There will be a participle (present or perfect, typically) to indicate the relation of the cause to the 'time' of the main sentence: a perfect participle indicates action completed before the actions in the main sentence, and a present participle indicates action that is still continuing in the action of the main sentence. The ablative absolute is often introductory, and the main sentence will be contingent upon the activity in the ablative absolute. 'with Caesar leading, the troops crossed the Rubicon' 'with Caesar dead, the government fell into chaos'). But now I'm leaning towards A, since it's simpler to take 'insigni anno' with the last antecedent, which is 'Ian.' Proximity between words is often a good guide when translating Latin.ДЄn ablative absolute is a string of words in the ablative (often with a verb participle), and it's usually translated as 'with.(word word 'present participle')' or 'with (word) having been (preterit participle of a verb)' (i.e.

'in the year' simply doesn't indicate which year. It's the same as the English, ' He was born on the third day before the Kalends of January, in the year notable for Gaius' death/murder.' The crux indeed is that it's difficult to pinpoint the year based on what is said in the Latin. I did mean 'Gaius' above instead of 'Titus'. Please shed more light on my areas of darkness for I know I am looking at these Latin words with eyes that are very blind to the intricacies of the Latin language!

Thus, in the final analysis, based upon what I have heard you say so far, I cannot rely with absolute certainty on the Latin within this passage of Suetonius for determining one way or the other whether Titus' birth occurred in the year before, or else in the year of, Gaius' death. Ian.' Gaius' death would still be a future event. Perhaps you could expand a little on that which you wrote about 'Ablative phrases' as it applies to each of the two events within this passage of Suetonius? Certainly both Titus' birth and Gaius' death were 'completed (prior time) events' by the time Suetonius wrote this passage, or isn't that so? Yet, if Titus' birth occurred in the year prior to Gaius' death, then at the time specified as 'III. I certainly cannot rely on myself for a correct answer to my own question as I have phrased it in post #1 above. Unfortunately, I am far from fluent in Latin, so any help I can receive re the Latin language is very much appreciated. relative to the evidence I am presently looking at in my research.

Such a reading might even find further support in line '58' in Anne345's post #6 above! That is to say 'A' in my question in post #1 would seem to be the correct alternative, i.e. The data I have are presently looking pretty solid ( ,) but, as always, everything is subject to further and more precise discoveries.ДЄccordingly, it would seem to me as though it is the month of January that is being associated with Gaius' death by Suetonius in the present passage - and not the event of Titus' birth which did occur in the year prior to Gaius' death. My discoveries within this project are presently making it appear as though Titus' birth did in fact occur in the year prior to Gaius' death. I'm deeply involved in a multi year major chronology revision project covering the period of the Twelve Caesars. BTW, did you mean what you wrote ('Titus' death') or did you mean what I assume you meant (Gaius' death?) With Titus' birth being a pre-January event we are dealing here with a special case of sorts. Obviously this issue would not exist had 'Ian.' in this sentence been any of the other eleven months of the year, since the year would have been uniquely identified by the event, i.e. What I am hearing you say is that although you'd choose 'B' you are still considering 'C' as an alternative pending more hard facts re the reality being described?

Your response is truly addressing the focus of my dilemma.

Natus est latin