Episcopus wrote:Good work Tim
Ah...I remember fondly that story...seems like yesterday...
Episcopus wrote:"Nam" means "for": "For she had..."
A strengthened "nam", "namque", means "for in fact".
Episcopus wrote:And D'Ooge does not typos!
Episcopus wrote:I remember understanding it as "for", it may have been introduced before. It's strange, "nam" is quite a common word.
Episcopus wrote:As for inhaling a dictionary, I wish it were the case! I hate learning vocabulary. I have problems with it. Since I have to go really quickly I resort to ancient memorization methods. Not healthy.
Episcopus wrote:It may seem slightly unnatural at the moment, that you should have to decipher sentences rather than just read and appreciate them but it is always this way. When you finish the D'Ooge book however he will have served you well - you will understand the reading matter at the back (I'm sure you've taken a glance, saying 'I wish!' as I did) in a natural manner.
ingrid70 wrote:Hi Tim,
I've checked my little vocab database (many thanks to Borealis for making me build it , and I have no entry for 'nam' in the D'Ooge list. He must have overlooked it, it being so common. Well, let's not blame him, he didn't have a computer to check if he had properly introduced the word.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests