Textkit Logo

Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Timothée » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:06 pm

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:CAPITULUM DECIMUM SEXTUM

Quas res (it’s certainly possible, but a simple quid would be more idiomatic) Medus et Lydia (a Lydian woman is generally Lyda in Latin; Lydia is the name of the province) secum ferunt?
Illi (you won’t need the subject pronoun “they” in Latin as it’s evident from the verb) omnes res suas ferunt (remember that there’s also the verb portare, which you may sometimes want to use): pauca vestimenta, paulum cibi nec multum pecuniae.
...small amount of food nor large amount of money... acc. with gen.


Quo Medus cum amica Lydia (same as above) sua ire vult?
Redire cum ea in Graecam vult.

Cur tristis est Lydia?
Lydia quoque Graeca est et relinquit amicas Romanas suas, quibus illic amicitiam habuit. Altera patria es (Do you mean to use es instead of est?) mihi inquit (generally the verb inquam comes in the second place [although many {all?} different variations are met])¹ Lydia, ea (“she?” If so, I’d say better to omit it altogether) non sine lacrimis Roma (direct object with relinquere) relinquit.

Quem deum invocant nautae?
Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur (Latin passive works roughly in the same manner as English [e.g. Finnish passive is different]: You wouldn’t say “Neptune *are invoked by the sailors” in English, and the same goes mutatis mutandis with Latin) tempore tempestatis (possibly a simple tempestate; ablatiuus temporis is at the very least used with this word in the sense ‘(point of) time’ [the same obviously goes with tempore], though I’m not 100% sure about the sense ‘during the storm’), dum nubes atrae fulgurque oriuntur.

Cur merces in mare iaciuntur?
In periculo (omit the preposition) navis mergentis, iussit (Who’s the subject? Neptune??) merces iaci et nautae in mare iaciunt illas.
In danger of the ship's sinking,...

Num navis eorum mergitur?
Medus, os suum aquae plenus (Which is full, the mouth or the Mede? My gut instinct says that suum could be omitted, but I’m not sure about this.) est (to be omitted), conatur invocare Neptunum sed non obtinere (This means rather ‘to hold in one’s possession’, not as much ‘to get, receive’) auxilium posse (Do you mean possunt? Infinitive posse would be understood as dependent on conari!). Lydia, perterritus est (The same as above: perterritus is in apposition to Lyd[i]a. Also, what’s the gender of Lyd[i]a?), invocat Dominun Christum ut mare tranquillum sit (This is obviously from esse; you may want to consider using the verb fieri), (possibly a full stop here) ecce, id est (Ita factum est uel sim.?), navis a mari (in mari) non mergitur.


¹Thesaurus linguae Latinae says sub uoce inquam:

Thesaurus linguae Latinae wrote:ponitur polissimum aut secundo loco aut in qualibet orationis caesura

To be honest, I don’t know what polissimum means. ‘Most often’?
Last edited by Timothée on Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:18 pm

Timothée wrote:
¹Thesaurus linguae Latinae says sub uoce inquam:

Thesaurus linguae Latinae wrote:ponitur polissimum aut secundo loco aut in qualibet orationis caesura

To be honest, I don’t know what polissimum means. ‘Most often’?


I bet it's potissimum.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Timothée » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:52 pm

Thanks, Bedwere. You’re probably right; it’s always difficult for me to expect an error, even though even the ThlL didn’t have this word... (I was using the online version of the ThlL on the homepage of the publisher, so there could be a copying error, as the article inquam [by Szantyr, by the way] is from the pre-digital age of the 1950’s.)

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:Lydia quoque Graeca est et relinquit amicas Romanas suas, quibus illic amicitiam habuit.

For “friendship” dictionary offers constructions est mihi amicitia cum aliquo and sum in amicitia cum aliquo, but not with habere.

EDIT. I now checked the ThlL, and in fact there are a few cases of habere amicitiam in classical literature, so it’s not impossible, but maybe the constructions I suggested above are still preferable?
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Timothée » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:19 pm

Timothée wrote:
Matthew Gendzwill wrote:Medus, os suum aquae plenus — — est — — conatur invocare Neptunum sed non obtinere — — auxilium posse (Do you mean possunt? Infinitive posse would be understood as dependent on conari!).

Apologies, don’t know why I wrote **possunt (maybe an interference with nautae above?). Obviously it should be potest with Medus as subject. You could also use the simple verb “but he doesn’t get help” without the auxiliary verb posse.

EDIT. I pondered above if one can say tempestate ‘during the tempest’. At least per tempestatem should be correct, so this may be the safest option, most likely also in tempestate, as we have in imbri.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:54 pm

Wow. I will take a couple of days to work under these directions :) I think what I'll do is take what is provided and find in Lewis and Short examples which focus these directions. But I will persist with Ordberb because there is so much potential in his format.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:54 am

CAPITULUM DECIMUM SEXTUM

1) Quas res (it’s certainly possible, but a simple quid would be more idiomatic) Medus et Lydia (a Lydian woman is generally Lyda in Latin; Lydia is the name of the province) secum ferunt?

Quas res idem atque quid
A country in Asia Minor, Lydia

2) you won’t need the subject pronoun “they” in Latin as it’s evident from the verb
Illi (you won’t need the subject pronoun “they” in Latin as it’s evident from the verb) omnes res suas ferunt (remember that there’s also the verb portare, which you may sometimes want to use): pauca vestimenta, paulum cibi nec multum pecuniae.

Fero, ferre, tuli, latum
I. Lit.: “ferri proprie dicimus, quae quis suo corpore bajulat, portari ea, quae quis in jumento secum ducit, agi ea, quae animalia sunt,”
We say that closely borne is that burden which ones' own body bears, it is carried which is put upon a beast which with himself one leads, it is done by those who living creatures be.


3) Quo Medus cum amica Lydia (same as above) sua ire vult?
Redire cum ea in Graecam vult.
Lyda
I was not sure if the accusative is correct, I looked back in the presentation to answer my question and there is this: Ego in terram eo multo pulchriorem, in patriam meam Graecam.
I go into a much more beautiful land, into my country, Greece.
Videtur mihi recte dicere: redire....in Graecam vult, ergo in eo modo scripsi. But I thought about Graeca first. But then I reviewed the presentation. :?

4) Cur tristis est Lyda?
Lyda quoque Graeca est et relinquit amicas Romanas suas, quibus illic amicitiam habuit. Altera patria es (Do you mean to use es instead of est?) mihi inquit (generally the verb inquam comes in the second place [although many {all?} different variations are met])¹ Lyda, ea (“she?” If so, I’d say better to omit it altogether) !non sine lacrimis Roma (direct object with relinquere) relinquit.

Do you mean to use es instead of est?
Vale, Roma! inquit, Non sine lacrimis te relinquo, nam tu altera patria es mihi.
Be well/ so long Rome! Not without tears do I leave you, for you are to me my second country. pp121 My sense was that Lyda refers to Rome in the second person.


5) Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur (Latin passive works roughly in the same manner as English [e.g. Finnish passive is different]: You wouldn’t say “Neptune *are invoked by the sailors” in English, and the same goes mutatis mutandis with Latin) tempore tempestatis (possibly a simple tempestate; ablatiuus temporis is at the very least used with this word in the sense ‘(point of) time’ [the same obviously goes with tempore], though I’m not 100% sure about the sense ‘during the storm’), dum nubes atrae fulgurque oriuntur.

Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur (Latin passive works roughly in the same manner as English [e.g. Finnish passive is different]: You wouldn’t say “Neptune *are invoked by the sailors” in English, and the same goes mutatis mutandis with Latin)

I thought to use the third person active plural to attribute to the nominative subject when I wrote: Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur. But my thinking is unaccustomed and wrong. To attribute to the subject the act of now being called, is it not to say: Neptunus a nautae invocatus est? Because:
Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur translates as Neptune is a god (a?) the sailors are called... The active plural is transitive to an object, not passive to a subject and therefore exists inflection to show the direction.

incipio cum mutatis mutandis: mūto , āvi, ātum
I. Prop., to move, to move away or from its place, to move to a place (rare): “neque se luna quoquam mutat,”
Neither does the moon move itself anywhere.
mūtātus , ūs, m. 4th decl.
Of which declension is mutatis? I want to call it nominative with the gerund in the possesive case and to think of these two as modifying the clause: "...and the same goes with Latin."
Mutatis mutandi or (change of the need to change?) regarding the correction of grammatical error in a sentence I wrote in bad Latin which error is demonstrated in its' English translation. Et nunc devio ab admonitione Bedwere.

Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur tempore tempestatis... original sentence :oops:
"...tempore tempestatis (possibly a simple tempestate; ablatiuus temporis is at the very least used with this word in the sense ‘(point of) time’..."
Yes, point of time is what I wanted to convey. I tied to use the ablative with the genetive to express ‘(point of) time’.
Surgit tempestas et Neptunus a nautae invocatus est.


6) Cur merces in mare iaciuntur?
In periculo (omit the preposition) navis mergentis, iussit (Who’s the subject? Neptune??) merces iaci et nautae in mare iaciunt illas.

In periculo navis mergentis... Allow me to ask: what is the efficacy of the ablative case? In English I have the habit of the preposition needed.
Periculo navis mergentis, gubernator iussit merces iaci in mare.


7) Medus, os suum aquae plenus (Which is full, the mouth or the Mede? My gut instinct says that suum could be omitted, but I’m not sure about this.) est (to be omitted), conatur invocare Neptunum sed non obtinere (This means rather ‘to hold in one’s possession’, not as much ‘to get, receive’) auxilium posse (Do you mean possunt? Infinitive posse would be understood as dependent on conari!)
consequor, consequi, consecutus
Oh, this is painfull! :lol:
Os suum aquae plenus, Mede conatur invocare Neptunum, eum non consequi potest.

8) This...uh...smiley, it appears when the numerl 8, a cardinal number, is closed with a right parenthesis.

Lydia, perterritus est (The same as above: perterritus is in apposition to Lyd[i]a. Also, what’s the gender of Lyd[i]a?)

"Apposition: a noun may be used to explain another noun; both nouns have the same case and the same syntactical relationship to the rest of the sentence."
Collins, J. F. (1985). A primer of ecclesiastical Latin. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. pp 114
Thank you, that is why I am here, to put my hands on definitions such as apposition, for "Lyda perterrita est" is redundant while "Lyda perterrita" is not. Then nouns in apposition will be in which case is needed for good sense.


