Hey.
I am currently in a beginning Latin class but our professor wants us to attempt to do the LA sections for extra credit. I'm having problems because they are bit out of range for what I'm learning but I've done lots of reading ahead. I was wondering if I could get some help.
Here's my translation of LA 12.
TEXT: Hoc omne tempus inter tabellas ac libellos iucundisssima quiete consumpsi. "Quemadmodum," inquis, "in urbe potuisti?" Circenses erant quo genere spectaculi ne levissime quidem teneor. Nihil novum, nihil, varium, nihil quod semel spectavisse non sufficiat. Quare miror tot milia virorum tam pueriliter identidem cupere currentes equos videre. Vale.
TRANSLATION: I used up all this time between a writing pad and a book in a most pleasant quietness. "How," you say, "were you able to in the city?" There were games which I was not even being led to carry on in the most light show. Nothing new , nothing different, nothing because he should suffice to have seen at one time. Therefore, the marvel of som many soldiers of men to such a boyish activiely repeatedly to see running horses. Good- bye.
LA 13
TEXT: Nuper cum Comi fui, venit ad me salutandum filius amici cuiusdam. Huic ego "Studes?" inquam. Respondit: "Etiam." "Ubi?" "Mediolani." "Cur non hic?" Et pater eius, qui ipse puerum ad me adduxerat, respondit: "quod nullos magistros hic habemus." Huic aliisque patribus qui audiebant ego: "Quare nullos?" inquam. "Nam ubi iucundius liberi vestri discere possunt quam hic in urbe vestra et sub oculis patrum? Atque ego, qui nondum liberos habeo, pro re publica nostra quasi pro parente tertiam partem eius pecuiae dabo quam conferre vobis placebit. Nihil enim melius praestare liberis vestris, nihil gratius patriae potestis."
TRANSLATION: Recently, when he was in Como, he caem to me about to greet the son who was the same friend. To me, I was being asked, "Do you study?" He responded "Also." "where?" "Milan." "why not here?" And the father of him, who was leading the boy himself to me, responded, "Becuase we have no teachers." To him and the others who were listening, I was asking, "Why not?" "For how are our pleasant children able to learn how this in our city and under the eyes of the father? And I who do not yet have the books on beahlf of the republic as if before [this is where I get completely lost]. Nothing in fact to offered for our books, you will not be able to gratitude to the fatherland."
I know this is horrific. But I would love help to explain what I'm doing wrong for the future. Thanks! Does anyone know of an online latin tutor that you can pay like via Paypal or credit card and have internet tutoring?
Loci Antiqui
-
Ulpianus
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: London, UK
Pretty good: but some of the translations aren't really making sense -- which is usually a sign something is wrong. I'll do the first one.
Passage 1 starts correctly. Then text reads
The next sentence doesn't make sense to me. circenses erant is simple and you have it right. quo genere spectaculi etc starts to go wrong: quo is a relative pronoun in the ablative: "by/with/from". genere could be an infinitive (as you have it), but that hardly makes sense. Let's guess it is an ablative from kind (genus = the root of genitive: the case which tells you what kind of thing something is). That begins to make sense: "by which kind"; spectaculi is then a genitive: "by which kind of spectacle".
"ne ... quidem" is "not even" or "not indeed". "levissime" = "lightly" and "teneor" "I am held/gripped" (including to hold the attention). Put it all together: "by which kind of spectacle I cannot indeed lightly be gripped". This again requires some rephrasing to produce decent English. Maybe something like "There were circuses -- a kind of entertainment which does not readily hold my attention at all". (It is not unusual or wrong to find that a Latin passive needs to turn into an English active construction.)
The next sentence is fine until you hit some rocks with "nihil quod semel spectavisse non sufficiat". Actually that's not all that hard -- a straight literal English translation will get you there: "nothing which once to have seen does not suffice". So again a little reworking: "nothing which it is not enough to have seen once" or, if you were being freer but clearer "nothing you would need to see more than once". (You went wrong because you took quod as because not as a pronoun, and you were puzzled by sufficiat which is an impersonal verb "it suffices")
In the next sentence you have missed the fact that miror is a verb (perhaps its position tripped you up): "I marvel" (it's a deponent -- active in meaning, passive in form; happily the English version "to be amazed" is deponent too): "Therefore, I am amazed ..." There is then a rather complex mass of accusative and infinitive constructions. This follows miror because what is marvelled at is treated as a mental process, therefore as if reported speech. Working, as it were, from the outside in : "I am amazed that so many thousands [milia = thousands, not soldiers] of men [=adult males, not just people] should so childishly [pueriliter] desire [cupere] repeatedly..." Then a second accusative infinitive construction describing what they want : "to see running horses". Once again, a bit of rephrasing improves the English: "So I am amazed that there are so many thousands of grown men with such a childish longing to see horses running again and again". This plays a slight liberty with identidem, which seem to go with cupere not videre, but I don't think the sense changes.
