D'Ooge's Latin For Beginners Key

[Jeff Tirey]

No key was produced by the publisher of Benjamin L. D'Ooge's Latin For Beginners because the book was intended for classroom use. To help independent learners, this key was prepared by a small group of Textkit Forum members who were all kind enough to volunteer their time, energy and skills.

The key can be found here:
http://www.textkit.com/learn/ID/158/author_id/13/

Like all keys on Textkit, you must be subscribed to our free newsletter to gain access to the free download.

Please use this thread to post questions, comments or suggestions about this key.

[Episcopus]

We shouldn't have bothered to put in macrons since they don't be here.
I can add that multitude of missing Latin --> English exercises.

Nice one as always jeff

[Jeff Tirey]

the credit belongs to Ingrid, Mariek, Skylax, Keesa and yourself.

[tdominus]

Excellent. Thanks to everyone involved I myself sent a few answers but I guess they weren't needed.
Now it's time for me to find out how accurate I have been.

[Episcopus]

About the key: Don't follow it strictly. Often the Latin therein is clumsy and sometimes even totally incorrect. Problems will be corrected and I'm sure its appreciated yet Latin still is a language whose messages may be in my opinion expressed in different ways yet bearing the same essence as some other rendering. So its not always wise (I didn't have a key when working through it) to assume the latin in the key to be perfect.
Develop your own style if possible...

[Radek]

I think generally the key is very goog and usefully for me.
Sometime I have problems with it, but I think it was a good work.

Nothink is best first time.

[benissimus]

That is so true... look how many edits there are on my Wheelock Answer Key and you will realize how much Latin gods such as myself even make errors or awkward sentences

[Barrius]

Ingrid et al,

I had made myself a note a few days ago about one of the answers in the key, page 19, qeustion 39.II.3 in which I questioned the answer provided in the key. The exercise is to translate "The farmers' daughters do labor" into Latin.

I would think it would be "Filiae [nominitive plural] agricolarum [genitive plural] laborant [3rd person verb matching in number and case to filiae].

The key has this as "Filiae agricolae laborant", which would translate to "The farmer's daughters do labor", if I'm not mistaken.

I searched the site to see if this had already been addressed, my apologies in advance if it has ;o)

Thanks.

[ingrid70]

Hi Barrius,

I've changed the key to read agricolarum.

There have been a lot of small changes in the key, but no additions as yet, as I've been working in another textbook myself. I was hoping to post a complete key next time, but I need some help with that. Anyone who has the Latin-English exercises beyond 200 on the computer, please ?

Ingrid

[Barrius]

Hi Barrius,

I've changed the key to read agricolarum.

There have been a lot of small changes in the key, but no additions as yet, as I've been working in another textbook myself. I was hoping to post a complete key next time, but I need some help with that. Anyone who has the Latin-English exercises beyond 200 on the computer, please ?

Ingrid

Wow - that was fast!

I wish I was that far into the exercises!

[Barrius]

...
There have been a lot of small changes in the key ...
Ingrid

P.S. A HUGE thanks to everyone that contributed to the key. It certainly helps to be able to immediately check the answers.

[Barrius]

To the great and wonderful master of the key ;o)

Re: exercise § 77, page 33 (dialogue between Galba and Marcus).

Galba (#1): “Quis, Marce, est legatus cum pilo et tuba?”
The key provides the translation as “Who, O Marcus, is the lieutenant with the spears and trumpets?”
Shouldn't it be “with the spear and trumpet” since “pilo” is neuter ablative singular and “tuba” is feminine ablative singular?

In Marcus' first response, Sextus should be capitalized.

Marcus (#4): “In oppido Sextus cum filiabus habitat.”
The key provides the translation as “In the town with his daughter.”
Shouldn't it be “with his daughters” since “filiabus is feminine ablative plural?

Thanks in advance.

[whiteoctave]

Just read the above post and was reminded about something cool about filiabus. It is a purposely and artificially formed ablative (and occasionally dative) plural from filia (formed by analogy with the 3/4/5th declension), so as to provide a gender distinction from its counterpart filius, since both would have the indiscernible abl. and dat. pl. filiis.

~dave

p.s. the first emendation suggested by Barrius doesn't necessarily need to be altered as pilo and tuba could be operating as collective singulars.

[Barrius]

Neat explanation. D'Ooge points out that dea and filia are declined in this manner, but fails to mention why. Now we know!

Thanks

[sherry]

Hello,
When I try to open this key, it says the file cannot be found. I am able to open other texts/files however. Can you provide me with a link to the Latin for beginners key?