9) invocat Dominun Christum ut mare tranquillum sit (This is obviously from esse; you may want to consider using the verb fieri)
Fio, fieri, factus sum 'be made. be done, become, happen, be'
Collins, J. F. (1985). A primer of ecclesiastical Latin. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. pp 303

It would not achieve the task of laying my hands to Latin if I were to fail to consider this verb. While Bedwere admonishes simplicity, Timothee drives me to search. This simple verb is the threshold of all the depth of philosophy upon which was founded the distant strength of the West: within several lines and my untrained mind I am impotent.

10) navis a mari (in mari) non mergitur.
Navis mari non mergitur.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:25 am

Marcus a magistro non laudatur, sed reprehendetur. Marcus inquit: Cur ego semper reprehendor, numquam laudor? Titus et Sextus semper laudantur, numquam reprehendentur. Magister: Tu non laudaris, sed reprehenderis, quia prave respondes. Marcus: Sed ego semper interrogor! Sextus: Tu non semper interrogaris; nos saepe interrogamur nec prave respondemus: itaque a magistro laudamur, non reprehendemur. Marcus: At facile est id quod vos interrogatis: itaque recte respondetis ac laudamini! Titus: Nos magistrum veremur. Nonne tu eum vereris? Marcus: Ego magistrum non vereor. Cur vos eum veremini?
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:15 pm

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:Marcus a magistro non laudatur, sed reprehendetur. Marcus inquit: Cur ego semper reprehendor, numquam laudor? Titus et Sextus semper laudantur, numquam reprehendentur. Magister: Tu non laudaris, sed reprehenderis, quia prave respondes. Marcus: Sed ego semper interrogor! Sextus: Tu non semper interrogaris; nos saepe interrogamur nec prave respondemus: itaque a magistro laudamur, non reprehendemur. Marcus: At facile est id quod vos interrogatis: itaque recte respondetis ac laudamini! Titus: Nos magistrum veremur. Nonne tu eum vereris? Marcus: Ego magistrum non vereor. Cur vos eum veremini?

You probably forgot this one.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:22 am

You probably forgot this one....Bedwere

Marcus: At facile est id quod vos interrogatis
Marcus: But that which all/both of you ask is easy....if "quod" is a relative pronoun?
But each of them is not asking the questions, each of them is being asked questions by Diordorus.

I had used the second person passive plural but then thought it was a mistake because it seemed to me that "quod" would be a direct object. But when previously I had used "laudamini" I did not understand that Marcus was referring to an action done by Diodorus which was recieved by Sextus and Titus, these having been interrogated by Diodorus. It seems the passive indicative is used with the ablative of an agent to show by whom a subject nominative is recipient of action. Not having seen an ablative in: At facile est id quod vos________, I thought the verb must be transitive to "quod". However, there is this: Marcus inquit: Cur ego semper reprehendor, numquam laudor?, in which no ablative is written, in which the subject is put/described as passive while the agent is not named. So I did not forget but I was guessing: At facile est id quod vos interrogamini.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:57 am

CAPITULUM DECIMUM SEPTIMUM

Discipulus est puer qui discit. Vir qui pueros discit magister est. Magister est vir doctus qui multas res scit quas pueri discunt. Sextus nec stultus nec piger sed industrius atque prudens est. Magister interrogat, discipulus qui respondere potest manum tollit. Non permittit respondere antequam magister interrogat. Magister: Dic numeros a decem usque ad centum. Quisque puer manum tollit, primum Sextus, deinde Titus, postremo Marcus. Sextus numeros cardinales dicit: decem (X), undecim (XI), duodecim (XII), tredecim (XIII), quattuordecim (XIV), quindecim (V), sedecim (XVI), septendecim (VII), duodeviginti (XVIII), undeviginti (XIX), viginti (XX), triginta (XXX), quadraginta (XL), quinquaginta (L), sexaginta (LX), septuaginta (LXX), octoginta (LXXX), nonaginta (XC), centum (C). Sextus bonus discipulus est, qui semper recte respondet; itaque magister eum laudat. Marcus, qui semper prave respondet, a magistro reprehendetur: Non recte respondes, Marce! Cur non recte antequam respondes? Marcus: Cur Titum non interrogas?(!!) Is non tam frequneter interrogatur quam ego. Magister: Iam eum interrogo: quot sunt XXI et LXVIII (viginti unum et duodeseptuginta)? Titus: LXXXVII? an LXXXVIII? (duodecentum an undecentum) Titus non scit recte dicere numeris cardinalibus, sed incertus est ac magistro responsum incertum dat.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:31 pm

CAPITULUM DECIMUM SEPTIMUM
irreverens, entis
congruo, congruere, congrui

Quid pueri discunt in ludo? Numeris cardinalibus discunt recte cogitare.

Cur Sextus a magistro laudatur? Laudatur quia magister Sexto honoratur et Sextus non facit responsum temeritatem magistro.

Cur Marcus reprehenditur? Prius, non demonstravit honorem magistro cum, irreverens, responsum ei dedit et dixit eum: Cur Titum non interrogas?, praeterea responsi Marci prave sunt quod non recte congruunt quaestiunculis Diodori.

Cur Titus non statim respondet? Non bene computat numeros quia difficile est cogitare eis Tito. Conatus est computare denarios sestertiis duodequinquaginta, Titus non certum, magistro non statim respondet.


Uter recte respondet, Titusne an Sextus?
Post responsum Titi incertum, dixit magister Sextu et licet ei respondere se et dixit Sextus quod duodecim denarii duodequinquaginta sestertii sunt.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:33 pm

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:CAPITULUM DECIMUM SEPTIMUM
irreverens, entis
congruo, congruere, congrui

Quid pueri discunt in ludo? Numeris cardinalibus discunt recte cogitare.

