Word of the Day

by **mariek** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:00 am

I think that would be a great idea! Especially if we also get example usage/sentences and any idiomatic phrases (does that apply in Latin?) along with the word & definition. Maria vocäbulï finitï (Marie of limited vocabulary)

by **Episcopus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:14 pm

I think, whether or not it be new to every one, each member to be able to post one word and translation in special thread.

Website · by **benissimus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 7:12 pm

I'm thinking it would be something like, Words of the Day: Week of 7/28 to conserve space. There are also issues of how far everyone is in their learning, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too much of a problem. I think it should also be more than one person responsible for it. It does seem like most people are in favor of this idea...

by **mariek** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 7:24 pm

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#1979 date=1059160346] I'm thinking it would be something like, Words of the Day: Week of 7/28 to conserve space.[/quote] How amusing, I was just about to propose the same thing. It's much better than cluttering up the forum with quotidian "Word of the Day" posts. I'm perfectly capable of cluttering the forum with my innumerous questions about Latin. ;D Perhaps the person who voted "spam" thought it would be the new-post-a-day method. How do you say "word of the day" in Latin? Verbum diëï ?

Website · by **benissimus** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:23 pm

Verbum diei would work just fine. You scare me when you use fifth declension words and other things you aren't supposed to know yet.

by **mariek** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:23 pm

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#1985 date=1059164607] Verbum diei would work just fine. You scare me when you use fifth declension words and other things you aren't supposed to know yet. [/quote] I'm just that good.

Hehehe ... it's just a side effect of having a dictionary with a grammar section at the beginning. ;D I look up an English word to discover the Latin word, then flip to the front and see which chart is a likely candidate for case endings. And fortunately for me, the example they use for 5th decl just happens to be deis.

by **Magistra** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:05 am

No need to "reinvent the wheel." Michelle Bruer Vitt has been doing this for quite some time: 393 phrases to date. Here is her listing with links to receive one new phrase at a time (FEED) or in a digest form (DIGEST). http://mail.minnehahaacademy.net/Lists/latin-phrase/List.html Fruimini! Magistra

by **Episcopus** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:45 am

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#1985 date=1059164607] Verbum diei would work just fine. You scare me when you use fifth declension words and other things you aren't supposed to know yet. [/quote] I know what a freak

by **mariek** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:36 pm

[quote author=Magistra link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#1992 date=1059181502] No need to "reinvent the wheel." Michelle Bruer Vitt has been doing this for quite some time: 393 phrases to date. http://mail.minnehahaacademy.net/Lists/ ... /List.html[/quote] Wicked cool! I love it! Now if only I could figure out how to easily import all this into a spreadsheet so I can search for phrases later.

by **vinobrien** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:42 pm

So far 13, absit omen, people have answered the poll. How would we organise the production of the "phrase for today"? First come, first in?

by **Milito** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:02 pm

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#1985 date=1059164607] Verbum diei would work just fine. You scare me when you use fifth declension words and other things you aren't supposed to know yet. [/quote] Hey, but she IS supposed to know the grammar idea, and from there, it's not a hard leap........ It's just another paradigm! Look at it this way - she's being corrupted into a thorough Latin-user through forum exposure! Now, if it was an ablative absolute or a passive periphrastic or something....... (No panicking, Marie.... these don't really hurt (much) and you'll trip over them reasonably shortly I suspect.... they're just verb participles playing games with nouns, given medical-sounding names to cause students to run screaming.....) Kilmeny

by **Episcopus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:23 pm

I am on a hump. I have run out of gas, I can't bring myself to do the passive any more. I hate it. Damn inflexions are nasty. nasty tricksy

by **vinobrien** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:30 pm

Passives. Dead easy. Where's your problem?

by **Episcopus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:32 pm

[quote author=vinobrien link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#2086 date=1059402616] Passives. Dead easy. Where's your problem? [/quote] TRUCK YOU THEY ARE NOT

by **vinobrien** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:39 pm

Only trying to help. You should try them in Greek!

by **Episcopus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:54 pm

[quote author=vinobrien link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2091 date=1059403159] Only trying to help. You should try them in Greek! [/quote] sorry, just frustrated...I can't move on until I know all these inflections for which I have insufficient zeal to learn...volat over my head...

