Latin: adorarent (pl) versus adoraret (sg)?

[NaphtaliPress]

This Latin dictionary (Perseus) says
adorarent (adoro) verb 3rd pl imperf subj act
adoraret (adoro) verb 3rd sg imperf subj act
It seems one is plural and one singular. If a source uses one and a later citation puts the other, is that an error?

Here is the original:
[FONT=&quot]
Efficacius enim et plus movent, quae in oculos, quàm quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat et Hezekias populum monere, ne serpentem adorarent [orig.: adoraret], sed maluit confringere, et penitus è conspectu auferre, et rectius fecit[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Translation (using the later plural wording): [FONT=&quot]Those things affect more powerfully, and affect more, which fall upon the eyes than those which fell upon the ears. And so Hezekiah had been able to warn the people not to worship the serpent, but he preferred to break it in pieces and completely remove it from visibility.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is the difference due to what form to use with people?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[greenbaggins]

Yes, sometimes the singular can be used with a collective noun like "people." It doesn't affect the sense much. In Greek, and I believe this is true in Latin as well, sometimes plural neuter nouns take singular verbs, but I do not think that that is what is going on here. I'm actually surprised that the infinitive is not used here, as it would be the natural complement to monere. You translated it as if it were an infinitive, when in fact it should be more like "Hezekiah had been able to warn the people, that they not worship the serpent."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thanks Lane; I wouldn't know enough to make a translation; this was done by the translator who worked with me on the 1993 edition of George Gillespie's English Popish Ceremonies. Specifically it comes from [FONT=&quot]Thomas Naogeorgus (i.e. Kirchmeyer), In priman D. Ioannis Epistolam annotationes, quæ uice prolixi commentarij (n.p., 1544) 147r–147v. There is an example of this small volume at the Beinecke Rare Books & Manuscript Library, Yale University. They provided copies of the relevant pages so I could check for accuracy; hence my noting the change. It is a small work so maybe it also got paired with something else but I haven't seen other than the 1544 edition.
[/FONT]

 

[CharlieJ]

The singular seems correct. Populum is a singular collective noun, as Lane noted. In Latin, the choice of infinitive versus ut/ne clause with moneo is largely stylistic. Also, it is not necessary to translate using a noun clause. In English, the infinitive carries the meaning just fine and makes for smoother style.

However, it might be possible that someone was clarifying the text, including the plural so we would know for sure that the clause isn't referring to Hezekiah. I mostly read classical, so I'm not sure.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thanks; so would somethning like giving the original in brackets ([FONT=&quot]adorarent [adoraret])[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]simply be confusing or is it necessary? Would you want to know the word was changed over the original in this case?

The singular seems correct. Populum is a singular collective noun, as Lane noted. In Latin, the choice of infinitive versus ut/ne clause with moneo is largely stylistic. Also, it is not necessary to translate using a noun clause. In English, the infinitive carries the meaning just fine and makes for smoother style.

However, it might be possible that someone was clarifying the text, including the plural so we would know for sure that the clause isn't referring to Hezekiah. I mostly read classical, so I'm not sure.

 

[CharlieJ]

It depends on what your project is. Are you making a critical edition of the Latin text or are you making a translation, or both? If the Latin, I think you would leave the citation as you found it but note that it may be in error.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The Latin is quoted by the author but not translated (that is provided in this edition). I am tracing all quotations and have been noting variations from the source--usually typos but significant word order or different words (synonyms), etc. The question I guess is, is this a variation or a correction or what. I think maybe best to add the original in brackets noting the change from the source, particularly as it appears there is only one edition of the work cited.