(phi0448.phi001.perseus-lat2) typos

[johnsonb2]

2.22.1: "delectusque" should be "deiectusque"?
2.24.4: "tunditores" should be "funditores"?

[lcerrato]

delectusque is in the print (although marked as spurious)
https://archive.org/details/ciulicaesarisco00caesgoog/page/n166/mode/2up

funditores is the correct reading

[lcerrato]

25.1: "prolectus" should be "profectus"
30.4: "mallibus" should be "manibus"
33.2: "accensus" should be "ascensus"

[lcerrato]

https://archive.org/details/ciulicaesarisco00caesgoog/page/n168/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/ciulicaesarisco00caesgoog/page/n174/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/ciulicaesarisco00caesgoog/page/n176/mode/2up

[lcerrato]

leave open as standing issue for future typos

[johnsonb2]

4.2.3: "adsue fecerunt" should be "adsuefecerunt"
4.4.5: "regiones" should be "regionesque"
4.6.2: "quas" should be "quae"
4.14.5: "eum" should be "cum"
4.15.1: "eum" should be "cum"
4.15.2: "eum" should be "cum"
4.17.3: remove period after "sesquipedalia"
4.23.5: remove "D" from "ad nutum et ad tempus D omnes..."
English:
4.17: "dike a stake" should be "like a stake"
4.21: "Caius Volusenus" should be "Gaius Volusenus"? (if this is not intentional)

[lcerrato]

NB Two of the above are in phi0448.phi001.perseus-eng2.xml

4.21 Caius Volusenus— stet

[lcerrato]

fixed most recent report

[johnsonb2]

5.5 English: "There he discovers that forty ships..." translating LX as "forty" and not "sixty" as on page 239 here: https://archive.org/details/gallicwar00caes/page/238/mode/2up

[lcerrato]

@johnsonb2
Both LX and XL are attested. It is not uncommon for the Perseus English to not match the original language since we do not always use translations from the same volume as the primary editions.

See https://www.google.com/books/edition/C_Julii_Cæsaris_commentarii_de_bello_Ga/WL1XAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Ibi+cognoscit+XL+naves%22&pg=PA103&printsec=frontcover

A note can be added to the English to avoid the confusion, but this is a variant.

[johnsonb2]

OK, good to know. Is that the source of the English translation?

[lcerrato]

No, the translation is linked via the Perseus Catalog (the left hand sidebar)
https://catalog.perseus.org/catalog/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0448.phi001.perseus-eng1

It says in the front matter it is Oudendorf. Here is one printing:
https://archive.org/details/workslatin1819cj00caes/page/106/mode/2up

[johnsonb2]

5.6.1: "magri" should be "magni"
5.11.9: "praefeceraut" should be "praefecerant"
5.13.1: "mila" should be "milia"(?)
5.24.7: "im" should be "in"
5.25.2: "onera" should be "opera"
5.25 (English) "...many even of his own state being openly promoters [of that
act]" missing period
5.26.4: "Tum suo more conclamaverunt, uti aliqui ex nostris ad colloquium
prodiret: ...": The verb "prodiret" is in the singular, but the English
translation is in the plural ("prodirent variant" from Oudendorf?).
5.37 (English): missing period at end
5.48 (English): "Is by chance stuck in a tower..."

[lcerrato]

note phi0448.phi001.perseus-eng2 also referenced here

[johnsonb2]

From now on should I open a separate issue for phi0448.phi001.perseus-eng2?

[lcerrato]

If there are going to be a substantial number in the other text, then it should have its own issue or I'll change the name of this issue.

[johnsonb2]

7.14.4: "deligi" should be "deleri"(?)
7.16.3: "Omnis" should be "Omnes"
7.19: "Gaesar" should be "Caesar"
7.43: "fatrumque" should be "fratrumque"(?)