Genesis 19:9

Posted on January 19, 2006 by Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Gn 19:9 At illi dixerunt: Recede illuc. Et rursus: Ingressus es, inquiunt, ut advena; numquid ut iudices? te ergo ipsum magis quam hos affligemus. Vimque faciebant Lot vehementissime: iamque prope erat ut effringerent fores.

But they said: “Go away there.” And again they said: “You have come in as a stranger; will you really act as a judge? Therefore we will deal worse with you than with these.” And they pressed violently upon Lot, and were already near to breaking down the doors.

# Latin Gloss Grammar Tag
1 At but CONJ
2 illi they NOM.PL.M.PRON
3 dixerunt said 3PL.PERF.ACT.IND
4 Recede go away / withdraw 2SG.PRES.ACT.IMP
5 illuc there / over there ADV
6 Et and CONJ
7 rursus again ADV
8 Ingressus having entered NOM.SG.M.PERF.PASS.PTCP (DEPONENT)
9 es you have 2SG.PRES.ACT.IND (AUX)
10 inquiunt they say 3PL.PRES.ACT.IND
11 ut as / in order to CONJ
12 advena stranger / sojourner NOM.SG.M.NOUN
13 numquid is it that / surely not INTERROG.PART
14 ut that / as CONJ
15 iudices you judge 2SG.PRES.ACT.SUBJ
16 te you / yourself ACC.SG.PRON
17 ergo therefore ADV
18 ipsum yourself ACC.SG.M.INTENS.PRON
19 magis more / rather ADV.COMPAR
20 quam than CONJ.COMP
21 hos these ACC.PL.M.DEM.PRON
22 affligemus we will harm / afflict 1PL.FUT.ACT.IND
23 Vimque and force ACC.SG.F.NOUN+CONJ
24 faciebant they were applying / doing 3PL.IMPF.ACT.IND
25 Lot Lot DAT.SG.M
26 vehementissime most violently ADV.SUPERL
27 iamque and already ADV
28 prope near ADV
29 erat was 3SG.IMPF.ACT.IND
30 ut that / so that CONJ
31 effringerent they might break down 3PL.IMPF.ACT.SUBJ
32 fores doors ACC.PL.F.NOUN

Syntax

Main Clause 1: At illi dixerunt — The adversative conjunction At marks a sharp contrast: “But they said.” Subject illi refers to the men outside Lot’s house.
Direct Speech 1: Recede illuc — Imperative command, “Go away there!” expressing hostility.
Direct Speech 2: Ingressus es ut advena; numquid ut iudices? — Compound speech with sarcastic tone: “You have entered as a stranger; will you also judge?” The subjunctive iudices implies rhetorical doubt.
Result Clause: te ergo ipsum magis quam hos affligemus — The adverb magis quam expresses comparison: “we will harm you more than these.”
Subsequent Action: Vimque faciebant Lot vehementissime — The imperfect shows continuous action: “they were pressing violently against Lot.”
Final Clause: iamque prope erat ut effringerent fores — The phrase “erat ut” introduces a near-result clause: “they were already close to breaking down the doors.” The subjunctive effringerent marks potential action on the verge of happening.