Thank you very much.

[Timothy]

Hello,
When I try to open this key, it says the file cannot be found. I am able to open other texts/files however. Can you provide me with a link to the Latin for beginners key?

Hi Sherry!

I'm not sure if you are having a problem getting the key file from the TextKit site or if you cannot open the file to view it on your system.

You need to download the PDF file from Textkit. (See Jeff's post, the very first one in this forum for the link)

You need the Adobe Acrobat Reader application to view the file. There's a link to Adobe on the page where you download the key. (It's the Adobe logo icon.)

Once you have both of these and install the Adobe Reader you should be able to view the file.

HTH

- Tim

[sherry]

Tim, thanks for your response. I figured out what i was doing wrong-i was trying to open it directly instead of saving it to my hard drive! Got it now.

[singforsupper]

I tried to download the D'Ooge and I can only see page one on Acrobat Reader 5.0. It askes for a password and I don't know what that is.

[Timothy]

I send you a private message that I hope helped.

Were you able to get the book?

- Tim

[Episcopus]

p.s. the first emendation suggested by Barrius doesn't necessarily need to be altered as pilo and tuba could be operating as collective singulars.

hmm I read it like that Though I don't know why.

Is there any reference in A&G to that?

[Marcus]

I just started with D'Ooge. I've done the exercises through Lesson V so far. I downloaded the key and went back and checked my answers, and of course I had some wrong, and in most cases I saw what I had done wrong, but there is one that I'm puzzled about.  It is § 47 I. 11.:

"Nautae Victoriam Galba Nuntiat."

The key translates this as: "Galba is announcing the sailor's victory"

I translated it as "Galba announces (or is announcing) the victory to the sailor."

Since "nautae" can be either the genitive singular or the dative singular (or the nominative plural for that matter), how does one distinguish between "the sailor's victory" and "victory (as the direct object) to the sailor"?

I've heard, and D'Ooge says, that word order doesn't really matter in Latin (see, e.g., § 32.I, but D'Ooge also says that the indirect object usually stands before the d.o. (§ 45.a).

I translated "Galba is announcing the sailor's victory" as: "Galba Victoriam nautae nuntiat" since in most of the examples the genitive noun follows the thing that is possessed.

Even "Nautae Victoriam Galba Nuntiat" (the problem in § 47) seems to have an unusual word order. Wouldn't the subject typically come first? As in "Galba nautae victoriam nuntiat" ?

Sorry this is so long
Pax,
Marcus

[Timothy]

Your observations about the ambiguity here are valid. But this is one of those situations where the answer is less satisfying than you might hope for.

The answer here is that you get the proper case from context. The exercise is a series of question-and-answer sentences that highlight the accusative, genitive, and dative. The preceding sentence is the question:

Cuius victoriam Galba nuntiat?

You wouldn't answer this with a statement about to whom Galba announces the victory. Hence, nautae is in the genitive case, as it answers the question posed.

Is it possible that it's the dative case (and the indirect object)?

Yes. However, as you indicate, the word order in that sentence construction is askew.

Is the original good Latin word order? I think so, even though it seems a bit awkward. His comment in § 32.I is appropriate in a grammatical sense i.e. you are less likely to be confused about the function a word plays in the grammatical structure of the sentence regardless of its word order. For the most part, this is true (and more so at this stage of the book) but it is not absolute, as you observation shows.

Here, the word order shows a bit more emphasis being placed upon nautae as the answer to the question posed. As such, it has a position of high importance in the sentence.

To use the dative case, you would pose the question (as in § 47.3),

Cui Galba victoriam nuntiat?

Nautae Galba victoriam nuntiat.

Here I use the same odd word order to emphasis the answer to the question. As a simple, declarative statement the order would emphasis Galba,

Galba nautae victoriam nuntiat.

as in the sample from § 46

[Marcus]

Ok, Thanks. I guess I wasn't really paying attention to the context.

Is it fair to say that in the unlikely event that one came across the sentence "Nautae Victoriam Galba Nuntiat" in isolation, i.e., without any context, one would have no way of knowing whether it meant "Galba is announcing the sailor's victory" or "Galba announces the victory to the sailor"?

Also, I have a question on pronunciation. In section 4, D'Ooge says long a is pronounced like the a in father, and short a is pronounced like the first a in a-ha. The problem is that I pronounce those two sounds the same, and my (English) dictionary says they are pronounced the same. How, if at all, do they differ?

I have the same problem with long and short o. D'Ooge says long o is pronounced as in holy and short o as in wholly. I and my dictionary pronounce these two words exactly the same. Perhaps English pronunciation has changed since 1909, when D'Ooge's LFB was published.

Any pointers on pronunciation would be appreciated.

Finally, I have a question on adjectives and word order. Does it matter whether the adjective comes before or after the noun it describes? In the exercises, bona seems always to come before the noun, as in "bona puella," whereas parva seems usually to follow the noun, as in "puella parva." And in one spot (section 62 I. 9) the phrase is "bonae puellae parvae." Can one mix up the three words, as in "bonae parvae puellae" or "puellae bonae parvae"? Does the word order emphasize the characteristic expressed by the first adjective over those that follow, just as "little good girl" means something different than "good little girl" in English?

Thanks for any help. Sorry if these questions have been asked before in this forum.

Marcus

[Timothy]

Ok, Thanks. I guess I wasn't really paying attention to the context.

Is it fair to say that in the unlikely event that one came across the sentence "Nautae Victoriam Galba Nuntiat" in isolation, i.e., without any context, one would have no way of knowing whether it meant "Galba is announcing the sailor's victory" or "Galba announces the victory to the sailor"?

Pretty much, I think.

Also, I have a question on pronunciation. In section 4, D'Ooge says long a is pronounced like the a in father, and short a is pronounced like the first a in a-ha. The problem is that I pronounce those two sounds the same, and my (English) dictionary says they are pronounced the same.

Really? What dictionary are you using? My Webster's and Oxford don't do this.

How, if at all, do they differ?

The Latin long 'a' (/a:/) is like the 'a' of 'father', 'arm', 'calm', 'locale', 'brahmin'

The Latin short 'a' (/a/) is like the 'a' of 'aha', 'ago', 'a-las', 'soda'.

Does your dictionary say these word groups have the same sound?

I have the same problem with long and short o. D'Ooge says long o is pronounced as in holy and short o as in wholly. I and my dictionary pronounce these two words exactly the same. Perhaps English pronunciation has changed since 1909, when D'Ooge's LFB was published.

First, Latin is not English. Latin is not French or German or any other language.

Latin is a foreign language. We approximate the sounds of Latin in English just as we do with other languages. D’Ooge says this in sec. 4. Many of the sounds of Latin are in English because Latin is the root language of English. But not every sound of Latin is in English. Some sounds disappeared. You can guess one of them.

The Latin short o is a problem because English does not have the same sound. We have an approximate sound in the word ‘port’. Stephen Diatz uses it in his CD’s on Classical Latin Pronunciation and it gives you a clue as to how the word ‘wholly’ was pronounced at the turn of the century. Today, ‘holy’ and ‘wholly’ are homonyms (or homophones) and are pronounced identically. The IPA character for the Latin short o is /O/ (SAMPA character for the backwards ‘c’)

Any pointers on pronunciation would be appreciated.

Some members and I have been working on something that may be helpful. Hang in there, help is on the way

I have to get rest but will try to get to the rest tomorrow.

[Marcus]

Also, I have a question on pronunciation. In section 4, D'Ooge says long a is pronounced like the a in father, and short a is pronounced like the first a in a-ha. The problem is that I pronounce those two sounds the same, and my (English) dictionary says they are pronounced the same.

Really? What dictionary are you using? My Webster's and Oxford don't do this.

I first looked it up in a Random House Collegiate Dictionary. I then double checked in my old Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (copyright '64). They both say that the "a" in "father" and the first "a" in "aha" are pronounced "ä." Dictionary.com seems to agree as well. From what you posted, it appears that the short a in Latin is essentially the schwa (IPA=ə). Does your Websters pronounce aha as "ə hä"?

[Timothy]

Hmmm....

Merriam Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/ ... ary&va=aha

This agrees with you.

Oxford's English Dictionary (2000) has

The a in father is /a:/
The first a in aha is the schwa.

Webster's Universal Unabridged 1979 uses diactrics and agrees with Oxford's.

Your Webster's should have diactric marks for the a. The one for father should have two dots over the a. The one for aha should have one.

These vowels are not the same phoneme.

[Timothy]

OK, I rechecked Oxford and I missed a secondary pronunciation that uses /a:/ My eyesight may need adjustrment. Sorry.

I think, then, this really comes down to the quantity of the vowel rather than the quality. For myself, I don’t seem to be able to use the vowel with same quality and alter the quantity without some alteration in the quality. The sample word used the Stephen Diatz book is the Italian amare and the /a/ is there is the first one. When I say ‘aha” I say it more like uh-HA rather than AH-ha.

