1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Gladiatores pugnare debent."

"Gladiatores pugnare debent."

Translation:Gladiators should fight.

August 30, 2019



I have "The gladiators should fight", and this was marked wrong.

I think I could have said this sentence when I was at the Colosseum back many lives ago, watching the gladiators who were there, and unhappy with their lack of fighting spirit. Since I was talking about specific gladiators, the sentence with the definite article should be correct.

What do you think? Should I report it or am I overlooking something? Thanks! :-)


I agree - definite articles are intrinsic to the Latin noun so should be an option.


Either (no article or "the") should be a correct translation, as we are without context here.


However, Gladiators is capitalized signaling that it should go at the beggining of the sentence


If there is any ambiguity about who is the subject, the subject should go first. So your answer is correct


there is a translation mistake; the gladiators have to fight. It is not conditional. this verb imply obligation.


But is it a strong or a weak one? Because, in French, you have sentences where "should" could be translated with devrait (devoir, conditional) and other ones with doit (devoir, indicative present).


Couldn't this also be "They have to fight gladiators", since gladiātōrēs is both the nominative and the accusative plural?

EDIT as pointed about my mosfet07 below, pugnō is only intransitive unlike "fight" which can be intransitive or transitive. So it's only possible for gladiātōrēs to be nominative in this instance.


Unlike English, this verb is intransitive in Latin, which means that it cannot take a direct object and must be used with a preposition ("cum gladiatoribus"). So the answer is no.


I figured it might be something like this, it's always interesting to see how details differ from one language to another. Thanks for pointing this out.


Cum is only used in the sense of together with... A living creature.


Again, need a different sense of verb "debeo" than just should, such as "ought to, am obliged to, am bound to" etc.


You should...sorry, ought to stop leaving the same comment on every question with debeo. Report it and move on.


There is a case for all of these options, but they all fall on the spectrum of degrees of obligation without the force of compulsion. The only verbs that have the element of compulsion are "to have to" and "must", and of those "must" is probably the stronger.

It is possible to say: "I should go, but I must stay" with no confusion. "Although I am obliged to go, I must remain" is also possible, I feel, because "to be obliged to" does not contain the ultimate force, necessity and compulsion of "must".


So, how "should" could be translated in Latin, with a weak obligation, or something that is preferable to do.

And how "must"?


To me, "should" denotes personal agency... the person should do something, but has the agency and freedom to choose not to.

That does not at all reflect a "debeo" level of obligation.


Why "should"? I tought it should be "must" or "have to". From my portuguese (a latinian language, btw) background, it seems to me that "debent" means a strong compulsion, an obligation. To me, the sentence would translate as "Gladiators must fight".


It should be "the gladiators must fight." It's not like they have a choice.


Right. They Have to fight.


Are you not entertained??


I understood that reference! ;o)


When do I use the "are" ending?


That ending is for the infinitive form of the verb. Since "fight" is sort of a "secondary" verb after "must," it's an infinitive, so we use the infinitive "pugnare."

Related Discussions

Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.