Morphology

  1. At — Lemma: at; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: adversative coordinating; Function: marks contrast with prior discourse; Translation: “but”; Notes: Stronger adversative than “autem,” signaling a sharp turn in tone.
  2. illi — Lemma: ille; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: nominative plural masculine; Function: subject of “dixerunt”; Translation: “they”; Notes: Deictic, pointing to the hostile townsmen.
  3. dixerunt — Lemma: dico; Part of Speech: verb; Form: perfect active indicative, third person plural; Function: main verb introducing speech; Translation: “said”; Notes: Aoristic perfect narrating a completed utterance.
  4. Recede — Lemma: recedo; Part of Speech: verb; Form: present active imperative, second person singular; Function: direct command; Translation: “go away / withdraw”; Notes: Abrupt dismissal revealing hostility.
  5. illuc — Lemma: illuc; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: indeclinable of direction; Function: complements motion implied by “recede”; Translation: “over there”; Notes: Deictic adverb indicating distance.
  6. Et — Lemma: et; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: coordinating; Function: links successive speech acts; Translation: “and”; Notes: Simple connective escalating the exchange.
  7. rursus — Lemma: rursus; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: indeclinable; Function: marks repetition; Translation: “again”; Notes: Signals renewed or continued taunt.
  8. Ingressus — Lemma: ingredior; Part of Speech: participle (deponent); Form: nominative singular masculine, perfect; Function: predicate with “es”; Translation: “having entered”; Notes: Deponent participle with active sense, characterizing Lot.
  9. es — Lemma: sum; Part of Speech: auxiliary verb; Form: present indicative, second person singular; Function: completes periphrastic perfect with “Ingressus”; Translation: “you have”; Notes: Forms the perfect “you have entered.”
  10. inquiunt — Lemma: inquam; Part of Speech: verb; Form: present active indicative, third person plural; Function: parenthetic quotative; Translation: “they say”; Notes: Formulaic verb interjected in direct speech.
  11. ut — Lemma: ut; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: comparative/role; Function: introduces predicate role; Translation: “as”; Notes: Here not purposive; equals “in the capacity of.”
  12. advena — Lemma: advena; Part of Speech: noun; Form: nominative singular masculine; Function: predicate nominative with “Ingressus es”; Translation: “a stranger”; Notes: Highlights Lot’s outsider status.
  13. numquid — Lemma: numquid; Part of Speech: interrogative particle; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces a rhetorical question expecting “no”; Translation: “surely (not)?”; Notes: Conveys scornful incredulity.
  14. ut — Lemma: ut; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: modal/comparative; Function: introduces predicative role; Translation: “as / to act as”; Notes: Sets up “iudices” as proposed role.
  15. iudices — Lemma: iudico; Part of Speech: verb; Form: present active subjunctive, second person singular; Function: main verb of rhetorical question; Translation: “you judge”; Notes: Subjunctive gives potential/ironic nuance (“would you be judging?”).
  16. te — Lemma: tu; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: accusative singular; Function: direct object of “affligemus”; Translation: “you”; Notes: Object shifted to Lot as target of violence.
  17. ergo — Lemma: ergo; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: inferential; Function: marks conclusion from mock accusation; Translation: “therefore”; Notes: Moves from taunt to threat.
  18. ipsum — Lemma: ipse; Part of Speech: intensive pronoun; Form: accusative singular masculine; Function: intensifies “te”; Translation: “yourself”; Notes: Heightens focus on Lot as victim.
  19. magis — Lemma: magis; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: comparative; Function: degree modifier with “quam”; Translation: “more”; Notes: Sets comparative severity of intended harm.
  20. quam — Lemma: quam; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: comparative; Function: introduces second term of comparison; Translation: “than”; Notes: Pairs with “magis” to compare Lot vs. guests.
  21. hos — Lemma: hic; Part of Speech: demonstrative pronoun; Form: accusative plural masculine; Function: object of comparison; Translation: “these”; Notes: Refers to the visiting men inside.
  22. affligemus — Lemma: affligo; Part of Speech: verb; Form: future active indicative, first person plural; Function: main verb of threat; Translation: “we will afflict / harm”; Notes: Explicit escalation to violence.
  23. Vimque — Lemma: vis + -que; Part of Speech: noun + enclitic conjunction; Form: accusative singular feminine + “and”; Function: object with “faciebant”; Translation: “and (they applied) force”; Notes: Enclitic joins to following action, emphasizing violence.
  24. faciebant — Lemma: facio; Part of Speech: verb; Form: imperfect active indicative, third person plural; Function: descriptive past action; Translation: “they were applying / doing”; Notes: Imperfect portrays sustained pressure.
  25. Lot — Lemma: Lot; Part of Speech: proper noun; Form: dative singular masculine; Function: dative of disadvantage/indirect object; Translation: “against Lot / to Lot”; Notes: Indicates the target of the force.
  26. vehementissime — Lemma: vehementer; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: superlative; Function: modifies “faciebant”; Translation: “most violently”; Notes: Superlative intensifies brutality.
  27. iamque — Lemma: iamque; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: temporal compound; Function: marks imminence; Translation: “and already”; Notes: Signals action approaching a breaking point.
  28. prope — Lemma: prope; Part of Speech: adverb; Form: indeclinable; Function: degree of nearness; Translation: “near / almost”; Notes: Sets up the “erat ut” near-result idiom.
  29. erat — Lemma: sum; Part of Speech: verb; Form: imperfect active indicative, third person singular; Function: copula in idiom “erat ut”; Translation: “was”; Notes: Backgrounds the imminent result.
  30. ut — Lemma: ut; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: result/purpose marker; Function: introduces near-result clause; Translation: “that (so that)”; Notes: With “erat,” denotes action about to occur.
  31. effringerent — Lemma: effringo; Part of Speech: verb; Form: imperfect active subjunctive, third person plural; Function: verb of near-result clause; Translation: “they might break down”; Notes: Subjunctive marks contemplated but not yet realized action.
  32. fores — Lemma: foris (pl. “fores”); Part of Speech: noun; Form: accusative plural feminine; Function: direct object of “effringerent”; Translation: “doors”; Notes: The house doors—focus of the mob’s assault.

 

About Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Born around 346 A.D. in Stridon, St. Jerome was a scholar fluent in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew whose ascetic discipline and deep engagement with Scripture prepared him for a monumental task: translating the Bible into Latin. Commissioned by Pope Damasus I around 382 A.D., Jerome began by revising the flawed Old Latin Gospels, then expanded his work to the entire Bible. For the New Testament, he corrected Latin texts using Greek manuscripts; for the Old Testament, he translated most books directly from Hebrew—a controversial but principled choice. His final Psalter, however, followed the Greek Septuagint tradition for liturgical use. This composite translation, later known as the Vulgate (editio vulgata), became the authoritative biblical text of the Western Church, formally endorsed at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Vulgate’s influence extends beyond theology into textual criticism and Latin education. As one of the earliest translations grounded in original-language scholarship, it offers a vital witness to the state of biblical texts in late antiquity. Jerome’s lexical and syntactic decisions are studied to trace manuscript history and assess variant readings. Its elegant Latin, consistent in grammar and rich in vocabulary, became a model for medieval and Renaissance learning, bridging classical and ecclesiastical Latin. More than a translation, the Vulgate helped define Christian doctrine, preserved the Latin language, and laid essential groundwork for the critical study of Scripture—remaining indispensable to students of Latin, theology, and textual history.
This entry was posted in Genesis. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.