Cur Sextus a magistro laudatur? Laudatur quia magister Sexto honoratur et Sextus non facit responsum temeritatem magistro.

Cur Marcus reprehenditur? Prius, non demonstravit honorem magistro cum, irreverens, responsum ei dedit et dixit eum: Cur Titum non interrogas?, praeterea responsi Marci prave sunt quod non recte congruunt quaestiunculis Diodori.

Cur Titus non statim respondet? Non bene computat numeros quia difficile est cogitare eis Tito. Conatus est computare denarios sestertiis duodequinquaginta, Titus non certum, magistro non statim respondet.


Uter recte respondet, Titusne an Sextus?
Post responsum Titi incertum, dixit magister Sextu et licet ei respondere se et dixit Sextus quod duodecim denarii duodequinquaginta sestertii sunt.

Sexto is missing something.
facit responsum temeritatem doesn't work. Try with a verb, adjective, and noun combination or adverb plus verb.
Prius No. Quia like in the preview answer is fine. Prius doesn't make sense here.
eum What case for the person to whom you are speaking?
responsi what declension is responsus?
prave you should know better that an adjective must agree with a noun in number, gender, and case. And it cannot be an adverb.
eis check cogito. You should add a preposition or change case.
computare denarios sestertiis duodequinquaginta Rephrase. When you try to invent some expression on your own, you should check that some authority said it before you.
certum Again wrong concordance with the noun. Moreover, instead on non cert.., you could use incert.. (fill the dots).
Sextu What declension is Sextus and what case after dico?
licet ei respondere se et dixit Sextus Bad. Simplify.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:03 am

Thank you. Reply in couple of days :?
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Timothée » Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:42 pm

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:I was not sure if the accusative is correct, I looked back in the presentation to answer my question and there is this: Ego in terram eo multo pulchriorem, in patriam meam Graecam.
I go into a much more beautiful land, into my country, Greece.
Videtur mihi recte dicere: redire....in Graecam vult, ergo in eo modo scripsi. But I thought about Graeca first. But then I reviewed the presentation.

Do you understand this now? They’re not compatible: patria Graeca (lit. ‘Greek fatherland’) but Graecia ‘Greece’. Graecus is adjective but Graecia substantive.

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:To attribute to the subject the act of now being called, is it not to say: Neptunus a nautae invocatus est? Because:
Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur translates as Neptune is a god (a?) the sailors are called... The active plural is transitive to an object, not passive to a subject and therefore exists inflection to show the direction.

You still have some kind of mix-up. Revise your grammar!
Neptunus invocatur ‘Neptune is called’
Nautae invocantur ‘The sailors are called’
Neptunus a nautis invocatur ‘Neptune is called by the sailors’
Neptunus invocat ‘Neptune calls’
Nautas invocat ‘He calls the sailors’
Neptunum invocant ‘They call Neptune’
Nautae Neptunum invocant ‘The sailors call Neptune’
etc.
Do you see how these sentences differ?

Mutatis mutandis is an ablative absolute that means ‘when the things that need to be changed have been changed’, i.e. ‘when the necessary changes have been made’. In expressions like this Latin can be quite compact.

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:Os suum aquae plenus, Mede conatur invocare Neptunum, [deest] eum non consequi potest

Where did the word “Mede” come from?? From the English?? You’ll need to be attentive when writing Latin. But this is still wrong. I should like you to see yourself where you went wrong, so as you may learn better. I reiterate my question: which is full, the Mede or the mouth? If you answer “the mouth”, then which is the word’s gender in Latin? Which attributes does it have? They need to be in the same gender, as well. And this whole construction you’ll probably want to write as an ablative absolute (I failed to mention this earlier, sorry). Some other constructions, too, might be possible. Before the last clause you’ll want to have some conjunction, probably sed.

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:Navis [deest] mari non mergitur.

As I said in my first comments, I think “Navis in mari non mergitur” may be the best formation.

Remember to write with utmost care.

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:But I will persist with Ordberb because there is so much potential in his format

I don’t know Ørdberg and cannot really comment on it. I just remark on Latin the best I can. My suggestions are obviously open to critique.
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:19 pm

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:
I was not sure if the accusative is correct, I looked back in the presentation to answer my question and there is this: Ego in terram eo multo pulchriorem, in patriam meam Graecam.
I go into a much more beautiful land, into my country, Greece.
Videtur mihi recte dicere: redire....in Graecam vult, ergo in eo modo scripsi. But I thought about Graeca first. But then I reviewed the presentation.


Timothee replied:
Do you understand this now? They’re not compatible: patria Graeca (lit. ‘Greek fatherland’) but Graecia ‘Greece’. Graecus is adjective but Graecia substantive.

Matthew:
May an adjective be used as the object of a verb or preposition?
One who is limited with ignorance must learn how to spell words which are adjectives and substantives.
Gracia, ae. 1st decl. Greece the country.
Graecus, i. 2nd decl. The Greek, the Greeks
Graecus, a, um, adj. masc., fem., neuter.
One becomes aware of the need for caution pertaining to verbs in their relationship to case.

