Revision Checklist for Latin Composition

Revision turns a translated draft into a Latin composition. Trying to check every feature at once is unreliable: an elegant word order can hide a wrong case, and a correct ending can belong to the wrong construction. The practical solution is a sequence of passes, each asking one kind of question.

This checklist targets controlled Classical prose (formal/literary). It distinguishes productive syntax from poetic compression (poetic) and later developments such as broadly expanded quod clauses (later/medieval). Not every sentence should sound Ciceronian, but every sentence should survive the structural passes before stylistic polish begins.

Pass 1: predicate and clause architecture

Underline every finite verb. For each independent clause, identify its main predicate; for each subordinate or reported proposition, name the construction that carries it. Then record the predicate's government: which participant is nominative, which case marks each complement, and whether content appears as an infinitive, ut clause, question, or participial unit. The drafting method is developed in Choose the Main Verb First.

The frame is not English ORDER + direct object + infinitive. Classical imperō takes the person commanded in the dative, mīlitibus, and the command as ut plus subjunctive, trānsīrent. Once that frame is correct, individual endings can be checked intelligently.

Here a verb of saying introduces accusative-and-infinitive: hostēs is accusative subject of appropinquāre. Do not insert ut or copy English “that” with quod merely because the English prompt contains a conjunction.

Pass 2: case, agreement, and forms

Label the case and function of every noun, pronoun, and adjective. Check agreement in gender, number, and case; then verify declension and conjugation forms. Agreement is not merely matching visible endings: forms from different declensions can agree without looking alike.

Feminine accusative singular hanc and gravem agree with condiciōnem, though -anc, -em, and -em are not one uniform ending. Senātus is nominative singular despite its fourth-declension -ūs.

Then inspect prepositions and place expressions. Motion to a city is normally a bare accusative, while motion toward an ordinary common noun generally uses a preposition:

The absence of ad before Rōmam is structural, not accidental. A revision pass should catch both an unnecessary preposition and a missing required one.

Pass 3: tense, mood, and sequence

Draw a timeline. Check whether each tense expresses time relative to the speaker, the main verb, or another infinitive/participle. Then inspect every subjunctive trigger and, where applicable, primary or historic sequence.

Primary imperat regularly introduces present subjunctive maneant for contemporaneous or subsequent action; historic imperāvit regularly introduces imperfect manērent. Repraesentātiō and authorial shifts exist (literary), but they should be recognized choices, not accidental mixtures.

For indirect statement, check relative time: present infinitive simultaneous, perfect prior, future subsequent.

Future ventūrum esse is subsequent to past dīxit. The reflexive sē points back to the reported speaker; a nominative ille would not be the infinitive's subject.

Pass 4: reference and recoverability

Draw arrows from pronouns, reflexives, relative pronouns, and possessives to their antecedents. Ask whether an omitted subject or object is uniquely recoverable. Latin omits neutral subjects freely, but it does not reward ambiguity.

In this purpose-like object clause, sēcum can refer back to the subject of the introducing verb, Lucia. If Julia was meant to come with some third woman, use an explicit noun or nonreflexive phrase. Revision must test intended reference rather than assuming every English “her” has one Latin equivalent.

The object eum is explicit. In the tighter Mārcus Quīntum vīdit et salūtāvit, both coordinated verbs can share Quīntum; after a subject change, however, the object should usually be restored.

Pass 5: idiom and English interference

Now compare the Latin with the intended meaning, not with the English word sequence. Check verb government, collocation, and register. Remove article-like demonstratives and neutral first- or second-person pronouns; replace English light-verb phrases with Latin predicates.

The idiomatic verb cōnstituit replaces a literal “made a decision.” It takes complementary proficīscī. A composition dictionary is useful only if its cited construction fits the period and meaning; a cognate-looking noun is not evidence of an idiomatic phrase.

Mark lexical uncertainty honestly. There is no universal logic that predicts whether a Latin verb governs accusative, dative, ablative, or a prepositional phrase. Verify the entry and record the whole frame for future use.

Pass 6: information structure and connection

Read the Latin without looking at the prompt. Identify the current topic, new focus, contrast, and logical relation between sentences. Place given material early when appropriate and reserve a forceful final position for a predicate or contrastive constituent when the discourse supports it. Then check postpositive particles such as autem and enim.

Itaque states consequence. If the second clause instead explained why we returned, postpositive enim would point backward:

Both describe the same facts, but their argumentative direction differs. Revision must preserve the intended relation, not merely alternate connectives for variety.

Pass 7: concision, balance, and sound

Only after the previous passes should you compress repeated material, balance cola, avoid accidental ambiguity, and listen for cadence. Remove words whose information survives in endings or context, but keep necessary connectives and referents. In elevated prose, scan important boundaries for an unobtrusive clausula; do not damage syntax to obtain one.

The ablative absolute concisely backgrounds reception of the message. It is preferable only if that hierarchy matches the intended meaning. A finite postquam clause may be clearer when temporal sequence itself is disputed or emphasized.

Read the final draft aloud twice: once slowly for vowel quantity and morphology, once at a natural rhetorical pace for clause boundaries. This catches repeated sounds, overloaded constituents, and sentences that work on paper but cannot be delivered intelligibly.

Worked prompt 1: command and sequence

English prompt: “The commander ordered the soldiers to cross the river before nightfall.”

Architecture: main imperāvit; recipient mīlitibus in the dative; commanded action ut ... trānsīrent. Morphology: historic sequence calls for imperfect subjunctive. Lexicon: ante noctem gives a clear deadline, “before night.” Order: place the goal immediately before its verb, keeping the command frame easy to hear.

The sentence has no expressed Latin equivalent of English “the.” Nothing is lost; both nouns are identified by their roles and context.

Worked prompt 2: time and reported speech

English prompt: “When Caesar had arrived, the envoys reported to him that the citizens had opened the gates.”

Architecture: circumstantial cum clause plus main nūntiāvērunt plus indirect statement. Time: advēnisset is prior to the report; perfect infinitive aperuisse is prior within reported content. Participants: eī is dative recipient “to him”; accusative cīvēs is subject of the infinitive and portās its object.

The two perfect-stem forms do not express the same grammatical relation: pluperfect subjunctive situates the cum circumstance; perfect infinitive expresses anteriority to the reporting verb.

A deliberately literal draft, revised

Prompt: “The general gave an order to the soldiers that they should remain in the camp.”

The correction begins with imperō. Its government supplies dative mīlitibus and ut with historic-sequence imperfect subjunctive manērent. The subjunctive already presents the commanded action; dēbērent would change the proposition to obligation rather than express the command cleanly.

A compact final checklist

Common Mistakes

1. Checking endings without checking government

2. Mixing sequence mechanically

3. Using a nonreflexive reported subject

4. Preserving English articles and pronouns

5. Polishing rhythm before repairing syntax

Key Takeaways

Revise from structure outward. Predicate government and clause architecture come first; forms, relative time, and reference follow; idiom and information flow come next; concision and rhythm come last. Each pass asks a limited question, making errors visible instead of letting a fluent English prompt dictate the Latin sentence.