Using Participial Phrases
Remember that participles are verbal adjectives. As verbs, the active participles can have direct objects (e.g., servus omnia parā ns [“the slave getting everything ready”]; servus omnia parā tū rus [“the slave about to get everything ready”]). The passive participles can have ablatives of means or agent to show who or what was responsible for the deed (e.g., mī les sagittā vulnerā tus [“the soldier wounded by an arrow”]). These are examples of participial phrases.
A participial phrase is a construction consisting of a noun (called a head noun), sometimes a complement (i.e., an object or prepositional phrase), then a participle. In Latin, participial phrases almost always take the form of a sandwich, with the head noun and participle as the bread, and whatever else you need — if anything — for the filler.
Even though a participial phrase expresses a thought that could, if rewritten, be expressed as a complete sentence, you need to recognize it as a discrete unit because it is only a phrase. Here is an example that illustrates what is meant by a “discrete unit.”
SUBJECT |
PREDICATE |
Mī les |
in campī totam noctem iacē bat. |
The soldier |
lay in the field for the entire night. |
Mī les vulnerā tus |
in campī totam noctem iacē bat. |
The wounded soldier |
lay in the field for the entire night. |
Mī les sagittā vulnerā tus |
in campī totam noctem iacē bat. |
The soldier, wounded by an arrow, |
lay in the field for the entire night. |
Mī les fortis sagittā vulnerā tus |
in campī totam noctem iacē bat. |
The brave soldier, wounded by an arrow, |
lay in the field for the entire night. |
In this example, the participial phrase acts as the subject, so the head noun is in the nominative case, as is the participle that must agree with it. Participial phrases, however, can function in any case, not just the nominative. In the following example, our soldier is the direct object.
Mī litem fortem sagittā vulneratum ex campī mane trahent.
The whole phrase functions as the direct object of the main verb trahent and sits apart as a discrete unit. Also, since the whole phrase functions as the direct object, the head noun and participle are in the accusative, while the filler words are in whatever case they need to be in to do their job: fortem is masculine accusative singular to agree with its noun mī litem; sagittā is ablative (without a preposition) to show the means by which he was vulnerā tum.
The translation isn't much more mellifluous (mel, “honey”; fluī , “to flow”) when the participial phrase is inserted elsewhere: “They will pull the brave soldier, wounded by an arrow, from the field in the morning.”
Treating a participle as a simple adjective is one approach. All too often, however, that approach leads to awkward, stilted phrasing, as in this last example. A remedy for this is to remove the Latin participial phrase and expand it into a whole clause in English. There are five different types of clauses you can use. Each type suggests a certain relationship between a participial phrase and the main clause that it is a part of. As usual, context is your best guide.
The simple adjective approach plus the five different types of clauses give us six possible ways to read or translate a sentence containing a participial phrase. Here is a fresh example for us to work with. You are probably familiar with it — it is the traditional greeting gladiators used to give to the sponsor of games before the games began: Nī s moritū rī tē salutā mus.
Simple adjective: We, about to die, salute you.
Relative clause: We, who are about to die, salute you.
Temporal clause: As/ When we are about to die, we salute you.
Causal clause: Since/Because we are about to die, we salute you.
Coordinate clause: We are about to die and we salute you.
Concessive clause: Even though we are about to die, we salute you (anyway).
In these translations, the words that represent the participial phrase are in italics. The words in boldface are the keywords — usually conjunctions — that make a clause the type that it is.
When you read a participial phrase in a temporal (tempus, temporis, “time”) sense, be mindful of the relative time value of the tenses of participles.
Present (same time): Nīs morientēs tē salutā mus.
Perfect (time before): Nīs mortuī tē salutā re nīn poterimus.
Future (time after): Nīs moritū rī tē salutā mus.
Also noteworthy is that with concessive clauses, you will almost always find the word tamen (“anyway”) in the main clause. Remember that this was also true for concessive cum clauses.
It is very important to remember that since a participial phrase serves a function in the main clause, its removal cannot be complete. That is to say, you have to put a pronoun in the main clause to take its place. If you look closely at the sample translations above, you will notice that there is a “we” in the main clause standing in for the nīs moritū rī that had been removed to make a new clause.
Single word participles used as substantives are not phrases. They are both nouns and participles at the same time. Earlier you read the awkward example: Collā ta in castrī -s tenē bantur. (The brought together things were kept in the camp.) It would be much better to expand the Latin word into an English clause: When the things had been brought together, they were kept in the camp.
Ablatives Absolute
There is an amazing use of the ablative case in Latin called the “ablative absolute” that is the very picture of the economy of the language. It can compress an entire story into only a couple of words. It is a type of participial phrase complete with head noun and participle, both in the ablative. What distinguishes it from the participial phrases that you just read about is that it sits independently of the main clause it goes with.
Here are two examples to examine:
Hostēs captīs occidimus.
Hostibus captī s, castra mī vimus.
In the first example, “the enemies” appears twice. Since they are both head noun in a participial phrase and at the same time direct objects of the main verb, they need to be represented twice: once in the expanded participial phrase, then again in the main clause. Rather than repeat “the enemies” twice, it sounds better to replace one occurrence with a pronoun.
In the second example, there are also two actions, killing and breaking, but the enemies are only involved with one of the verbs, namely the killing. Since the enemies have — at least grammatically — nothing to do with the main clause, they are absolute (ab, “away”; solū tus from solvī , “to turn loose”). That is why the head noun, hostibus, and the participle pertaining only to them, captī s, are in the ablative and set off from the rest of the sentence.
An ablative absolute phrase can be translated nearly the same way as ordinary participial phrases. The simple adjective and relative clause approaches are awkward, stilted, or make no sense.
Simple adjective: The enemies having been captured, we broke camp.
Relative clause: The enemies who had been captured, we broke camp.
Temporal clause: After the enemies had been captured, we broke camp.
Causal clause: Since the enemies had been captured, we broke camp.
Coordinate clause: The enemies were captured, and we broke camp.
Concessive clause: Although the enemies had been captured, we broke camp.
Rēs ipsa loquitur. (“The matter speaks for itself.”)