"I was not sure if the accusative is correct"
Now I think I see that the preposition "in" takes the accusative when a place is expressed into/ toward which something moves.
The preposition "in" takes the ablative when expressed is a place in which something happens"

My confusion is here constituted of two things, at least: Ignorance of correct spelling with an inadvertent disregard for rules of syntax necessarily linked to it and my act, itself, of emerging out of ignorance.

Timothee replied:
You still have some kind of mix-up. Revise your grammar!
Do you see how these sentences differ?


Matthew:
Neptunus invocatur ‘Neptune is called’
Nominative singular with third person passive indicative.

Nautae invocantur ‘The sailors are called’
Nominative plural with third person passive indicative.

Neptunus a nautis invocatur ‘Neptune is called by the sailors’
Nominative singular recipient of action, preposition for the ablative of agency(nautis, pl) with passive indicative, "ntur"

Neptunus invocat ‘Neptune calls’
Nominative singular with active present indicative active as predicate.

Nautas invocat ‘He calls the sailors’
Nominative singular, subject inflected with transitive verb to the plural accusative.

Neptunum invocant ‘They call Neptune’
Accusative singular direct object of active present indicative third, nominative plural inflected

Nautae Neptunum invocant ‘The sailors call Neptune’
Nominative plural, accusative singular of transitive verb, active indicative third person plural



Matthew:
Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur translates as Neptune is a god (a?) the sailors are called... The active plural is transitive to an object, not passive to a subject and therefore exists inflection to show the direction....I talk too much.

I will finish my reply to Timothee and then review my reply to Bedwere.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:50 pm

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:
Os suum aquae plenus, Mede conatur invocare Neptunum, [deest] eum non consequi potest.
Wow...this is truly gibberish! :oops: The mouth his of water/for water/waters full, the Mede tries to invoke Neptune, :lol:...he is not able to go after him.
I'm going to take this lesson from you, Timothee. I have to go to work right now. I will get your point!

Where did the word “Mede” come from?? From the English?? You’ll need to be attentive when writing Latin. But this is still wrong. I should like you to see yourself where you went wrong, so as you may learn better. I reiterate my question: which is full, the Mede or the mouth? If you answer “the mouth”, then which is the word’s gender in Latin? Which attributes does it have? They need to be in the same gender, as well. And this whole construction you’ll probably want to write as an ablative absolute (I failed to mention this earlier, sorry). Some other constructions, too, might be possible. Before the last clause you’ll want to have some conjunction, probably sed.

1) I should like you to see yourself where you went wrong.

One thinking intuitively in the ablative absolute, he failed to understand the form of its' Latin construction. Attempting to write what he did not understand, he used a third declension nominative next to a reflexive pronoun. He put the ablative of a noun at the beginning of a clause, thinking that that clause would be independent.

The ablative absolute most often consists of a noun+ a perfect passive participle in the ablative case. As a subordinate construction, it occurs only as an addition to an independent clause (i.e., a complete sentence). But as its name "absolute" implies, it is not directly connected to either the subject or the object of the independent clause [and] it gives a circumstance which modifies the meaning of the sentence"
Collins, J. F. (1985). A primer of ecclesiastical Latin. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press., pp 104
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:01 am

I reiterate my question: which is full, the Mede or the mouth? If you answer “the mouth”, then which is the word’s gender in Latin? Which attributes does it have? I should like you to see yourself where you went wrong.

The mouth:
Os, oris, 3rd decl. neuter:
os
oris
ori
os
ore
ora
oribus
ora
oribus
Neuter nouns of the third declension use the same endings employed by masculine and feminine third declension nouns, except that the accusative singular duplicates the nominative singular (learned as a vocabulary item) and the nominative and accusative plural both end in -a
Collins, J. F. (1985). A primer of ecclesiastical Latin. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press., pp112

Suus, -a, -um
of or belonging to himself, herself, etc.; his own, her own, etc.; his, her, its, their; one's; hers, theirs.
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... s-contents


Os suum aquae plenus, Mede conatur invocare Neptunum, [deest] eum non consequi potest.

Os suum aquae plenus...

The preceding arrangement of words consists of two pairs. The first pair puts a nominative substantive with a reflexive pronoun. "Os suum" is a consistent arrangement since the noun with its adjective agree in case, number, and gender. The second pair of words have no consistency because "aquae" may be nominative plural, dative singular, or genitive singular of the first declension feminine and it is not possible for "plenus", the adjective in the second declension masculine and nominative case, to attribute to "aquae". More to it, I had intended to use "plenus" to attriute to "os" and neither is this possible for absence of agreement.

Mede conatur invocare Neptunum
One strives by the Mede to invoke Neptune... An independent clause I suppose to have been modified by what I erroneously intuited :lol: to be a phrase of the ablative absolute previously arranged as gibberish. Beside that, the Mede is a slave, not a priest!
How about: "Medus Neptunum conatur invocare."?

Ore eius aqua pleno, Medus Neptunum conatur invocare sed non potest.



utinam haec ignoraret suam ignorationem
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... s-contents

The Ablative answers the questions whence, from where? by what means? from what cause? in what manner? when? and where?
Arnold, T. K., Mountford, J. F., & Bradley, G. G. (2005). Bradley's Arnold Latin prose composition. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci. pp155
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Timothée » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:45 pm

Now you have inexplicably changed the construction of aqua! It’s not wrong by any means, but it may be better to stick here to the genitive of classical Latin as you had before. (Of course it’s Aue Maria, gratia plena.) It’s still not clear to me if you got the construction os plenum (instead of plenus), which will now be in ablative. It may be clear already without eius.

