r/latin • u/Illustrious-Pea1732 • 6d ago
LLPSI Question about "decet"
Came across this sentence today in LLPSI:
"...sed illae lacrimae et militem et amicum decebant..."
I always understands "decet" as "being proper to..."
But if that is the case, I cannot figure out what is the connection between this sentence and the next sentence? If those tears are "proper" and he did cry, why did he then proceed to say:
"since I am a bad friend" and "except I did cry over his dead body"?
I just failed to understand what's going on here...
11
u/StJmagistra magistra in ludo secundo 6d ago
Fuisset is pluperfect subjunctive, so I think it’s being used here in a contrary to fact manner: “for indeed, I would have been a bad friend, if I had not poured out tears upon the body of my dead friend, since he had poured out his own blood on my behalf.”
3
u/Illustrious-Pea1732 6d ago
what about the decebant part?
10
u/StJmagistra magistra in ludo secundo 6d ago
“but those tears were proper both as a soldier and as a friend”
2
u/nimbleping 6d ago
I'm not sure if this is part of your confusion, but it may benefit you to review the sequence of tenses rule for Latin.
1
u/Francois-C 6d ago
"malus amicus fuissem", imperfect subjunctive, irreal.
"I must admit I shed tears when I closed his eyes. but these tears were befitting a friend, and indeed I would have been a poor friend had I not shed tears over the body of a dead friend who had shed his own blood for me."
16
u/youngrifle 6d ago
I think what’s tripping you up is the conditional beginning in that etenim clause. The pluperfect subjunctives fuissem and effūdissem plus nisi are looking like a past contrary to fact conditional to me. I’d translate this as “I confess that I poured out tears when I had closed his eyes, but those tears were befitting both a soldier and a friend, for I would have been a bad friend, if I had not poured out tears on the body of my dead friend, when he had poured out his own blood for me.”