by **Milito** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:56 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#2082 date=1059402195] I am on a hump. I have run out of gas, I can't bring myself to do the passive any more. I hate it. Damn inflexions are nasty. nasty tricksy [/quote] Ah, passives are like dirty dishes - you have to wash 'em whether you want to or not, and after a while you sort of get numbed to them. The trick is to keep at them until that numb feeling takes over....... Then the only thing to bother you is when they appear where they shouldn't.... which, as I suspect you've noticed, appears to be a pet peeve of mine..... Say, does D'Ooge say anything about the Future Passive Infinitive? M&F only says, "The future passive infinitive occurs so rarely in Latin that its discussion has been omitted from this text" which was very annoying when I tripped over one, and was trying to figure out how, why and what on earth "to go" (eo/ire) was doing in the passive infinitive form......... If D'Ooge explains the Future Passive Infinitive, I promise never to tease you about him again, and I pledge to go acquire a "Just D'Ooge It" T-shirt. Kilmeny

by **Episcopus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:34 pm

[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2099 date=1059404178] [quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#2082 date=1059402195] I am on a hump. I have run out of gas, I can't bring myself to do the passive any more. I hate it. Damn inflexions are nasty. nasty tricksy [/quote] Ah, passives are like dirty dishes - you have to wash 'em whether you want to or not, and after a while you sort of get numbed to them. The trick is to keep at them until that numb feeling takes over....... Then the only thing to bother you is when they appear where they shouldn't.... which, as I suspect you've noticed, appears to be a pet peeve of mine..... Say, does D'Ooge say anything about the Future Passive Infinitive? M&F only says, "The future passive infinitive occurs so rarely in Latin that its discussion has been omitted from this text" which was very annoying when I tripped over one, and was trying to figure out how, why and what on earth "to go" (eo/ire) was doing in the passive infinitive form......... If D'Ooge explains the Future Passive Infinitive, I promise never to tease you about him again, and I pledge to go acquire a "Just D'Ooge It" T-shirt. Kilmeny [/quote] You are right dirty disheseseses. With reference to D'Ooge, I need not convince you that D'Ooge is the man. Moreover I be not so insecure as to look through his book to find Future Passive Infinitive. He is the man regardless. Mock me. Mock him. But he is a professor who has written the best book for Latin Beginners - and, in the end - for intermediate learners also. And believe me I have looked. Cambridge/Oxford course, Wheelcock etc for those care I not.

by **Emma_85** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:14 pm

passives ... hmmm... easier than declensions at least. never had much problem with passive. it was more like the german translation of passive future 2 that got me ???. still no idea how to translate most of the stuff into german, no wonder i always fail my latin translation exams... my latin's ok, but my german isn't :-P

by **Episcopus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:00 pm

[quote author=Emma_85 link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2125 date=1059419665] passives ... hmmm... easier than declensions at least. never had much problem with passive. it was more like the german translation of passive future 2 that got me ???. still no idea how to translate most of the stuff into german, no wonder i always fail my latin translation exams... my latin's ok, but my german isn't :-P

[/quote] CLAPS! German passive is FREAKED! People trust me I know not the german passive no matter how I try. I know the present and imperfect but that's it. I just replace it with "man", one, to make it into active in the future! i.e Man wird deine Mutter verschlagt haben. =One will have killed you're mother (Your mother will have been slaughtered) I think! german is so hard!

by **ingrid70** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:01 pm

[quote author=Emma_85 link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2125 date=1059419665] passives ... hmmm... easier than declensions at least. never had much problem with passive. it was more like the german translation of passive future 2 that got me ???. still no idea how to translate most of the stuff into german, no wonder i always fail my latin translation exams... my latin's ok, but my german isn't :-P

[/quote] Well, taking Latin at school did wonders for my Dutch

. If only because the words in the vocab lists were just not the words you would use daily. I'm not sure about German (it's - o my - 15 years since I last read a German book), but translating the passive is far easier in Dutch than in English. Where English translates a normal 'sum' with 'I am', and a 'sum' in a passive with 'I have been', Dutch can always use the equivalent of 'I am'. What is your problem with the passive, Episcopus? The endings or the translations? Ingrid

by **Episcopus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:15 pm

I can't learn the inflections! I can not recite them quickly... And I don't like the passive amor, amaris, amatur, amamur, amamini, amantur; amabar, amabaris, amabatur, amabamur, amabamini, amabantur; amabor, amaberis, amabitur, amabimur, amabimini, amabuntur. Then is that the same for a 2nd dec except habeor the e is included?

by **Milito** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:17 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2141 date=1059426925] Then is that the same for a 2nd dec except habeor the e is included? [/quote] You will get them! They will come! As for habeor, yes, the e is included in the 2nd declension. That 2nd declension long e is like mosquitoes.... you can't get rid of it no matter how hard you try...... (And about D'Ooge and that future passive infinitive.... YOU may not need to look it up, but I'm honestly curious now - does he relegate it to the "too trivial to talk about", or does he go for completeness?) Kilmeny

by **ingrid70** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:46 pm

[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2210 date=1059509871] (And about D'Ooge and that future passive infinitive.... YOU may not need to look it up, but I'm honestly curious now - does he relegate it to the "too trivial to talk about", or does he go for completeness?) Kilmeny [/quote] It's listed in the paradigm appendix, but not discussed in the text. Ingrid

by **Milito** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:52 pm

[quote author=ingrid70 link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2215 date=1059511593] [quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2210 date=1059509871] (And about D'Ooge and that future passive infinitive.... YOU may not need to look it up, but I'm honestly curious now - does he relegate it to the "too trivial to talk about", or does he go for completeness?) Kilmeny [/quote] It's listed in the paradigm appendix, but not discussed in the text. Ingrid [/quote] Much thanks..... Kilmeny

by **Episcopus** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:13 pm

[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2218 date=1059511942] [quote author=ingrid70 link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2215 date=1059511593] [quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2210 date=1059509871] (And about D'Ooge and that future passive infinitive.... YOU may not need to look it up, but I'm honestly curious now - does he relegate it to the "too trivial to talk about", or does he go for completeness?) Kilmeny [/quote] It's listed in the paradigm appendix, but not discussed in the text. Ingrid [/quote] Much thanks..... Kilmeny [/quote] What, "to be about to be loved" ? It isn't that important is it really? But it's there should one wish to look it up and by the time one has read the whole book one will have acquired the independence along with the understanding of the language to quickly grasp the concept of 'future passive infinitive' anyhow. The subjunctive I can not wait for. The only subjunctive that I hate is the german one...

by **Milito** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:47 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2231 date=1059513190] What, "to be about to be loved" ? [/quote] Actually, in this case, it was "to be about to be seen"

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2231 date=1059513190] It isn't that important is it really? But it's there should one wish to look it up and by the time one has read the whole book one will have acquired the independence along with the understanding of the language to quickly grasp the concept of 'future passive infinitive' anyhow. [/quote] It becomes important when one runs smack into it and can't find anything to explain it! It looks like something illegal, which it shouldn't be, because one generally assumes that Cicero knew what he was doing when he was writing in Latin..... I ran into it and it honestly felt like smacking into a brick wall, repeatedly, until I finally found it in Bennet - who I'm beginning to feel more favourably toward, despite his positively Saharan style. But that's why the "learn Latin from the beginning" type books can make such good references - you keep going back to them when you run into something perplexing. I had checked several sources before I finally found the form and an explanation. If D'Ooge provides those, it makes him that much more valuable. [quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2231 date=1059513190] The subjunctive I can not wait for. The only subjunctive that I hate is the german one... [/quote] You know, I want to learn to read German some time, and you aren't making me feel very positive about this............

Kilmeny

Website · by **benissimus** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:19 am

Future passive infinitive seems pretty bizarre (who says "I want to be about to be praised"?), but in passive paraphrastic constructions, you see how it is somewhat practical. There isn't much other way to say "I think that I am about to be praised" or "I think myself to be about to be praised." I can't offer a translation, however, as I am not familiar with the passive future infinitive at all.

by **bingley** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:42 am

Capti putantes se interfecturos esse precati sunt ut Caesar parcat. The captives, thinking they were about to be killed, begged Caesar to spare them.

by **Milito** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:50 pm

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2265 date=1059535156] Future passive infinitive seems pretty bizarre (who says "I want to be about to be praised"?), but in passive paraphrastic constructions, you see how it is somewhat practical. There isn't much other way to say "I think that I am about to be praised" or "I think myself to be about to be praised." I can't offer a translation, however, as I am not familiar with the passive future infinitive at all. [/quote] I ran into it as follows..... "iique arbitrantur se beneficos in suos amicos visum iri si locupletent eos quacumque ratione." It ends up in the future, because the men in question are believing that because of what they do now, later, they will be seen to be generous. So the sentence wound up meaning "and those men judge that they will be seen as generous men toward their friends, if they enrich them through whatever scheme". The infinitive appeared because of the accusative + infinitive construction of indirect speech......... It made my head hurt..... But it was a real high when I finally figured it out! Kilmeny

by **Episcopus** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:23 pm

milito you make me cry... is acc. + inf replacement for "that" i.e audio eum esse episcopus = I hear that he is bishop?

by **Milito** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:26 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2326 date=1059585814] milito you make me cry... is acc. + inf replacement for "that" i.e audio eum esse episcopus = I hear that he is bishop? [/quote] Pretty much, only you'll want that to be 'episcopum', I believe. And don't be assuming too much here - it took a day or so of writing out the original, writing out what things should mean underneath, referring to an actual translation, and rifling through lots of grammar books before I got it hammered out. And I am NOT at all as sure as I ought to be about the Proper Form of Indirect Discourse.... which is bothersome, but which will (presumably) sort itself out in time. Actually, all I'm doing is taking a text in Latin, and slowly reading through it, with reference to grammar books and dictionaries, to keep me current with my Latin. It's working........... (I have now managed to get through about 550 lines of the book since... January... Although I also had to read the first book of the Aeneid in there, too.) Kilmeny

by **Episcopus** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:30 pm

but isn't the 'eum' that acc. ? cogito TE esse episcopus... or do they both have to be acc?

by **Skylax** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:41 pm

cogito te esse episcopum A predicate must have the same case as "his" subject. After all, when you say episcopum, you are still speaking of te...

by **Milito** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:46 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2338 date=1059589826] but isn't the 'eum' that acc. ? cogito TE esse episcopus... or do they both have to be acc? [/quote] I was thinking that they both had to be accusative due to the agreement thing. I've been trying to find a reference to tell me how to deal with indirect statements involving "esse", but haven't had any luck. But since M&F (and yes, I'm going to go check D'Ooge on this, too....) says "in order to change a statement from direct to indirect, take the subject of the direct one and make it accusative; take the finite verb and change it to an infinitive. The rest of the sentence remains unchanged" I begin to think that "episcopus" should remain as-is.... So if directly I would say, "Episcopus es", I would convert it to "Cogito episcopum esse." But if I were to say "Tu es episcopus", then I'd have to convert it to "Cogito te esse ...." I'm not sure. I think probably it's still in the accusative, partly for agreement, and mostly because the pronouns aren't used except for emphasis or clarity. Methinks I need much remedial conversion of direct to indirect statements..... I never was really happy about English-to-Latin conversion.... Kilmeny

by **Skylax** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 6:56 pm

[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2273 date=1059543745] Capti putantes se interfecturos esse precati sunt ut Caesar parcat. The captives, thinking they were about to be killed, begged Caesar to spare them. [/quote] There is a discrepancy between text and translation. The text means "thinking they were about to kill"... The text matching the translation is : Captivi putantes se interfectum iri precati sunt ut Caesar sibi parceret. (You can also say : putantes se interfici posse or fieri posse putantes ut interficerentur) These are complicated sentences, and were complicated even for the Romans. One would maybe have said verentes ne interficerentur... or something. Cura ut valeas.

by **Milito** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:18 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2338 date=1059589826] but isn't the 'eum' that acc. ? cogito TE esse episcopus... or do they both have to be acc? [/quote] And to follow up yet again.... (you'll like this, Episcopus....) According to The Esteemed Dr D'Ooge, section 415, it works the same way for "esse" statements. Dr D'Ooge even uses "esse" statements for his examples. So: Direct statement (quoting Dr D'Ooge): Galli sunt fortes. (Gauls are brave.... and read the Asterix books if you don't believe it!) Indirect statement: Dicit Gallos esse fortis. (He says that Gauls are brave.) ((Note that Dr D'Ooge uses an alternate accusative plural of the 3rd delcension adjective "fortis"; "fortes" would be equally correct....)) Much thanks to Skylax for confirming the agreement point. Kilmeny

by **sfryer** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:15 pm

[quote author=Skylax link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2345 date=1059591383] [quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2273 date=1059543745] Capti putantes se interfecturos esse precati sunt ut Caesar parcat. The captives, thinking they were about to be killed, begged Caesar to spare them. [/quote] There is a discrepancy between text and translation. The text means "thinking they were about to kill"... The text matching the translation is : Captivi putantes se interfectum iri precati sunt ut Caesar sibi parceret. [/quote] interfecturos is accusative plural of the future PASSIVE participle - "going to be killed." So the sentence is perfectly correct as it stands. remember "Morituri te salutamus" "We who are going to die salute you."

by **Episcopus** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:32 pm

Thankyou Milito, skylax - learn something every day ;D cogito te habère multos episcopos =that's when I thought a double acc. would have come in because esse doesn't take acc. in direct statements right? But I'm glad that to have been sorted ;D (what is the acc. of "that" ?) ???

Who is online