Why not arrange the sentence for example Medus conatur Neptunum invocare sed ore aquae pleno non potest? I don’t know, but it might produce a little more dramatic effect...
Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:54 am

Timothee, yer rakn' my mind and fer that m' grateful, eh? I will reply to your questions for in these yer helping me. Forgive my current inebriate exuberance. The task of nursing is arduous.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:37 am

Matthew wrote:
CAPITULUM DECIMUM SEPTIMUM
irreverens, entis
congruo, congruere, congrui

Quid pueri discunt in ludo? Numeris cardinalibus discunt recte cogitare.

Cur Sextus a magistro laudatur? Laudatur quia magister Sexto honoratur et Sextus non facit responsum temeritatem magistro.


Cur Marcus reprehenditur? Prius, non demonstravit honorem magistro cum, irreverens, responsum ei dedit et dixit eum: Cur Titum non interrogas?, praeterea responsi Marci prave sunt quod non recte congruunt quaestiunculis Diodori.

Cur Titus non statim respondet? Non bene computat numeros quia difficile est cogitare eis Tito. Conatus est computare denarios sestertiis duodequinquaginta, Titus non certum, magistro non statim respondet.


Uter recte respondet, Titusne an Sextus?
Post responsum Titi incertum, dixit magister Sextu [i]et licet ei respondere se et dixit Sextus
quod duodecim denarii duodequinquaginta sestertii sunt.[/i]


Bedwere replied:

1) Sexto is missing something.
Laudatur quia magister a Sexto honoratur.

2) facit responsum temeritatem doesn't work. Try with a verb, adjective, and noun combination or adverb plus verb.
It doesn't work because it's not clear what is made: a responce or temerity. In the arrangement of words I made, there are two nouns in the accusative case and it seems, here anyway, that a transitive cannot take two objects at once. Also, "facio" is not well put to work in attempting to convey that one gives a response.

tĕmĕrārĭus , a, um, adj.
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... alphabetic letter=T:entry group=8:entry=temerarius

Sextus a magistro laudatur quia non dedit ei responsum temerarium.
Sextus is praised by the teacher for he does not give to him an inconsiderate response.

temere, adv indeclform
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... la#lexicon

Magister laudat Sextum quia is non temere respondit magistro


3) Prius No. Quia like in the preview answer is fine. Prius doesn't make sense here.

[i]Cur Marcus reprehenditur? [i]Prius
, non demonstravit honorem magistro cum, irreverens, responsum ei dedit et dixit eum:[/i]

Prius
"former, previous, prior, freq. to be translated first"

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... la#lexicon
I need to not assume that what I think is correct. My assumption was that I could use this word to indicate the first of two ideas.

4) eum
What case for the person to whom you are speaking?
responsum ei dedit et dixit eum:
He gave to him a response and said him....

Responsum dedit dixitque ei.
A response he gave and said to him.


5) Cur Titum non interrogas?, praeterea responsi Marci prave sunt quod non recte congruunt quaestiunculis Diodori....Terrible. Patience. Review. Work. When I come back I'll rewrite this.

responsi
what declension is responsus?

Responsus, a, um, adj. Masc, feminine, neuter
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... alphabetic letter=R:entry group=22:entry=responsus1


rēsponsus , ūs
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... alphabetic letter=R:entry group=22:entry=responsus2





6) prave you should know better that an adjective must agree with a noun in number, gender, and case. And it cannot be an adverb.
7) eis check cogito. You should add a preposition or change case.
8 computare denarios sestertiis duodequinquaginta Rephrase. When you try to invent some expression on your own, you should check that some authority said it before you.
9) certum Again wrong concordance with the noun. Moreover, instead on non cert.., you could use incert.. (fill the dots).
10) Sextu What declension is Sextus and what case after dico?
11) licet ei respondere se et dixit Sextus Bad. Simplify.[/i]
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:29 pm

Bedwere replied:

1) Sexto is missing something.
Laudatur quia magister a Sexto honoratur.

2) facit responsum temeritatem doesn't work. Try with a verb, adjective, and noun combination or adverb plus verb.
It doesn't work because it's not clear what is made: a responce or temerity. In the arrangement of words I made, there are two nouns in the accusative case and it seems, here anyway, that a transitive cannot take two objects at once. Also, "facio" is not well put to work in attempting to convey that one gives a response.

tĕmĕrārĭus , a, um, adj.
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... alphabetic letter=T:entry group=8:entry=temerarius

Sextus a magistro laudatur quia non dedit ei responsum temerarium.
Sextus is praised by the teacher for he does not give to him an inconsiderate response.

temere, adv indeclform
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... la#lexicon

Magister laudat Sextum quia is non temere respondit magistro


3) Prius No. Quia like in the preview answer is fine. Prius doesn't make sense here.

Cur Marcus reprehenditur? [i]Prius, non demonstravit honorem magistro cum, irreverens, responsum ei dedit et dixit eum:

Prius
"former, previous, prior, freq. to be translated first"

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... la#lexicon
I need to not assume that what I think is correct. My assumption was that I could use this word to indicate the first of two ideas.

4) eum
What case for the person to whom you are speaking?
responsum ei dedit et dixit eum:
He gave to him a response and said him....

Responsum dedit dixitque ei.
A response he gave and said to him.


