Textkit Logo

BLD: §111 I.2 Irregular pronouns

Are you learning Latin with D'Ooge's Beginners Latin Book? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback and comments from others.

BLD: §111 I.2 Irregular pronouns

Postby Timothy » Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:43 pm

I think I'm a little mixed up with how the irregular adjectives work.

§111 I.2

Latin: Nulli malo puero praedam dat magister.

nullus, -a, um (§108) is an irregular adjective that has the form nulli in the dataive singular. ("to none, to no")

puero is the dative singular or ablative singular (§91) of puer; the adjective malo agrees in case, gender, and number with puero (§65) "to the (from the) bad boy"

praedam is the direct object (accusative singular §37) of the verb dat.

dat is the 3rd person singular form of the verb "to give"

magister is in the nominative singular.

So nulli refers to the indirect object here, the boy, which is singular.

"The master gives the reward to no bad boy."

To say, "The master gives no reward to the bad boys." would be

Nullam praedam malis pueris dat magister.

It seemed from the key that nulli referes to praedam so I'm not sure if I've understood this properly.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Postby Paul_1511 » Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:14 pm

Hi,

I'm not that much further in the book than this myself, but I think I understood this question.

Nulli malo puero praedam dat magister :

magister is the nominative singular so is the subject.
praedam is the singular accusative so is the object.
the first three words are all singular dative meaning "to no bad boy".

So I agree it should be "The school master gives a reward to no bad boy", but the BLD key says it is "The teacher gives no reward to the bad boys". Malo puero is singular however and nulli refers to the bad boys not the reward.

Maybe this is incorrect but I'm pretty sure it was a mistake in the key.
phpbb
Paul_1511
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: England

Postby ingrid70 » Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:16 pm

Let's call it a free translation, shall we :wink: ? OK, OK, you're right. I've changed in it my copy...

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

BLD: §111 I.9 Irregular adjective

Postby Timothy » Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:39 pm

I'm getting confused . Now I'm stuck with #9.

Cena nullius alterius ancillae est bona

The key has, "The dinner of neither of the maids is good."

I get, "The dinner of no other maid is good."

The word for neither is neuter, but that's not what gets me. If it were plural maids, where does the "of" come from? I thought the possesive was used for the dinner and the adjective all agree with that.


- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Postby Paul_1511 » Sun Apr 18, 2004 11:39 am

I thought the meaning was this:

Cena nullius alterius ancillae est bona

Cena - nominative singular therefore its the subject
nullius alterius - both genitive singular = of neither of the other
ancillae - nominative plural
est bona - obviously = is good

therefore "The dinner of neither of the other maids is good".
This seems so suggest there is three maids in total and the two referred to are not good at preparing food. The key seems to make no mention of alterius?
phpbb
Paul_1511
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: England

Postby Timothy » Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:31 pm

As far as I can see, with the construction:

Cena nullius ancillae est bona.

wouldn result in (something like), "The dinner maids".

If ancillae is nom. pl. then nullus must agree in gender number and case (§65) and the nom. pl. of nullus is regular, feminine: nullae.

Q: Whose dinner is it?

Here's how I broke this down.

"The dinner is good."
Cena est bona.
"The dinner of the maid is good."
Cena ancilliae est bona.
"The dinner of another maid is good."
Cena alius ancilliae est bona.
"The dinner of no other maid is good."
Cena nullius alius ancilliae est bona.

The adjectives nullus and alius modify (qualifies) ancillia. Adjectives agree in gender, number, and case with the noun they modify (§65). These are the irregular adjectives (§§106-109) As I understand this, it explains the odd -ius ending of the adjectives modifying ancilliae.

Plural:

"The dinner of the maids is good."
Cena ancilliarum est bona.
"The dinner of none of maids is good."
Cena nullarum ancilliarum est bona.
"The dinner of none of the other maids is good."
Cena nullarum aliarum ancilliarum est bona.

"The dinner of neither maid is good."
Cena neutae ancilliae est bona.

Plural:

"The dinner of neither of the maids is good."
Cena neutarum ancilliarum est bona.
"The dinner of neither of other maids is good."
Cena neutarum aliarum ancilliarum est bona.

[Please note that my memory isn't functioning fully this AM so I'm not sure if I have the stems of some of these corret, but I think the endings are proper.]
- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Postby Timothy » Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:51 pm

I realize that I failed to use the correct word from the exercise.

Cena nullius alterius ancillae est bona.

My problem is that, as far as I can tell, the choices for translation are poor.

Cena is nom. singular, (dinner)
nullius is irregular gen. singular, (of none, of no)
alterius is irregular gen. singular, (of the one, of the other)
ancillae is gen. singluar/nom. pl., (of the maid, the maids)
est is a copula (it is)
bona is nom. singular or abl. singular, (good)

"The dinner of (none, no) (the one, the other) the maid is good."

The optional article is dropped, leaving,
1. "of none one maid" (nonsense)
2. "of none other maid" (nonsense)
3. "of no one maid" (possible)
4. "of no other maid" (possible)

I selected 4. since it seemd to make better sense and that it is the alternative definition of each word. The "of two" part seems to me to be in relation to the previous sentences in the exercise. Tullia is the other maid. (Only) Lesbia prepares the dinner. The dinner of no other maid (Tullia) is good. Sort of a round-about way to say it, but these are exercises.

The translation, "The dinner of neither of the maids is good" fails to me because of the substitution of the word "neither" and the use of the plural "maids". As far as I can tell, when using the word alter in the "of other (of two)" sense does not mean that you use the plural of the noun which it modifies. To do so means that the adjective itself must be plural i.e. alterarum ancillarum "the other maids"

No matter which is what,

Timicus ad altera casa properat inopia bonis cibis in casa alterius ancillae. :wink:


- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Postby ingrid70 » Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:16 am

OK, my working copy of the key now reads: the dinner of no other maid is good. In fact, alterius is used instead of alius-as-genitive, so it doesn't necessarily mean 'the other of two' here.

In your post about neither maid, you get the endings right, but the stem of neuter is neutr-: so neutrarum ancillarum (and neutrius ancillae)

Remember that the key is the work of learners like yourself. We may have been as confused about a sentence as you are :? :)

Hope this helps
Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Timothy » Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:41 pm

ingrid70 wrote:In fact, alterius is used instead of alius-as-genitive, so it doesn't necessarily mean 'the other of two' here.
Ingrid


I've been trying to get the sense of the use of words like this. My confusion comes from the use of the word in a plural sense. I have the same problem with words like populus when used in the plural. These words have a inherent plural meaning, so it get tripped up when I try to use in the plural cases. I had the same problem with my joke sentence on " good foods".

ingrid70 wrote:In your post about neither maid, you get the endings right, but the stem of neuter is neutr-: so neutrarum ancillarum (and neutrius ancillae)
Ingrid


I knew I was running amok there. :lol: I'm still practicing that section.

ingrid70 wrote:Remember that the key is the work of learners like yourself. We may have been as confused about a sentence as you are :? :)
Ingrid


I do come off as a bit strident. For that I sincerely apologise. In my posts I attempt to fully explain my reasoning when I disagree with one of the answers. When I can't explain why the key answer is correct or why my answer is wrong, I ask. So that I don't mislead others in my ignorance, I try to reference the text so that any errors of mine will stand out to those who have a better understanding. But it doesn't mean that I know. I simply don't.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore


Return to Latin For Beginners by D'Ooge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests