Textkit Logo

question about chapter 22.

Are you learning Latin with Wheelock's Latin 6th Edition? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback.

question about chapter 22.

Postby Turendil » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:34 am

I was informed by my latin prof that the following sentence on chapter 22 of was all Fubared and I was wondering exactly what I did that was so horrible.

The english sentence was "With great hope the tyrant ordered those ships to be destroyed.

My sentence ran as follows: Cum magna spe Illae navis ab isto tyranno Iubebantur esse delendam.

(this was all alfter class so it doesn't quite count yet.)

WHat's wrong with this sentence and why?
phpbb
Turendil
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:39 am

Re: question about chapter 22.

Postby cdm2003 » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:44 pm

Turendil wrote:The english sentence was "With great hope the tyrant ordered those ships to be destroyed.

My sentence ran as follows: Cum magna spe Illae navis ab isto tyranno Iubebantur esse delendam.


Hi Turendil...

Your prof may have taken issue with the fact that you took and active sentence and made is passive. Now, I don't know if that was an option to you or not, but even as a passive statement it's a little off, especially the verb:

Magna cum spe - you don't even need the cum but it isn't incorrect to use it. If you do, the adjective in a cum + abl construction regularly moves outside, e.g., magna cum spe, magna cum laude, summa cum laude, etc.

illae naves - naves, plural, not navis, singular.

a tyranno - no need for iste, which would suggest that very tyrannt, or that tyrannt which is a real pain in all our tails. :)

delere iussae sunt - I would use the perfect tense (perfect, passive, 3rd. pers. plural) of iubeo here and just the plain ol' infinitive of deleo.

Grand total: Magna cum spe illae naves a tyranno delere iussae sunt. Beware, however, that the sentence in English is an active one, so unless your prof told you to change it into the passive it is fubared upwards and sideways. :) So, for active: Magna cum spe tyrannus illas naves delere iussit. Nice and neat.

Best,
Chris
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae
User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Postby Turendil » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:32 pm

Gratias ago.

I appreciate it. I think that the active/passive end of things was primaril the issue. However he didn't put it that way so I was left to wonder that on my own. many thanks.

Sorn
phpbb
Turendil
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:39 am

Postby Chris Weimer » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:03 pm

Actually, with commands (and ordering is a command), you would normally use ut + subjunctive.

Turendil - you used "delendam" for "to be destroyed". While in English it may be hard to distinguish the two, delendam (which actually should be delendae, since it, as an adjective, ought to have agreed with illae naves), denotes an action to be undertaken in the future. You missed out on the sequence of tenses here, since a future can't be a secondary tense when the main verb is perfect. Instead, you use the imperfect.

Also, I wonder why king isn't used here? I think I'd prefer rex, unless there's some sort of context indicating tyrannus.

Tyrannus (vel rex) iussit ut illae naves delerentur.
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Postby cdm2003 » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:21 pm

Chris Weimer wrote:Actually, with commands (and ordering is a command), you would normally use ut + subjunctive.


The above--less common though nevertheless acceptable--construction (iubeo + indic.) is what Wheelock's expects at the moment. The subjunctive mood and jussive clauses aren't introduced to the student until chapter 28.

Chris Weimer wrote:Also, I wonder why king isn't used here? I think I'd prefer rex, unless there's some sort of context indicating tyrannus.


I'm not sure why you think rex is a better translation for "tyrant" than tyrannus. To me, at least, there is a clear difference between a king and a tyrant, a distinction which would not have been lost on the Classical world. I don't recall (and I could be wrong) Numa Pompilius ever regarded by Classical authors as a tyrannus, yet he was well understood to be a rex.

Chris
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae
User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Postby Chris Weimer » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:51 am

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Re: question about chapter 22.

Postby Iulianus » Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:20 am

Turendil wrote:"With great hope the tyrant ordered those ships to be destroyed.


cdm2003 wrote:Magna cum spe tyrannus illas naves delere iussit.


Salvete omnes!

Shouldn't this be "deleri"? "To be destroyed" sounds like a passive infinitive to me.

Valete sodales,

Iulianus
phpbb
Iulianus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Voorburgi

Postby cdm2003 » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:42 pm

Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae
User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Postby Turendil » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:50 pm

I knew what you meant anyway. When I reconstructed I used deleri. I apreciate it. Thanks much.

Sorn
phpbb
Turendil
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:39 am

Postby elduce » Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:20 pm

How about this:

Magna spe tyrannus iussit ut naves eas/illas delerentur.

Since I haven't practice Latin much in the last year, I'm not as strong as I used to be.
ego amo megaforce
elduce
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:55 am
Location: Connecticut, USA


Return to Wheelock's Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 14 guests