Textkit Logo

answer key??

Are you learning Latin with D'Ooge's Beginners Latin Book? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback and comments from others.

answer key??

Postby katb4now » Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:04 pm

Hi,

Are there any updates on when the answer key will be available?

I want to start a beginner book with my 15 year old in January and am torn between Henle and LFB. Henle at least has a partial answer key for it.

Kat
katb4now
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:59 pm

Postby Jeff Tirey » Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:06 pm

Hi Kat, I just (finally) posted this today. You can find a link in the thread here: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... 0256#10256

thanks,
jeff
Textkit Founder
User avatar
Jeff Tirey
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 6:58 pm
Location: Strongsville, Ohio

Postby Episcopus » Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:15 pm

Should you still have any doubts, come hither and I am a virtual key. I have all of 7 full exercise books.
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Postby jsc01 » Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:04 pm

I just printed the answer key out.

This will be very helpful. Thank you so much to the group of individuals that created and compiled it.

I started going back over the exercises that I completed earlier on in my studies. I have checked my answers against the key up to Ex. 40. I will do more as time allows. I found that I made a few errors. On these, I double checked the exercises and believe that the key is right and I am wrong on all but one.

The one I think the key is in error on is Ex. 39, Part II, #3. What is given in BLD is "The farmers' daughters do labor". I translated this as Filiae agricolarum laborant. The key translated this as Filiae agricolae laborant.

agricolae = farmer's (genitive singular)
agricolarum = farmers' (genitive plural).

Do you agree?
Last edited by jsc01 on Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jsc01
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby benissimus » Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:21 pm

There are bound to be errors. I would recommend you report as many as possible... if someone takes up the burden of corrections (I have enough projects on my hands currently).
Last edited by benissimus on Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby Jeff Tirey » Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:31 pm

I'm sure there will be errors too - even the great schoolmasters had printed textbooks with errors and they only good way to find them is to use start using it.

yeah, just use this thread here to report questionable answers and the Key members can make necessary corrections.

thanks
jeff
Textkit Founder
User avatar
Jeff Tirey
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 6:58 pm
Location: Strongsville, Ohio

Postby ingrid70 » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:57 am

Hi all,

glad to see the (partial) key online. I'm not working through d'Ooge myself at the moment, but I will add the answers that are posted in the threads on this forum as soon as I can. I'm also still interested in more answers and corrections. You can PM me here. One day, there will be a complete key, with the help of you all.

Maybe you could scan all those notebooks, episcopus :).

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby benissimus » Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:07 pm

I've seen his handwriting and it is non bona.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby Episcopus » Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:19 pm

Au contraire mon eveque.

That was with my mouse!

J'écris comme Dieu.
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Postby Episcopus » Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:20 pm

I'll try to make my scanner work first!

If I scan in all exercises can my key be like a pdf scanned book haha
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Ex 47, p.21

Postby jsc01 » Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:07 pm

In Ex. 47 Part 1, #2, I think Filiae agricolae nautis pecuniam dant should translate into "The daughters of the farmer give money to the sailors". The key says "The daughters of the farmers give money to the sailors".

agricolae = farmer's (genitive singular) or farmers (nominative plural) but in this case I think the possesive is implied. Maybe this is just a typo in the key?

In Ex. 47 Part 1, #6, I think Filiae agricolae domina fabulam narrat should translate into "The lady tells the story to the daughters of the farmer". The key says "The lady tells the story to the farmer's daughter".

filiae = daughter's (genitive singular) or daughters (nominative plural or dative singular). In this case I believe daughters is the indirect object so it would be dative singular.
phpbb
jsc01
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby ingrid70 » Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:58 pm

jsc01:

Let's start with saying that the key will be full of typo's and singular/plural errors, please report them all. The correct answers will be incorporated in the next version of the key (don't be too impatient, this may take some time).

