"The wind violently blows through and the fire destroys the ancient bridge."
Translation:Ventus vehementer perflat et ignis pontem antiquum delet.
My understanding of the word "blows through" in Latin, perflare, is per (through) + whatever flare means, and so I believe the wind blows (through) is separate from the fire destroying the bridge. However, I could be wrong.
I also think that if they wanted us to communicate that the wind was blowing through the bridge and the fire was destroying it, I believe we should use ipsum or something similar to it to indicate we're still talking about the bridge, much like how we use "it" in English. Just the thoughts of a curious person, though, nothing authoritative.
It's probably a better sentence if you construe it as two separate clauses (though normally, in Latin, you'd get some way of connecting the two that's a little more interesting / consequential than "et" ).
I was assuming that the ancient bridge was the direct object of both verbs.
This is at least possible: Vergil uses perflat transitively, anyway :
ac venti, velut agmine facto, / qua data porta, ruunt et terras turbine perflant. (Aen. I. 82-83) "and the winds, as if a battle line had been made, rush out where a door was given and blast the lands with a whirlwind." (It's on the AP Latin syllabus and very familiar for that reason!)
Yeah, I thought it was the direct object of both verbs at first and I tried to write it that way. But I couldn't figure out how. So I just did it the best I could and figured I'd get it wrong and learn how. I did get it wrong, but when I saw the Latin I thought, "Hmm ... it appears to be the direct object of just the second verb." And I'm still not exactly sure how it works. But I'm moving on. All things will be made clear some day.
Could someone explain why on most other occasions the word combination: "per and "perflat" is used when translating the words "blows through" except in this case, when only perflat is used. Other than "the fact" that it reads and looks incredibly clumsy. As, dare I say, does the whole sentence (at least in English) Thanks
I think they were expecting that the preposition per would control an object (which, for this preposition, has to be in the accusative case).
If they intended to say that "The wind blows through the bridge and destroys it," they would probably accept: Ventus per pontem perflat atque eum dēlet .
(I'm not sure if that answers your question.)
Well, this one tripped me up again today since I could not remember how they wanted it phrased. What bothers me is that sometimes the exercises require the use of per with perflat and sometimes they forbid it. Is there a reason, or are the required answers inconsistent? The only thing I can figure here is that maybe because there are two agents at work, the wind and the fire, including per would be awkward. But this is just a guess.