5) Cur Titum non interrogas?, praeterea responsi Marci prave sunt quod non recte congruunt quaestiunculis Diodori....Terrible. Patience. Review. Work. When I come back I'll rewrite this.

responsi
what declension is responsus?

Responsus, a, um, adj. Masc, feminine, neuter
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... alphabetic letter=R:entry group=22:entry=responsus1


rēsponsus , ūs
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... alphabetic letter=R:entry group=22:entry=responsus2





6) prave you should know better that an adjective must agree with a noun in number, gender, and case. And it cannot be an adverb.
7) eis check cogito. You should add a preposition or change case.
8 computare denarios sestertiis duodequinquaginta Rephrase. When you try to invent some expression on your own, you should check that some authority said it before you.
9) certum Again wrong concordance with the noun. Moreover, instead on non cert.., you could use incert.. (fill the dots).
10) Sextu What declension is Sextus and what case after dico?
11) licet ei respondere se et dixit Sextus Bad. Simplify.[/i]
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:34 pm

If you insist on using prius, then you need to add a "deinde" or something equivalent at the appropriate place. Otherwise it doesn't work.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:58 am

I apologize that there seems to be misunderstanding about a disposition to insist: I would rather not insist to use prius. What I want to do is to list the criticisms that someone would make of my attempts to write and I want to use criticisms to acquire a sense which I do not have. So when I go to a definition for a word, a definition found in a dictionary, I want to see why my use of a word ought to be understood as good or bad. I met someone on a retreat with the Family of St. Jerome who recommended me to this forum. More personally, after my wife passed away in 2009, I began to read Latin grammar texts and I have persisted each day since then, each day, either to attempt to read Latin, or to practice the Chant, or to pronounce Latin out loud. It is humiliating to see how poor my progress has been over that length of time but I say, once more, this forum has provided a great deal of traction and I am grateful to you for it.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:09 am

Sorry for your wife: may she rest in peace. Don't worry about the misunderstanding and try to see the glass as half full: you're making progress, even if not as fast as you'd like.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Fri Nov 04, 2016 5:21 am

So much Latin, so little time.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:07 am

Bedwere replied:

6) prave you should know better that an adjective must agree with a noun in number, gender, and case. And it cannot be an adverb.

Cur Titum non interrogas?, praeterea responsi Marci prave sunt quod non recte congruunt quaestiunculis Diodori. Really bad! Very terrible! I can see it now, I must be making progress!

Non interrogo eum quia responsus eius boni sunt et recte respondit questionibus Diodori.

7) eis check cogito. You should add a preposition or change case.

to pursue something in the mind

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... la#lexicon

Non bene computat numeros quia difficile est cogitare eis
Non bene computat numeros quia difficile est cogitare eos. Non bene...cogitare de eis.

8 computare denarios sestertiis duodequinquaginta Rephrase. When you try to invent some expression on your own, you should check that some authority said it before you and certum is, again, wrong concordance with the noun. Moreover, instead on non cert.., you could use incert.. (fill the dots).

Conatus est computare denarios sestertiis duodequinquaginta, Titus non certum, magistro non statim respondet.

Conatus est computare numerum denariorum qui de sestertiis duodequinquaginta sunt et Titus incertus non statim magistro respondet.

10) Sextu What declension is Sextus and what case after dico?
Sextus is second declension and the dative, Sexto, is taken by dico

Post responsum Titi incertum, dixit magister Sextu et licet ei respondere se et dixit Sextus quod duodecim denarii duodequinquaginta sestertii sunt.

11) licet ei respondere se et dixit Sextus Bad. Simplify.

Post responsum Titi dixit magister: Responde Sexte et Sextus computavit duodecim denarios in duodequinquaginta sestertios sunt.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:14 am

Sextus computavit duodecim denarios in duodequinquaginta sestertios sunt


You should either use the more colloquial quod/quia/quoniam + indicative or the classical accusative + infinitive construction. You mixed the two and it didn't come out right. Also, when there is no motion, what case should follow in?
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:33 am

Two more items to consider. Thank you, sincerely, and then I shall try to just simply conform to Orberg's format.
Last edited by Matthew Gendzwill on Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:42 pm

bedwere wrote:
Sextus computavit duodecim denarios in duodequinquaginta sestertios sunt


You should either use the more colloquial quod/quia/quoniam + indicative or the classical accusative + infinitive construction. You mixed the two and it didn't come out right. Also, when there is no motion, what case should follow in?



computavit denarios duodecim esse in duodequinquaginta sestertiis.

When a location or, for example, a set within which a number might be a subset follows the preposition, it is indicated in the ablative case.

One of the most noteworthy features of the Latin language is the use of dependent noun clauses...whose verb is an infinitive and whose subject is an accusative.


