1 Samuel. David et Goliath.

Brief Comments on the Latin:

[Note: You will find other helpful information by looking at the segmented text, which shows clearly how the sentences and clauses are organized. You can also choose to have the verbs and/or bold speech highlighted, which often makes the Latin easier to understand.]

17:40 Vocabulary Note for baculus: the phase ad baculum is used to refer to a logical fallacy!

17:41 The name of the Philistheus is given in verse 17:4 Goliath de Geth, Goliath of Geth (Gath). Notice that David, like other Hebrew names , does not decline; here it is in the accusative.

17:42 David is in the accsuative.

17:43 David is in the accusative. The word numquid is an interrogative, indicating a question (here expecting a negative answer). The use of ego and tu is emphatic.

17:44 David is in the accusative.

17:45 Again, the use of tu and ego is emphatic. The word clypeus is more usually spelled clipeus. Note that exercituum is genitive plural, as is agminum. The name Israhel does not decline; here it is in the genitive (agmina Israhel, "the armies of Israel"). The full form of exprobasti is exprobavisti.

17:46 The use of et here is adverbial ("also"). Philisthim is a Hebrew plural and does not decline; here it is in the genitive case (castra Philisthim, the camp of the Philistines). The use of quia to introduce indirect statement is non-classical. The name Israhel does not decline; here it is in the ablative.

17:47 The subjunctive noverit depends on the ut in the previous verse. The word ecclesia here simply means "assembly" (not "church"). The use of quia to introduce indirect statement is non-classical.

17:48 David is in the accusative.

17:49 The word funda is in the ablative (fundâ).

17:50 Note that cum is not a preposition here; it goes with the subjunctive verb haberet, which takes gladium as its object. Note the participle-verb construction: percussum...interfecit which can be translated as verb-verb, "David struck and killed."

17:51 The word gladium goes with both tulit et eduxit. The use of sua here is non-classical; it refers not to the subject of the verb (David) but rather to Goliath. Note that Philisthim is a Hebrew plural, agreeing with the plural participle videntes and verb fugerunt. The use of quod to introduce indirect statement is non-classical.

[If you have questions that are not answered by the commentary or by checking the segmented / marked-up versions of the text, please send me a note - that would be very helpful in making these pages more useful for everyone.]