1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Clientes salutationes faciun…

"Clientes salutationes faciunt."

Translation:The clients visit the patrons.

September 3, 2019



Where are the patrons in this sentence?


Possibly the blind leading the blind here, but I'll give it a go. It's part of the word salutatio


  • formal morning call paid by client on patron/Emperor

  • greeting, salutation


Declined form:

salutationes - (noun, plural, accusative, feminine, 3rd declension)

The plurals all appears to pick up an extra consonant - the "n" - during declension. I'm not sure why.


So, in the end, we end up with a sentence that could be translated to something like "The clients make a formal morning call to the patrons."

clientes - the clients (nominative, plural)

faciunt - make ( verb, third person, plural)


Third declension nouns:



So the patrons are there in the sentence, but visited, not greeted... Except the salutatio as a ceremony is poorly translated as greetings. The Paterfamilias was the head of the family, he was in charge not only of the economic affairs but also religious and an intra family law, like a family's judge.

The family, at least a large patricia family in the villa was larger than today's core family... today we would call that an extended family including not only parents and children, but also living grandparents, uncle and aunts, cousins, grand uncles and grand aunts, adopted members, etc. and all kind of dependent clients, including working libertos, and even slaves, all as part paterfamilias' patrimony for him to rule economically, judiciary and religious.

Si couldn't be a kind of ceremony, in this cae, rather than getting


villa reminiscent of downton abbey then


In other words, a typical Italian family. :)


Wiktionary gives:

  • a greeting, salutation

  • a ceremonial visit,

So, yes, there is the meaning of visit if it's "ceremonial visit", but it's not said that it's only a ceremonial visit to the patron. Can be someone else.

And can be a greeting, not a ceremonial visit.

Gaffiot translate "salutatio" first with "salutations, salut" in French, meaning a greeting.

And only as a second meaning, "hommage" (eng: homage)

An homage is an act of courtesy, it can be either being very ceremonious and polite, to show respect and honoring someone.

Or "Formal acknowledgment by a vassal of allegiance to his lord (..)" Here, it adds another meaning, without the idea of "visit":

  • homage

The link given by mreaderclt, talks about a ritual (ritual of respect). Greeting patrons every morning (a "morning ritual" they say)

There's no idea of visiting, they say that the cliens greeted the patron, that's all, no visits included, or they forgot to add it.

To greet someone, if it's a ritual and you need to make it every morning, either you know you will meet this person, and you wait, or you go to find this person to greet them (not the exact meaning of "visiting" for me)

So, that is yet another different meaning:

  • Ritual of greetings towards the patron, every morning.

The reason why I don't like their translation, 'visiting the patron" is that they added patron, where it can be an homage to someone else.
And they didn't included the respect anyway. And the respect and courtesy is a huge part in this definition, "visiting patrons" doesn't give this same idea in English. And as there is no mandatory visit or patrons, how would we translate alternative meanings in this case?

If we can use "salutation" to show respect and homage to someone who is not our patron, as an emperor (ok, it was considered as a kind of patron), a famous writer, an influent member of the family etc, I don't think they should add this word. And some dictionaries insist on the fact it's only a courtesy act.

For emperor, for us, we don't include it in the "patron" meaning, so another word in English would be better.

I know it's hard to translate, as it's a specific cultural thing, but in this case, why not translating with "homage", like Gaffiot, or keeping salutatio to be less confusing? (He makes salutatio)


The "n" comes from the accusative singular (salutationem) and stays there for the rest of the declension


@mreaderclt What do you mean by an extra "n"? Do you mean from salutatio to salutationis?


Yes, I think he's talking about the declension pattern in the 3rd decl., where there are nominatives singular that end in -o, but all the rest of the forms have an -n- before the endings (-is, -i, -em, -e sing., and -es, -um, -ibus plur).

It's quite striking that all our "tion" words (or -ción) are derived from feminine sing. 3rd decl. nouns of this type: natio, nationis, f., nation. opinio, opinionis, f., expectation, opinion.

There are many examples of words for people (males) with the "nomin. in -o, add -n- to form the other endings" pattern: Cicero, Ciceronis, m., the orator; homo, hominis, m., person, human being; caupo, cauponis, m., innkeeper, and so on.


All the "tion" words in English are from French (attention, caution, hospitalisation, rationalisation, libération, experimentation, etc...). I don't even know if there are some exception.

Sometimes the word changed a bit from French to English, being anglisized, like hospitalisation -> hospitalization. (this one is obvious, as the word hospital has been also borrowed, but some other words are not so obvious)

It's a thing that I use when I teach French to English speakers, if you know zero words of French, you can use the "-tion" words in French, it works 99% of the times, and it proves you already know French words though English.

Your comment is very interesting, and it makes me realize that Cicero in English is used from Cicero, nominative, but in French, Cicéron is used, from the genitive form.

When a word comes directly from Latin to English, it tends to keep the nominative form, I noticed.

And when the word comes from Latin to French, it uses the "n" form. And the French words were borrowed in English, it's probably what could explain that.

Same thing with Spanish -ción it kept the genitive form.


(Or call it the "oblique-case form," for the source of the -n- , since I think genitive case probably was lost pretty early, in the transition from Classical Latin to Romance--replaced by the "de + ablative" structure.

I would guess that the accusative took over in most instances, and once the final -m of the accusative was lost, it would have been indistinguishable from ablative, anyway.

Interesting that occasionally--maybe for "prestige" words?--something in French or Italian seems to come from the (3rd decl.) nominative singular, like "homme" and "uomo" (look closer to homo than to hominis, homini, hominem, homine). )


Looks to me like 'salutationes' means something like 'callings' or ' professional visits'.

My dictionary gives "salutatio -onis, f. greeting, salutation, a call, visit of ceremony."

Ancient Rome had a patron-client culture. And so in the context of 'the clients make visits of ceremony', it is implied that it is to patrons.


Yes, but can it be something else than professional?


Here's a thoughtco item on salutatio:


"In Ancient Rome, a Salutatio was the formal morning greeting of the Roman patron by his clients."

"The morning ritual was ... a fundamental part of Roman interactions between citizens of varying status."


The patron (person of importance) is suggested or assumed by the use of the word salutationes... since it is something specifically offered to patrons


I have not idea how to report the following. I entered "the clients visit the patron". Duo said I had a typo (patronS). But I guess my sentence would in Latin be: Clientes salutationem faciunt. (meaning: the clients all visit the same patron). Or am I missing something?


Patron and patrons: both are accepted now.

Patron singular or Patrons plural should be ok, because the patron or patrons is/are implied in the sentence and not even clearly mentioned.


"Accepted", as in "not dinged", but "patron" singular is still marked as a typo. I can see that the "clientes" are plural, and that their "salutationes" are plural, but whether they are all clients of the same patron, or all visiting their respective patrons, the context does not make clear. I assumed the former.


This is exactly what I came here to ask, for the same reason, it accepted patron but said I had a typo and should have put 'patrons.' How do we know then that all the clients are visiting different patrons and not the same one?


Since the noun "salutationes" is being used here, it seems illogical to insist on "visit" as the verb in translation; I said "The clients are greeting the patron." Why can't the morning visit to the patron be called "greeting" or "making a greeting" in addition to calling it "visiting" ?


I do agree. The visit is one of the possible meanings, it's not even the central idea, even with the ceremonial meaning.


That's a tough one: What is the difference between clients and patrons, because both of them mean "(paying) customers" (except in some languages, where "patron" means business' owner for some reason)?


Well, in this sentence (and perhaps in this course as a whole) when clients and patrons are mentioned it is not about paying customers. It is about social relationships in ancient Rome.

You could find more details online, for example, here: https://www.thoughtco.com/patrons-the-roman-social-structure-117908.


It was a relation of legal and economic dependance, not just two parts making a transaction, like a seller/supplier and a buyer/costumer, the latter we now call client. For example in cliente in Spanish is just a buyer

(although it is also used in politics, being a client somebody who depends on a party or politician who supplies subsidies and governmental jobs in exchange for votes. This is common, at least, in Latin America)


I offered, "The clients make visits to their patrons." I realize the possessive pronoun isn't there, but isn't that the point here, that these are patrons TO these clients? Would a client make this sort of visit to someone else's patron?


It should be accepted, as implied possessive were accepted in many other sentences.


I don't see why "The clients are visiting the patrons" is given as incorrect.


It shouldn't be. Report it. The databases are new. Not all possibilities have been put into the databases yet.


No mention of patrons or visiting, im confused.


Does anybody else think that there is something Godfatherish about this "Habemus patrem" business? I keep expecting a horse's head to land on the negotiating table.


"Padrone" being a derivative of patronus--yes!


There is no indication whether the clients have the same (singular) or different (plural) patrons, is there?


Perhaps we can assume that a bunch of clientes who have the same patron go as a body to perform the morning's greeting.


I wondered that, in which case perhaps they would all be making the same 'salutatio' which I suppose would then change to the accusative but remain singular.


So the word patron(s) is something tacit here?


Yes, it is implicit. I think technically "salutatio" is a formal visit made by a client on a patron or emperor, but I'm sure visiting patrons was much more common!


Is there a whole word (salutationes) that means 'visiting patrons'?


Yes, that is this one. But this word has several meanings. The comments on this page are interesting to read I think.


Why is "patrons" plural here? I would have expected the singular, because I imagine several clients turning up to pay their morning respects. I understand the plural construction, but it is contrived.


Why doesn't it accept "the clients make ceremonial visits"?


Or, "The clients greet the patron" ?


Surely "The clients visit the patron" (which is marked as a typo) should also be marked correct. Many clients can also visit one patron.


All this cultural context is nice, but the sentence says "salutationes," not "patron."


Clientes: nomin. plur of cliens, clientis, m., a client. (Clients were the "little guys" at Rome, dependent on a higher-status, more powerful figure for whom they did favors, and in whose interest they cast their votes, in return for his protection and support.)


IF they are visiting patrons, why don't they use the word" Patronus" as this in one of the new words to learn in New Vocabulary lesson 2. Confusing.


Because "to make 'salutationes'" is a very specific kind of formal visit that would ONLY be to patrons. It's more of a daily duty or an observance than just going to visit someone. There is no exact equivalent in English, because we simply don't have this ritual. I suppose the nearest thing would be if you have a regular morning meeting with the boss, at your place of work, but not everyone has this, and we don't have a special word for it anyway. So this is trying to teach you a new word for something the Romans routinely did, which we don't. The "patrons" bit is implied, because they would only have made this type of formal visit to someone of high status who was owed a duty - i.e. a patron.


Got it now - thank you for the explanation,


Clients make ceremonial visits. Seems OK to me.


Is there a way to know whether the clients visit one or multiple patrons?


TMI cerebro parvo meo


I translated faciunt as "go to." I avoided "visit" as it seems like it should require the verb "visitant"

Where have I gone wrong?


Faciunt is (literally) "they make" or "they do." What they're doing, in this sentence, is "the ceremonial visit to the patron(s) where they greet the great man and receive instructions as to their duties for the day."

But possibly the only acceptable translation, for Duolingo, is "The clients visit the patrons."


It doesn't seem to make sense. Salutatines means salutation or hello. Faciunt means makes?


It is explained in the response to the very first comment. Although it is a greeting, it can also mean a formal morning visit to the patron, to pay respects. There is no direct equivalent in the modern, English-speaking world, so the nearest equivalent is "to visit the patrons", but it isn't just any kind of visit, for fun, but a daily duty.


I got it right because I just got a similar question wrong, but the way they're interpreting it is misleading. And by "interpreting" I mean just that. It's an interpretation, not a translation.


I thought I knew what a patron was before I read this page. Now it sounds to me like a synonym for paterfamilias. Please can someone explain in a bit more detail what the latin word patron means without using the (to me) confusing word patron in English. Thanks for your help.


Hi, Dawn. Wikipedia has an article "Patronage in Ancient Rome".


I think it says the clients make greetings, which might imply the patrons are there too, but doesn't say so!


Using the vocabulary lists provided, I came up with, "The clients make ceremonial visits." This was signalled as incorrect, but I cannot see why.


"The clients make ceremonial visits to the patron" wasn't right either.


Could this also be translated as: "The clients make ceremonial visits?" (in lieu of visits to patrons)


Confusion much? Quaeso, Duolingo... a previous explanation or tip would provide the context. Otherwise, the literal translation would be "The clients make greetings?"


Is it 1 patron or many being visited?


Is it 1 patron or many being visited?

I don't think the Latin sentence lets us tell.

They might all be clients of the same patron, or you might be talking about clients of different patrons, each of whom would visit their own patron.


La traduction donnée est beaucoup olé-olé, on peut très bien faire des salutations à Cicéron sans qu'il soit notre patron! C'est du latin capitaliste!


What happened to "patronas"?


Do we have any reason to think there were female patrons?

I can answer my own question: Catullus asks a deity (either a Muse, or maybe one of the Graces) to ensure immortality for his little book of poems:

Quārē habē tibi quidquid hoc libellī, / quālecumque; quod, <ō> patrōna virgō, / plūs ūnō maneat perenne saeclō.

"Therefore, take for yourself this whatever-it-is of a little book, of whatever sort [it may be]; so that, o patron maid, it may endure everlasting for more than one age." (Catullus 1. 8-10)

One thinks of a Muse, of course, as a kind of "patron" for poets; but the editors (Arnold, Aronson, Lawall) of the Love and Betrayal volume of Catullus point out that Catullus' model, Callimachus, addressed a similar sentiment to the Graces: "Come now and wipe your anointed hands on my elegies so that they may last for many a year" (Aetia I fragment 7, lines 13-14; quoted on p. 23 of Love and Betrayal).

The odd bracketing in the Catullus line shows that the interjection ō has been added by modern editors to make sense of a line that was 'messed up' in the manuscripts.


Female patronus is matrona :) Maybe.


Probably very rare and without formal recognition as such. But St Paul uses a Greek equivalent word to describe Phoebe as a προστάτις (prostatis) which can be translated in Latin as patronus. (Romans 16:2)


There is no patron (or are no Patton’s) in the Latin.


What word indicates patron?


It doesn't, but "making salutationes" is a formality clients would only do in relation to a patron, so it's implicit that it must be.


Thanks, Tina [in Bristol]


The whole nexus of associations sparked by the word clientes does.


Impossible! Must be wrong!


I think this is in error.


I think this is in error.

What is "this"? What is the complete sentence you are referring to?

Where is the error? Which part of it do you think is wrong? Why is that wrong? What do you think it should be instead?

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