Arnold, T. K., Mountford, J. F., & Bradley, G. G. (2006). Bradley's Arnold Latin prose composition. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci. pp36
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:02 am

Question: How do I know which conjugation of some verb is indicated when viewing verbs at perseus.tufts.edu?
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:52 am

Perseus shows you the entries of the Lewis and Short dictionary. You can tell if it belongs to the 2nd (theme in 3) or 4th (theme in i) conjugation by looking at the present: if it ends in eo, then it's 2nd; if it ends in io, then it's 4th. To distinguish between the 1st (theme in a) and the 3rd (consonant theme) conjugation look at the perfect: if it end in avi, then it's first conjugation. Analogously for deponents.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Mon Nov 21, 2016 4:26 pm

CAPITULUM DOUDEVIGESIMUM

Litteras latinas, in capitulo monstrantibus, quarum litterae a, e, i, o, v, vocales sunt. Vocabula vocalibus et consonantibus composita sunt. Syllabae sine vocalibus non existit. Syllabae vocabulorum vocalibus cum consonantibus scripta, posset vocabula lector dicere.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:49 pm

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:CAPITULUM DOUDEVIGESIMUM

Litteras latinas, in capitulo monstrantibus, quarum litterae a, e, i, o, v, vocales sunt. Vocabula vocalibus et consonantibus composita sunt. Syllabae sine vocalibus non existit. Syllabae vocabulorum vocalibus cum consonantibus scripta, posset vocabula lector dicere.


This is a mess.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:17 am

bedwere wrote:
Matthew Gendzwill wrote:CAPITULUM DOUDEVIGESIMUM

Litteras latinas, capitulo monstrantibus, quarum litterae a, e, i, o, v, vocales sunt. Vocabula, vocalibus et consonantibus composita, simpliciter scripta sunt. Syllabae sine vocalibus non existit. Syllabae vocabulorum vocalibus cum consonantibus scripta, posset vocabula lector dicere.


This is a mess.



I'm not going to give up, I will simplify. :oops:

Vocabula Latinae litteras habent quae vocales sunt a,e,i,o,v. Sentnetiae libri Familiae Romanae simpliciter composita sunt. Quaeque syllaba vocalem habet et syllabae non existent sine vocalibus neque vocabuli existent sine syllabis.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:48 pm

Matthew Gendzwill wrote:I'm not going to give up, I will simplify. :oops:

Vocabula Latinae litteras habent quae vocales sunt a,e,i,o,v. Sentnetiae libri Familiae Romanae simpliciter composita sunt. Quaeque syllaba vocalem habet et syllabae non existent sine vocalibus neque vocabuli existent sine syllabis.


There are still problems. :roll:
Do you really mean Latinae?
What tense is existent?


Anyway, nobody wants you to give up. Rather, is the book asking you to write these compositions or is it an idea of yours? If you want to master composition, I recommend a more traditional approach. Textkit was originally created to distribute old Latin and Greek school books. Download and do the exercises in Latin Prose Composition, North and Hillard. There is also the key to correct your work (but feel free to post).
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Matthew Gendzwill » Thu Nov 24, 2016 4:36 am

bedwere wrote:
Matthew Gendzwill wrote:I'm not going to give up, I will simplify. :oops:

Vocabula Latinae litteras habent quae vocales sunt a,e,i,o,v. Sentnetiae libri Familiae Romanae simpliciter composita sunt. Quaeque syllaba vocalem habet et syllabae non existent sine vocalibus neque vocabuli existent sine syllabis.


There are still problems. :roll:
Do you really mean Latinae?
What tense is existent?


Anyway, nobody wants you to give up. Rather, is the book asking you to do write these compositions or is it an idea of yours? If you want to master composition, I recommend a more traditional approach. Textkit was originally created to distribute old Latin and Greek school books. Download and do the exercises in Latin Prose Composition, North and Hillard. There is also the key to correct your work (but feel free to post).



Yes, I know. No, the book has its own exercises and I have posted these but I think I ought to make original attempts, too, for these show how extensive is my ignorance and there is the opportunity. Yet I will no longer try, as I did in my beginning, to compose long sentences or post numerous sentences from Ordberg's execises because I think numerous attempts are inefficient. And there is the stubborn habit I have of not seeing what is right in front of me, e.g., that "existo" is first conjugation!

Yes, I intended "Latinae" when trying to say "Latin words", since "a" may be neuter plural nominative and "ae" may be....Well, there! I did it again! "Latinae" may be nominative plural but in gender it does not agree with "vocabula". Given the number of mistakes I tend to make out of this...habit or act of seeing, (ablative absolute), I remind my self not to give up and the power of seeing/knowing will eventually take its right object.

I will begin again with your direction.
Matthew Gendzwill
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Karagialis » Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:01 pm

Hello friends,

I'm thinking about writing some chapters along the lines of this book. Where should I post them? Here, or is there another thread more suitable?
Karagialis
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:55 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:23 pm

Karagialis wrote:Hello friends,

I'm thinking about writing some chapters along the lines of this book. Where should I post them? Here, or is there another thread more suitable?

Yes, another thread would definitely be more suitable. Thanks!
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby Karagialis » Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:41 pm

bedwere wrote:
Karagialis wrote:Hello friends,

I'm thinking about writing some chapters along the lines of this book. Where should I post them? Here, or is there another thread more suitable?

Yes, another thread would definitely be more suitable. Thanks!


Where do you suggest? I couldn't find an Orberg composition thread (I think there might be one)

If not, I guess I should open a new thread in the Composition Board
Karagialis
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:55 pm

Re: Hans Ordberg, Lingua Latina per se illustrata

Postby bedwere » Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:18 pm

Karagialis wrote:
bedwere wrote:
Karagialis wrote:Hello friends,

I'm thinking about writing some chapters along the lines of this book. Where should I post them? Here, or is there another thread more suitable?

Yes, another thread would definitely be more suitable. Thanks!


Where do you suggest? I couldn't find an Orberg composition thread (I think there might be one)

If not, I guess I should open a new thread in the Composition Board

That would be most appropriate.
User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Previous

Return to Learning Latin