Joe Ireland's answer:

I don't have a copy of your textbook, Davona, but the context would suggest that the author is trying to teach the use of pronouns. Your sentence contains only one verb, but three different subjects (hic, ille and alius) for that verb....

The exposition on pronouns then probably tells you that you can translate the masculine nominative pronouns as:

• hic: this man
• ille: that man
• alius: another man

Put all that together, and I think that you will work out the translation of the sentence.

"Neuter" takes the singular just as "Neither" does in English. See PR 4 back in Chapter 9 for another example.

"SolI" has to go with the word it modifies, "IstI". "Only those jerks..." or "Those creeps alone...." It can't be an adverb, since the adverbial form is "solum".

Never let verbs sit next to each other; they'll plot to take over your sentence.

Igitur can be tucked in anywhere there's room for it -- i.e., anywhere that doesn't put it between a word and its modifier, or two parts of an idiom like "gratias ago" (you were quite right about that.) It is more often found early in the sentence, but it doesn't absolutely have to be right up front.

Brandon Mason's answer:

The sentence comes off a little weird/ambiguous, something like:

If you will lead me, Muse, I will capture the crown with great glory.

Meredith's answer:

David's answer:

We can work out that "tempus" is not meant to be accusative, because "fugO" is not a transitive verb. If there were a "he" doing the fleeing *from* time, then "time" would have to be either dative or ablative -- I think ablative, based on what we've read in Wheelock's so far.

Since it *is* "tempus" and not "tempore", we know that the noun must be either nominative or accusative, and to have the accusative when the verb is intransitive makes no sense. So the simplest reading is that "tempus" is nominative, and the subject of the sentence.

Sebastian's answer:

First, I should mention that the verb in question is 'fugio, -ere', a verb of the mixed conjugation, and not 'fugo, -are', a verb of the first conjugation; I , but I think needs to be pointed out to avoid confusion. In fact, the latter does exist in Latin, and it means 'to chase away' and is transitive verb. ('Fugit' is not a part of 'fugo', so it must be from 'fugio', and, in fact, represents the 3rd person singular present. Note that 'fugit' is a form of the perfect tense as well, except that the 'u' is lengthened in the perfect, i.e., fUgit, whereas the present has a short 'u'. Ordinarily the two are indistinguishable in prose, but for the fact the Wheelock indicates vowel length explicitly.)

David is right in saying that 'fugio, -ere' is an intransitive verb meaning 'to flee', and, typically takes the ablative, e.g., oppido fugio 'I flee from the town'. (The prepositions 'ab' and 'ex' are also common: fugere ex proelio, 'to escape from the battle'; fugere a templo, 'to run away from the temple'.)

However, 'fugio' is also a transitive verb, meaning 'to flee from or avoid'. For example, patriam fugio = 'I flee from the fatherland' (or possibly, 'am exiled from'); laborem fugere = to avoid work. The transitive use of 'fugio' is by no means uncommon.

Hence, 'fugio' can be used both transitively and intransitively; we must decide which is the case. To say that 'fugio' is intransitive, hence 'tempus' in 'tempus fugit' must be nominative is probably leaping to a conclusion, although, in this case, the right one. Nonetheless, to glibly say that 'fugio' is intransitive is probably oversimplifying matters.

What Meredith said was correct: in general, we must use context to help us determine which of several possible interpretations is meant. As I exhorted in a previous post, do not approach a sentence with a preconceived notion of the syntax or grammar of the sentence. For instance, if you have it fixed in your mind that 'tempus' is accusative or that 'fugit' is transitive before analysing the entire sentence your mind is already closed to a portion of the possible interpretations. Neither should you approach the sentence with the notion that 'tempus' is nominative and 'fugit' intransitive, even though this is the case for this sentence. Instead, be flexible about the grammatical interpretation of each element of the sentence, considering each possibility based on the semantic context.

David's answer:

I read this "illa" as a nominative-case neuter substantive: "these things". The specific things being referred to are the ones in the first half of the sentence, that some prefer to friendship: money, a healthy body, fame and glory, pleasure.