person who is going to list causes recounted that the watch consists of a mainspring and gears,…(next portion:) although he would speak truly in this way, nevertheless he would have said nothing more than if he had called the watch a toaster.” (?)

Enjoyed the conversation of guided by free minds.🦉

It is clear from context that “ut…causae” is a result clause, but is “nihil” an indicator of this? Might the “nihil minus…quam” construction be found in a purpose clause, for example, “hoc tractātum Külbel scrīpsit ut nihil minus in ludibrium ā discipulīs vocētur quam flatulentia”? Or would such a purpose clause have to be expressed with “nē”?

Wow, this is very helpful! Gratias!