This seems to be more like that in Glidersleeve’s “A Latin Grammar” which uses the quantity to distinguish the long from the short vowels.

[Timothy]

Addendum:
In Allen's Vox Latina he gives this insight to long and short a:

"There appears to have been no great difference in quality between long and short a...."

Further on he gives,

"The nearest English R.P. equivalent for the long vowel is the a of father...For the short a the nearest equivalent acustically is the sound of the vowel in R. P. cup n.b. not that of cap

[Andrus]

Salvete.

I was starting a new topic but this is probably better here.

I have a doubt in the exercise 10 (page 18 of pdf document).

In the separation by syllables of the text the key gives the following for “eius”:

ei-us

As I understand the key is considering “ei” as a diphthong.

But I think that “ei” here isn’t a diphthong. In fact I think that the “I” here is a consonant “I” and the proper solution should be:

e-ius

Besides being my first impression, the fact that:

1- This “I” isn’t marked as long or short

2- The stress is marked on the “E” and not on “EI”

leads me to think I’m right. But I would like to know if I’m correct.

Thanks for any help.

Andrus.

P.S. – I have read how to make links directly to the page in question but I have tried it and notice that the browser downloads all document information. So are there any advantage in doing so?

Syllables separation (exercise 10)

[benissimus]

Salve Andrus,

Actually, you are both right. In such cases that the letter I happens to be preceded by a vowel and is followed by a -us ending, it forms a diphthong with the preceding vowel and then again carries a consonantal sound. eius, maius, cuius are pronounced "ei-ius", "mai-ius", and "cui-ius". This situation tends to occur most often with the irregular genitive that pronouns use and the neuter comparative of adjective/adverbs.

[Andrus]

Salve Benissimus,

And thanks for the explanation.

Did I miss that part in the D’Ooge’s book or is in a different book?

Best regards.

Andrus.

[kiddo]

hi! i'm having problems downloading this key. It says the file may be corrupted evrytime i download it so i can't open it. help! i'm really really interested in learning Latin!

thanks!

[HillEdward]

What's this?
I don't understand.
I am poor at English.
Who can help me?
But I think the Latin for Beginners Key is a good book for learners.
Who can tell me?
Thank you very much.
Thank god.
I found a good book.

[Andrus]

Salvete,

I have a suggestion for a correction in the key with exercise 240, page 107.

The original text is:

“Ubi fuga legiōnum nūntiāta est, summus erat terror tōtīus Rōmae…”

The key gives:

“When the flight of the legions was announced, the fear of all Romans (Roman Legions? Romanae is female) was very great…”

I think the proper translation should be:

“When the flight of the legions was announced, the fear of all Rome (of Rome entire) was very great…”

Am I right?

Best regards,

Andrus

[Andrus]

[camomiletea]

[Carola]

[Socrates the Cyborg]

I'm not taking the word order stuff too seriously since the key writer said in a post here not to but here are a couple of questions.

1. In the set II problem 3 shouldn't it be "populos" rather than "populum" (I'm referring to the key's answer) because it's people (plural) not person (singular) ?

2. In set II problem 5 I wrote "Marcuse, estne ubi Lesbiam ancillam?" this is quite different from the key, so I'm not sure if this is just style difference or whether I've actually gone astray. My thinking was that "ubi" isn't really a question word so I thought I would use the question particle "-ne" on the verb "est", and have "ubi" in there as modifying the verb.

Thanks

[Episcopus]

1. it's populum, as in a people as a single entity

2. the vocative is Marce, the -us is the nominative ending. as a general rule, to make any other noun form, take the genitive singular ending away and add the appropriate case ending. so Marci (gen) minus genitive -i, Marc-, and second declension vocative singular ending -e, so Marce.

often you don't even have to add -ne to any question:

multas habes ancillas?

but more emphasis might require -ne

ancillasne habes?

do you have maids?

you don't require -ne at all for any question words, quis? ubi? quid? etc.

and any form of esse does NOT take the accusative - it is known as a copula, as in english verbs like 'appear' 'seem' 'be' are just used to link description, like 'he is stupid', 'he is a dog' - all of these are nominatives.

question words come first, and any forms of esse usually put where it sounds best - often in the middle as it has less emphasis, so finally:

ubi est lesbia ancilla?

quite simple sentence but important points there

keep going with the book, good luck

[Socrates the Cyborg]

thanks for your thorough reply. Thanks for the clarification on the use of case with the copula. That's something I think came up in a couple of places and I didn't think to ask. Cheers