Sorry it's so long -- but I take it it is more helpful to have an explanation than a crib.
Passage 1 starts correctly. Then text reads
You have:"Quemadmodum," inquis, "in urbe potuisti?" Circenses erant quo genere spectaculi ne levissime quidem teneor. Nihil novum, nihil varium, nihil quod semel spectavisse non sufficiat. Quare miror tot milia virorum tam pueriliter identidem cupere currentes equos videre.
"How were you able to in the city" is correct, but to my taste you need to modify it a bit to make it sensible English. How were you able to do that in the city?""How," you say, "were you able to in the city?" There were games which I was not even being led to carry on in the most light show. Nothing new , nothing different, nothing because he should suffice to have seen at one time. Therefore, the marvel of som many soldiers of men to such a boyish activiely repeatedly to see running horses.
The next sentence doesn't make sense to me. circenses erant is simple and you have it right. quo genere spectaculi etc starts to go wrong: quo is a relative pronoun in the ablative: "by/with/from". genere could be an infinitive (as you have it), but that hardly makes sense. Let's guess it is an ablative from kind (genus = the root of genitive: the case which tells you what kind of thing something is). That begins to make sense: "by which kind"; spectaculi is then a genitive: "by which kind of spectacle".
"ne ... quidem" is "not even" or "not indeed". "levissime" = "lightly" and "teneor" "I am held/gripped" (including to hold the attention). Put it all together: "by which kind of spectacle I cannot indeed lightly be gripped". This again requires some rephrasing to produce decent English. Maybe something like "There were circuses -- a kind of entertainment which does not readily hold my attention at all". (It is not unusual or wrong to find that a Latin passive needs to turn into an English active construction.)
The next sentence is fine until you hit some rocks with "nihil quod semel spectavisse non sufficiat". Actually that's not all that hard -- a straight literal English translation will get you there: "nothing which once to have seen does not suffice". So again a little reworking: "nothing which it is not enough to have seen once" or, if you were being freer but clearer "nothing you would need to see more than once". (You went wrong because you took quod as because not as a pronoun, and you were puzzled by sufficiat which is an impersonal verb "it suffices")
In the next sentence you have missed the fact that miror is a verb (perhaps its position tripped you up): "I marvel" (it's a deponent -- active in meaning, passive in form; happily the English version "to be amazed" is deponent too): "Therefore, I am amazed ..." There is then a rather complex mass of accusative and infinitive constructions. This follows miror because what is marvelled at is treated as a mental process, therefore as if reported speech. Working, as it were, from the outside in : "I am amazed that so many thousands [milia = thousands, not soldiers] of men [=adult males, not just people] should so childishly [pueriliter] desire [cupere] repeatedly..." Then a second accusative infinitive construction describing what they want : "to see running horses". Once again, a bit of rephrasing improves the English: "So I am amazed that there are so many thousands of grown men with such a childish longing to see horses running again and again". This plays a slight liberty with identidem, which seem to go with cupere not videre, but I don't think the sense changes.
Sorry it's so long -- but I take it it is more helpful to have an explanation than a crib.
-
Ulpianus
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: London, UK
I'll give you a few pointers to the second one, and see if you can put them together:
(1) fui = 1st person not third
(2) venit ad me salutandum filius amici cuiusdam "the son of a certain friend came to pay his respects to me" filius is the subject
(3) adduxerat = pluperfect (had brought)
(4) you have missed patribus in line three "other fathers"
(5) liberi = children, not books! This is a simple vocab error which throws you completely off for the rest of the passage. So for instance "nam ubi ... patrum" = "For where could your children more pleasantly learn than in this very city under their fathers eyes".
(6) "Atque ego ... placebit" is quite hard: Hint: he's offering to pay a share of the cost of a teacher even though he has no children.
(7) The last sentence is also, I think, quite hard. Look for the main verb "potestis" = "you (pl) can". liberis and patriae are both dative "for your children ... for your native city". With this hint I think you can probably figure it out.
(1) fui = 1st person not third
(2) venit ad me salutandum filius amici cuiusdam "the son of a certain friend came to pay his respects to me" filius is the subject
(3) adduxerat = pluperfect (had brought)
(4) you have missed patribus in line three "other fathers"
(5) liberi = children, not books! This is a simple vocab error which throws you completely off for the rest of the passage. So for instance "nam ubi ... patrum" = "For where could your children more pleasantly learn than in this very city under their fathers eyes".
(6) "Atque ego ... placebit" is quite hard: Hint: he's offering to pay a share of the cost of a teacher even though he has no children.
(7) The last sentence is also, I think, quite hard. Look for the main verb "potestis" = "you (pl) can". liberis and patriae are both dative "for your children ... for your native city". With this hint I think you can probably figure it out.