Tafsiri - Kilatini-Kiingereza - ii censebant gloriam Romae augere.Ancus cogitabat...

Hi (again) Aneta B

Two tiny corrections before I set a poll.

"He prayed for the well-being of the Roman people."

Bises
Tantine

You're absolutely right. I've edited.
It's nice work together with you;-)

Let's hope we work together lots then

I've set a poll because my Latin date from the same prehistorical period as my Ancient Greek

Bises
Tantine

<lol> I love your sens of humour.

"Ancus believed it was present on altars of gods" - where's "it" in Latin? Maybe the subject of the infinitive is Ancus...

I think you should consider the words semper and -que. And maybe aris is the subject of adesse.
You could say 'believed it to be present' instead of 'believed it was present' if you want a more literal translation.

Hi Aneta, Hi girls

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this evaluation but we have had some rather bad weather and it seriously affects my connection every time it rains

Efylove, do you mean that it should read more like:

"Ancus believed he was present on altars of gods"?

And Aneta, are you ok with mijra91's suggestions? If so, I will edit following the various remarks, then I will validate

Bises
Tantine

mirja91 wrote: 'You could say 'believed it to be present' instead of 'believed it was present' if you want a more literal translation'.

Well, unfortunetely, I don't agree. I is double accusative construction, so personal form is needed in translation.

Efylove, maybe you right and the subject is Ancus.
For me the subject default was 'gloria Romae':
it (=the glory of Rome) was always present on altars of gods.

But I have one more idea: Maybe it should be translated:

'Ancus believed he existed/lived for altars of gods'. - what means he was dedicated/devoted to gods.

« Ancus cogitabat aris semper deorumque adesse. »
In this state, sentence doesn't make sense to me. I suppose it could be: "Ancus cogitabat aris semper deorum adesse" = Ancus intended to be always present on altars of gods. But "cogitabat" might also be corrupted and some word in dat. after "deorumque" such as "sacris" be missing.

I agree with chronotribe. This part of the text isn't clear. So, we can translate it in lots of ways. Firstly, the subject can be Ancus and the glory of Rome as well. We should think hard what could be present on altars of gods? The man or the glory or sth else, what can be missing, as chronotribe sugessted?

Ancus believed it has always been present on the altars of the gods.

Hi, Aneta.
I'm taking care of this translation now due to Tantine's long absence.
What about: "Ancus believed being present on altars of gods"?

Thank you, Lilly. It is very nice you took care of it.
Hm, but we don't know what is the subject here, dear one. As chronotribe had noticed: "the sentence doesn't make sense", because of a lack of the subject. And we don't know whether author meant that Ancus was being on altars of gods or glory of Rome (from the previous sentence)...???
Probably sth is missing here... I don't know what we can do in this situation, my dear.

...and we would need some context to get know what is the subject. I was searching the text in the net, but unfortunately wasn't succeed.

That's why I suggested using the gerund here, since it suits any subject.

Well, yes, I know you meant that... I think we can do in this way indeed.

Thanks a lot!