I agree with the first two you reported (39.II.3 and 47.I.2), and have corrected them in my working version. I don't see the problem with 47.I.6 though, I think it is correctly translated with daughter as a dative singular.

Anyway, thanks for your help. Your name will be on the thank you list in the next version :).

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Ex 47, p.21

Postby phil » Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:56 pm

jsc01 wrote:In Ex. 47 Part 1, #6, I think Filiae agricolae domina fabulam narrat should translate into "The lady tells the story to the daughters of the farmer". The key says "The lady tells the story to the farmer's daughter".


If the lady were telling the story to the farmer's daughters, then 'daughter' would have to be plural dative - she would be telling it 'filiabus acricolae'
phil
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Postby jsc01 » Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:52 pm

:oops: :) I stand corrected. I agree that filiae in this sentence is the dative singular for daughter. It is easy to miss something. Studying Latin requires that you really pay attention and read carefully, doesn't it?

Thanks
phpbb
jsc01
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Ex. 77

Postby jsc01 » Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:50 pm

On Ex 77, p.33 the first line of Galba reads: Quis, Marce, est legatus cum pilo et tuba.

The answer key translates this as "Who, Marcus, is the lieutenant with the spears and trumpets".

Shouldn't spears and trumpets both be ablative singular (spear and trumpet)?
phpbb
jsc01
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Ex. 77

Postby ingrid70 » Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:46 pm

jsc01 wrote:On Ex 77, p.33 the first line of Galba reads: Quis, Marce, est legatus cum pilo et tuba.

The answer key translates this as "Who, Marcus, is the lieutenant with the spears and trumpets".

Shouldn't spears and trumpets both be ablative singular (spear and trumpet)?


Yes, you're right, it should. I saw some more errors in this exercise, which I have corrected. Wait for the next version, but in the mean time, keep them coming :).

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby jsc01 » Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:41 pm

On Exercise 90 Part 1 I have questions on the following:

90/1. The second phrase gladi mali is translated into "the bad swords" by the key. I got "O' bad sword". Since gladi comes from gladius which is masculine, gladi must be genitive singular or vocative singular. Since mali ends in -i I fugure it must be describing a masculine noun in the genitive singular.

The last phrase belli longi is translated into "of the long wars/the long wars" by the key. I got "of the long wars" only. In this case I identified belli as genitive singular but I cannot see how it could be nominative/accusitive plural. These cases have a -a ending for neuter nouns.

90/2. The last phase clare Vigili is translated into "famous Virgil" by the key. I got "O' famous Virgil" In this case I identified Virgili as vocative singular based upon the -e ending in clare . I believe the key is saying it is nominative/accusitive singular.

90/5. The second phase cum deabus claris doesn't make sense to me. I think what is trying to be said here is "with the famous goddesses" but shouldn't that be the ablative cum deas claris? Deabus is the dative plural of dae and would not be used with cum (with) which is a preposition denoting an ablative relationship. I'm I missing something here?
phpbb
jsc01
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby ingrid70 » Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:59 pm

jsc01 wrote:On Exercise 90 Part 1 I have questions on the following:

90/1. The second phrase gladi mali [...]
The last phrase belli longi


In both cases you are right, the next version of the key reads: of the bad sword, of the long war.

jsc01 wrote:90/2. The last phase clare Vigili is translated into "famous Virgil" by the key. I got "O' famous Virgil" In this case I identified Virgili as vocative singular based upon the -e ending in clare . I believe the key is saying it is nominative/accusitive singular.


or the key is using the vocative without the 'o' :). I've added the 'o' for clarity.

jsc01 wrote:90/5. The second phase cum deabus claris doesn't make sense to me. I think what is trying to be said here is "with the famous goddesses" but shouldn't that be the ablative cum deas claris? Deabus is the dative plural of dae and would not be used with cum (with) which is a preposition denoting an ablative relationship. I'm I missing something here?


deabus is the usual form for both the dative and the ablative plural of dea. deas is the accusative plural. so cum deabus claris is correct.

Hope this helps, and thanks for your help.

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby benissimus » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:44 am

If it helps, ablative and dative plural are identical in every word and every declension. Filia and Dea always have the -abus in those cases and certain other femine words can use those endings for clarity.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby jsc01 » Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:59 pm

Ok, thanks for the clarification on deabus.
phpbb
jsc01
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby mariek » Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:51 pm

jeff wrote:I just (finally) posted this today. You can find a link in the thread here: http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... 0256#10256


I find it very interesting that the download defaults to "BLD_Latin_For_Beginners_Key.pdf" when I use Internet Explorer.... which is ffine! :D

But it defaults to "BLD_Latin_For_Beginners_Key.pdf.php" when I use Mozilla. :? All I needed to do was change the extension back to .PDF to use it.
User avatar
mariek
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
Location: California

Exercise 135, Part I, #3 and #7

Postby jsc01 » Mon Mar 15, 2004 5:53 pm

I think I found a few more oops' in the answer key.

#3: Pugnant, laudabas, movebatis.

Answer key: they were fighting, you were praising, they were moving.

I think these should be: they fight, you (singular) were praising, you (plural) were moving.

#7: Necabat, movebam, habebat, parabatis.

Answer key: they were killing, I was moving, he was having, they were preparing.

I think these should be: he was killing, I was moving, he was having, you (plural) were preparing.

Is this correct?
phpbb
jsc01
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Exercise 135, Part I, #3 and #7

Postby ingrid70 » Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:21 pm

jsc01 wrote:I think I found a few more oops' in the answer key.

CUT

Is this correct?


Completely! I must have fallen asleep doing boring verb forms :). Thanks for posting these.

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Barrius » Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:43 pm

Ingrid,

I'm a few months behind (I study on my lunch break) and saw the same references to 39.II.3, 47.I.2 and 47.I.6. I just got to the dative case, and finally understand 47.I.6 "Filiae" being dative singular, not nominative plural as in 47.I.2.

That said, I enjoy learning Latin and am curious as to when an updated key might be available.

respectfully,

Barrius
Last edited by Barrius on Thu Apr 29, 2004 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Barrius
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: above ground, thank God!

Exercise 152, Part II, #7

Postby jsc01 » Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:45 pm

English: You were ruling (sing. and plur.), we were coming, they were ruling.

Key's Translation: Ducebas/ducebatis, veniebamus, ducebant.

My Translation: Regebas/regebatis, veniebamus, regebant.

I think the key changed the verb "to rule" (regere) to "to lead" (ducere).
phpbb
jsc01
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby ingrid70 » Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:35 pm

Check!

Ingrid

PS: and the other one about the verb forms too...
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Mongoose42 » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:18 pm

I know similar questions have been posted, however:
Is there a latin-english translation for the stories such as Terror Cimbricus.
I am using these passages for a test in an idependant study and the teacher (or sponsor) doesn't know enough to translate the passage himself. I have used the key as far as possible but it stops doing latin-english. I would post my work on this forum but I fear it would be too large and inefficiant use of this forum.
phpbb
Mongoose42
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:48 pm
Location: Green Bay,WI

Errata §139 II

Postby Timothy » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:51 am

§139 II
7. They will labor, we shall kill, you will have (sing. and plural), he will destroy.
Key: laborabunt, necabimus, habebit, habebitis, delebit.

Should be:
laborabunt, necabimus, habebis, habebitis, delebit.

Ingrid,

Unless told otherwise, from now on I will post my edits here rather than add any new threads.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Errata §145 II.5

Postby Timothy » Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:00 am

§145 II.5
The Romans will move their forces to a large field suitable for a camp.
Key: Romani copias in magnum agrum castris idoneum movebunt.

Should be:
Romani copias ad magnum agrum castris idoneum movebunt.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Re: Errata §145 II.5

Postby ingrid70 » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:45 am

Timothy wrote:§145 II.5
The Romans will move their forces to a large field suitable for a camp.
Key: Romani copias in magnum agrum castris idoneum movebunt.

Should be:
Romani copias ad magnum agrum castris idoneum movebunt.

- Tim


Yes and no. Yes, because in + acc hasn't been dealt with in the book. On the other hand, in + acc means into and could be used too.
But, we will keep to the book, and change the key to 'ad'.

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby ingrid70 » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:47 am

Mongoose42 wrote:I know similar questions have been posted, however:
Is there a latin-english translation for the stories such as Terror Cimbricus.
I am using these passages for a test in an idependant study and the teacher (or sponsor) doesn't know enough to translate the passage himself. I have used the key as far as possible but it stops doing latin-english. I would post my work on this forum but I fear it would be too large and inefficiant use of this forum.


Episcopus has worked through the entire book, but he doesn't have his notes on the computer, as far as I understand. You might want to ask him.
And if you yourself have your notes on the computer, please send them to me, so I can add them to the key.

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Errata §145 II.5

Postby Timothy » Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:33 am

ingrid70 wrote:
Timothy wrote:§145 II.5
The Romans will move their forces to a large field suitable for a camp.
Key: Romani copias in magnum agrum castris idoneum movebunt.

Should be:
Romani copias ad magnum agrum castris idoneum movebunt.

- Tim


Yes and no. Yes, because in + acc hasn't been dealt with in the book. On the other hand, in + acc means into and could be used too.
But, we will keep to the book, and change the key to 'ad'.

Ingrid


It's in the Lesson VII special vocabulary for section 62.

I think you are supposed to pick up on those kinds of hints when you encounter new words. At some point it may be presented formally, but for now you follow the guide with the definition. Similar to the different meanings of words when used in the plural, etc.

"Course, I may be speculating extravagantly here. :wink:

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

§167 I Errata

Postby Timothy » Wed May 05, 2004 3:41 am

§167 I

This section was a bit mind numbing.

7. Moveberis or Movebere, Movebis, dabantur, dabant

You are moved, you move, they were given, they give.

Should be:
You will be moved, you move, they were given, they were giving.


8. Delentur, delent, parabamur, parabamus

They are destroyed, they destroy, we were prepared, we prepared.

Should be:
They are being destroyed, they destroy, we were prepared, we prepared.

:?: I am not clear if the imperfect indicative is properly translated as in 8.1,3 above. I thought the translation was a action in progress as opposed to a completed action. D'Ooge does not make the point clear.

They are being destroyed. (present, in progress)
That are destroyed. (present, completed)
We were being prepared. (past, in progress)
We were prepared. (past, completed)

All the samples use a form of being

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

§ 168 Errata

Postby Timothy » Thu May 06, 2004 3:59 am

§ 168 Translation

I don't want to replicate the entire passage here. I note that the lines are numbered, which I believe is something of a standard. so I'll try to use them as a prefix to reference the line.

1: ...mittit...

We are told this change of tense is for dramtic effect. (He sends)

4: nocebat (was harming). I don't think we have "damaged" and I can't find it in my ELS (yet).

8: miseris (wretched). As far as I know, "poor" isn't in the book dictionary at all and according to my ELS is one of the last meanings for the word.

If this was too abbreviated I will post a more elaborate version.

If I have to.

I guess.

quando omnes flunkus moratati.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

§ 170 I Errata

Postby Timothy » Tue May 11, 2004 3:52 am

§ 170 I

(missing parts 7,8,9)

7 munimini, you are fortified
venebam, I came
ducebar, I was be lead
dicetur, he shall be spoken to

8 mittimini, you (pl.) are sent
mittitis, you (s.) send
mittēris, you are sent
mitteris, you will be sent
agebamini, you (pl.) were driven

9 dicitur, he is spoken to
dicit, he says
muniuntur, they are fortified
reperient, they will find
audientur, they will be heard

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Re: §167 I Errata

Postby ingrid70 » Tue May 11, 2004 8:42 am

Timothy wrote:§167 I

This section was a bit mind numbing.

7. Moveberis or Movebere, Movebis, dabantur, dabant

Should be:
You will be moved, you move, they were given, they were giving.


movebis should be: you will move. Mindnumbing indeed :).


Should be:
They are being destroyed, they destroy, we were prepared, we prepared.

:?: I am not clear if the imperfect indicative is properly translated as in 8.1,3 above. I thought the translation was a action in progress as opposed to a completed action. D'Ooge does not make the point clear.

- Tim


The imperfect indicative always means a continuous action. Dependent on the context, you can translate it as a simple past or a continuous past. I try to vary ;).

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

§ 171 Errata

Postby Timothy » Wed May 12, 2004 3:20 am

§ 171

Tum oraculum ita respondet:

Then the oracle answered as follows:

Should be:
Then the oracle answers as follows:

As I read this, the tense matches that used by Cepheus of the previous paragraph exercise.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

§ 176 I Errata

Postby Timothy » Sat May 15, 2004 4:02 am

§ 176 I Errata

2. ...vastabit.
...destroy...

Should be:
...devastate...

4. Quis telis Persei superabitur.
...spears...

Should be:
...weapons...

(In all the sentences.)

10. Si non fugiēmus...
If you will not flee...

Should be:
If we will not flee...

11. Vocate pueros et narrate fabulam claram de monstro saevo.

...about the savage monster.

I think this should be:
...concerning the savage monster.

because concerning is from the special vocabulary and "about" is a secondary meaning in the dictionary. I agree that "about" is the best choice though.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

§ 182 I Errata

Postby Timothy » Tue May 18, 2004 3:08 pm

§ 182 I Errata

I'm not sure about this one because absum is irregular so I'm going from the conjugation of sum. I'm assuming that the conjugation is ab + sum. I don't recall the conjugation fo irregular verbs is covered in the text.

10. Id oppidum ab provincia Romana longe aberat.
That town is far away from the Roman province.

I think aberat is imperfect indicative,

That town was far away from the Roman province.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

§193 Errata

Postby Timothy » Fri May 21, 2004 5:10 am

§193 Errata

Based upon this passage, the general dictionary is wide open. There are a number of new words introduced in this passage. So I'm no longer tracking vocabulary.

(n.b. prefix numbers match lines numbers in margins)

2: Fata Andromediae, puellae pulchrae, a toto populo delplorabantur, tamen nullum erat auxilium.

Key: The fate of Andromeda, a beautiful girl, was lamented by all the people, yet there was no help.

I had a problem with this sentence. It looks like ablative of agent. Fata (fatum, -i, n.) appears to be accusative plural, "Fates", which gave me a literal translation:

"The fates of Andromedia, the beautiful girl, by all the people, (they) were deplored."

However, Fata has me confused :? ; the number doesn't make sense. The only thing I can think of is that the Roman Fates were 3 females, as I recall. A stretch :(

The trailing clause I think is: "..., yet (it) was no help." I saw this as an emphatic construction.

4: ...cum pleno tristitiae animo...
I read as "with a heart full of sorrow"

8: Tum forte Perseus, alis fretus super Aethiopiam volabat.

Key: Then Perseus, supported by wings, flew by chane over Ethiopia.

The typo chane should be chance.

super is "above"

I'm not sure how to conjugate "fly" properly here. I had "was flying." I think "fly" is a problem verb:

I fly, was flying, will fly.
I am flown, was flown, will be flown.
I flew, have flown, will have flown.

ugh. :roll:


8-9: Vidit populum, Andromedam, lacrimas, et, magnopere attonitus ad terram descendit.
"...went down to earth..."

I think it is "...descended to the the land."


- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Next

Return to Latin For Beginners by D'Ooge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests