Textkit Logo

units 5, 6, 7 - doubts

Are you learning Latin with Latin: An Intensive Course by Moreland and Fleischer? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback.

units 5, 6, 7 - doubts

Postby Cyborg » Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:57 pm

Ok, so I'm here at unit seven, almost finishing it, and I have collected some doubts since unit five, for which I really really hope you guys can help me, since i've been spending days with them without luck.
some of the problems i had were fixed after i continued forward to the next chapter and then came back, but some are harder to kill.
they seem to be too much but the doubts are really small and i formatted and explained my doubts so clearly as to help you help me.

here goes the tough ones (for me, at least):

unit 5.exercises.i.27 wrote:ruīnamne in uītā unquam uīdistis? sī ruīnam in uītā uīdissēmus, in perīculum caecī nōn ruissēmus.
have you all ever saw a ruin in your life? if we had seen ruin in life, we wouldn't have fallen in danger of blind.

i'm in doubt on the "blind" part.


unit 5.exercises.i.30 wrote:faciam nōn noua, sed multa ante facta.
i will not make a new one, but many before the deeds.

it doesn't make sense to me, so i don't know if it's right.


unit 6.drill.ii.11 wrote:amīcō est (erat, erit) multa pecūnia.
sentit amīcō esse (fuisse, futūrō esse) multam pecūniam.

the exercise here is to rewrite the sentence in indirect statement after "sentit". i'm in doubt on the "futūrō esse", i don't know if that is correct.


unit 6.exercises.i.17 wrote:postquam urbs superāta est, multus mīles patram mātremque uidēre ardēbat.
after the town was conquered, the soldier was desiring much to see his father and mother.

just checking, that "multus mīles" got me hesitating.


unit 7.exercises.i.8 wrote:quid (tū) agis? ego litterās scrībō. ego litterās meīs scrībō.
what are you doing? i am writing a letter. i am writing a letter by myself (?).

the last sentence.


unit 7.exercises.i.10 wrote:quibuscum ambulāuistī ē uīllā in uiam quae populō implēta est? cum quibus fēminīs? cum quibus uirīs? cum tuīs?
with whom did you walk out of the farmhouse into the street which was filled by the people? with which women? with which men? with yours?

i am progressively in doubt as the sentences go (and have no clue about what does the last one mean).


unit 7.exercises.i.20 wrote:quis est haec? quis nostrārum fuit?
who is this woman? (?)

the last sentence.


unit 7.exercises.i.36 wrote:tibi imperō ut sciās mortem nōn esse timendam: quae bona sī nōn est, fīnis tamen illa mallōrum est.
i order to you that you know that death does not have to be feared: if these things are not good, the end nevertheless is that of the bad things.

the last sentence, i don't know what it should mean.


unit 7.exercises.i.38 wrote:dīcit illud opus tibi cōnfectum ā populō lēctum esse.
he says that that which you need completed have been selected by the people.

doesn't make sense to me...


unit 7.exercises.i.40 wrote:magnā uoce clāmāuimus multa eius generis inuenta esse.
we shouted with a great voice that many things of their sort have been invented.

that verb "clamō" is a real pain to me, i don't know if it is taking something or not...


unit 7.exercises.i.41 wrote:sentīs uōcēs eōrum quī clament eī hominī nōn placēre.
you feel the voice of those who are shouting to that man is not pleasing.

just checking; now this "clamō" makes more sense.


unit 7.exercises.i.44 wrote:cīuēs illīus oppidī spērābant nōs mox discessūrōs esse. quī quamquam nōbīs erant amīcī, nōs nōn amāuērunt.
the citizens of that town were hoping that we would soon be going to leave. those which although used to be friendly to us, did not love us.

first sentence, the "be going to live" part, i don't know if that's the best english translation possible for that tense in this sentence.


unit 7.exercises.i.45 wrote:rēx dīxit rūmōrēs in urbe auditōs esse pellendōs. quae (eī) quī audiēbant probābant. (probō (1), "approve (of)")
the king said the rumors heard in the city had to be driven off. (?)

i can't figure the last sentence.
User avatar
Cyborg
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:56 am

Re: units 5, 6, 7 - doubts

Postby benissimus » Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:10 am

unit 5.exercises.i.27 wrote:ruīnamne in uītā unquam uīdistis? sī ruīnam in uītā uīdissēmus, in perīculum caecī nōn ruissēmus.
have you all ever saw a ruin in your life? if we had seen ruin in life, we wouldn't have fallen in danger of blind.

i'm in doubt on the "blind" part.
[/quote]
caeci is nominative plural, it agrees with the implied subject "we". you can say "we would not have rushed into danger blind", but sometimes it is better English to translate the adjective as an adverb (e.g. "rushed blindly").

unit 5.exercises.i.30 wrote:faciam nōn noua, sed multa ante facta.
i will not make a new one, but many before the deeds.

it doesn't make sense to me, so i don't know if it's right.

multa ante facta does present a challenge in translation. I would say "many things done before". I would also translate noua "new (novel) things". You might also consider faciam as being subjunctive rather than future.

unit 6.drill.ii.11 wrote:amīcō est (erat, erit) multa pecūnia.
sentit amīcō esse (fuisse, futūrō esse) multam pecūniam.

the exercise here is to rewrite the sentence in indirect statement after "sentit". i'm in doubt on the "futūrō esse", i don't know if that is correct.

I recommend always looking at indirect speech literally, translate it if you must first. (sentit) amico esse multa pecunia means literally "he feels much money to be to the friend". to put this into the future you would say "he feels much money to be about to be to the friend". hopefully from this you can see that the money is what is about to be, so futurus, -a, -um should not agree with amicus, but with pecunia.

unit 6.exercises.i.17 wrote:postquam urbs superāta est, multus mīles patram mātremque uidēre ardēbat.
after the town was conquered, the soldier was desiring much to see his father and mother.

just checking, that "multus mīles" got me hesitating.

multus miles would mean "many a soldier", but usually it is preferable to say multi milites instead. ardeo seem an overly passionate word to use to talk about one's parents, and it can only take an infinitive in poetry. the meaning of ardeo is stronger than "desire", but I think your translation is better lest this translation verge on incestuous.

unit 7.exercises.i.8 wrote:quid (tū) agis? ego litterās scrībō. ego litterās meīs scrībō.
what are you doing? i am writing a letter. i am writing a letter by myself (?).

the last sentence.

the possessive pronouns used in the plural refer to those who are close to a person. mei, tui, nostri, uestri, and sui mean "my (your, our, etc.) own, my loved ones, my friends, my comrades, etc".

unit 7.exercises.i.10 wrote:quibuscum ambulāuistī ē uīllā in uiam quae populō implēta est? cum quibus fēminīs? cum quibus uirīs? cum tuīs?
with whom did you walk out of the farmhouse into the street which was filled by the people? with which women? with which men? with yours?

i am progressively in doubt as the sentences go (and have no clue about what does the last one mean).

your problem with the last sentence is the same as the previous translation, so the same explanation applies. impleta est should technically be translated as perfect passive, but you have translated it as a present. it is sometimes appropriate to translate so-called perfect passive constructions in the present, when the participle is regarded as more of an adjective, but it is probably best to adhere to the rules of the textbook for now. also, another approach to populo impleta would be to regard populo as ablative of instrument rather than agent, e.g. "filled with people".

unit 7.exercises.i.20 wrote:quis est haec? quis nostrārum fuit?
who is this woman? (?)

the last sentence.

once again, an issue with the possessive adjectives being used substantively, hopefully clear now.

unit 7.exercises.i.36 wrote:tibi imperō ut sciās mortem nōn esse timendam: quae bona sī nōn est, fīnis tamen illa mallōrum est.
i order to you that you know that death does not have to be feared: if these things are not good, the end nevertheless is that of the bad things.

the last sentence, i don't know what it should mean.

quae, bona, and illa are feminine singular and all refer back to mors. this is a big hint but it is still a tricky sentence and if you need further help you need only say so.

unit 7.exercises.i.38 wrote:dīcit illud opus tibi cōnfectum ā populō lēctum esse.
he says that that which you need completed have been selected by the people.

doesn't make sense to me...

this is not an opus est construction, opus merely means "(a) work" here.

unit 7.exercises.i.40 wrote:magnā uoce clāmāuimus multa eius generis inuenta esse.
we shouted with a great voice that many things of their sort have been invented.

that verb "clamō" is a real pain to me, i don't know if it is taking something or not...

you don't seem to have any major problems in this sentence. clamo has to be taking the indirect speech or else there is no explanation for that infinitive. eius generis is mistranslated, is, ea, id means "this" or "that", not "their" (the genitive can be translated "his, her, its; their" when used alone, but when it agrees with another genitive it cannot). it should be noted that magna (uoce) is the Latin phrase for "in a loud voice".

unit 7.exercises.i.41 wrote:sentīs uōcēs eōrum quī clament eī hominī nōn placēre.
you feel the voice of those who are shouting to that man is not pleasing.

just checking; now this "clamō" makes more sense.

mostly correct, uices however is plural. you may also wish to translate clament in a way that captures the meaning of the subjunctive in a relative clause.

unit 7.exercises.i.44 wrote:cīuēs illīus oppidī spērābant nōs mox discessūrōs esse. quī quamquam nōbīs erant amīcī, nōs nōn amāuērunt.
the citizens of that town were hoping that we would soon be going to leave. those which although used to be friendly to us, did not love us.

first sentence, the "be going to live" part, i don't know if that's the best english translation possible for that tense in this sentence.

sperabant nos discessuros esse you translated as "were hoping that we would be going to leave" - this is correct but wordier than necessary. you can simply say "were hoping that we would leave" or "were hoping that we were about to leave".

unit 7.exercises.i.45 wrote:rēx dīxit rūmōrēs in urbe auditōs esse pellendōs. quae (eī) quī audiēbant probābant. (probō (1), "approve (of)")
the king said the rumors heard in the city had to be driven off. (?)

i can't figure the last sentence.

this sentence is odd because of the two relative pronouns. try breaking the sentence apart:
qui audiebant is the relative clause, so you can translate it apart from the rest of the sentence.
that leaves quae (ei) probabant. quae is a substantive neuter plural referring to the actions in the previous sentence, you can translate it simply as "those (literally 'which') things". ei must be the subject because the only other possibility is dative which would have no purpose here.
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 Cyborg » Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:47 am

benissimus wrote:your problem with the last sentence is the same as the previous translation, so the same explanation applies. impleta est should technically be translated as perfect passive, but you have translated it as a present. it is sometimes appropriate to translate so-called perfect passive constructions in the present, when the participle is regarded as more of an adjective, but it is probably best to adhere to the rules of the textbook for now. also, another approach to populo impleta would be to regard populo as ablative of instrument rather than agent, e.g. "filled with people".

I don't think I understood your explanation here. You said i translated impleta est as a present, but i think i translated it as a perfect ("was filled"). are you saying it should be "had been filled"? I can't see why. I am trying my best to adhere to the rules of the textbook, i don't want to go crazy inventing ways to translate for that could lead to a bad learning, of which i'm very afraid. oh, i liked you suggestion to translate as "with people", but i was already considering populo an ablative.

benissimus wrote:once again, an issue with the possessive adjectives being used substantively, hopefully clear now.

Haha, i must really have a problem with those possessive adjectives... so, should "quis nostrarum fuit?" be "who of our friends was she?"?

benissimus wrote:quae, bona, and illa are feminine singular and all refer back to mors. this is a big hint but it is still a tricky sentence and if you need further help you need only say so.

So i'd guess it to be...
i order to you that you know that death does not have to be feared: which if not good, that is nevertheless the end of the bad things.

benissimus wrote:this is not an opus est construction, opus merely means "(a) work" here.

so "dicit illud opus tibi confectum a populo lectum esse." should be
"he said that that work completed to you has been selected by the people." ?
makes some more sense than my last attempt, but still... doesn't seem right.
I don't like the "opus tibi confectum" part...

benissimus wrote:you don't seem to have any major problems in this sentence. clamo has to be taking the indirect speech or else there is no explanation for that infinitive. eius generis is mistranslated, is, ea, id means "this" or "that", not "their" (the genitive can be translated "his, her, its; their" when used alone, but when it agrees with another genitive it cannot). it should be noted that magna (uoce) is the Latin phrase for "in a loud voice".

Hmm, i am not sure i understood the tip about that genitive... so are you saying the final sentence should be like this?:
"we shouted with a great voice (in a loud voice) that many things of this sort have been invented."
I didn't know about that rule about eius being translated as "their". that's good to know, but I don't think i understood the alternative.

benissimus wrote:mostly correct, uices however is plural. you may also wish to translate clament in a way that captures the meaning of the subjunctive in a relative clause.

Why, but isn't this a subjunctive only because it's in an indirect statement? I thought subjunctives in indirect statements had to be translated like indicatives, that's what i'm tought in unit seven.

benissimus wrote:that leaves quae (ei) probabant. quae is a substantive neuter plural referring to the actions in the previous sentence, you can translate it simply as "those (literally 'which') things". ei must be the subject because the only other possibility is dative which would have no purpose here.

I understand. so that would be it:
"the king said the rumors heard in the city had to be driven off. (those) things which those who heard approved. (those who heard those things approved them)".
User avatar
Cyborg
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:56 am

Postby benissimus » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:11 am

Cyborg wrote:
benissimus wrote:your problem with the last sentence is the same as the previous translation, so the same explanation applies. impleta est should technically be translated as perfect passive, but you have translated it as a present. it is sometimes appropriate to translate so-called perfect passive constructions in the present, when the participle is regarded as more of an adjective, but it is probably best to adhere to the rules of the textbook for now. also, another approach to populo impleta would be to regard populo as ablative of instrument rather than agent, e.g. "filled with people".

I don't think I understood your explanation here. You said i translated impleta est as a present, but i think i translated it as a perfect ("was filled"). are you saying it should be "had been filled"? I can't see why. I am trying my best to adhere to the rules of the textbook, i don't want to go crazy inventing ways to translate for that could lead to a bad learning, of which i'm very afraid. oh, i liked you suggestion to translate as "with people", but i was already considering populo an ablative.

Sorry! My mistake, for some reason I thought you had translated it as present.

benissimus wrote:once again, an issue with the possessive adjectives being used substantively, hopefully clear now.

Haha, i must really have a problem with those possessive adjectives... so, should "quis nostrarum fuit?" be "who of our friends was she?"?

That is a good translation, though in a certain context this quis might not be feminine (but it is safer to translate it so). Imagine, for example, if copiae "troops" had earlier been mentioned; then quis nostrarum fuit? might mean "who of our [troops] was he?". Of course this can be avoided by saying "who... was it?".

benissimus wrote:quae, bona, and illa are feminine singular and all refer back to mors. this is a big hint but it is still a tricky sentence and if you need further help you need only say so.

So i'd guess it to be...
i order to you that you know that death does not have to be feared: which if not good, that is nevertheless the end of the bad things.

Well done. This is a case where you could weaken the force of illa to mean "it (he, she, etc.)".

benissimus wrote:this is not an opus est construction, opus merely means "(a) work" here.

so "dicit illud opus tibi confectum a populo lectum esse." should be
"he said that that work completed to you has been selected by the people." ?
makes some more sense than my last attempt, but still... doesn't seem right.
I don't like the "opus tibi confectum" part...

This is a rather tangled sentence. There are a couple interpretations that work and for that reason I do not think it is a great example. The translation that makes the most sense to me is "he says to you that that work accomplished by the people has been recited".

benissimus wrote:you don't seem to have any major problems in this sentence. clamo has to be taking the indirect speech or else there is no explanation for that infinitive. eius generis is mistranslated, is, ea, id means "this" or "that", not "their" (the genitive can be translated "his, her, its; their" when used alone, but when it agrees with another genitive it cannot). it should be noted that magna (uoce) is the Latin phrase for "in a loud voice".

Hmm, i am not sure i understood the tip about that genitive... so are you saying the final sentence should be like this?:
"we shouted with a great voice (in a loud voice) that many things of this sort have been invented."
I didn't know about that rule about eius being translated as "their". that's good to know, but I don't think i understood the alternative.

This time you did translate eius generis right. What I meant to say is that is, ea, id always means "that/this" when it agrees with a noun, even in the genitive.

benissimus wrote:mostly correct, uices however is plural. you may also wish to translate clament in a way that captures the meaning of the subjunctive in a relative clause.

Why, but isn't this a subjunctive only because it's in an indirect statement? I thought subjunctives in indirect statements had to be translated like indicatives, that's what i'm tought in unit seven.

You are right again, I was considering it to be a relative clause of characteristic, but it doesn't have to be.

benissimus wrote:that leaves quae (ei) probabant. quae is a substantive neuter plural referring to the actions in the previous sentence, you can translate it simply as "those (literally 'which') things". ei must be the subject because the only other possibility is dative which would have no purpose here.

I understand. so that would be it:
"the king said the rumors heard in the city had to be driven off. (those) things which those who heard approved. (those who heard those things approved them)".

This is correct.


Well done, Cyborg.
Last edited by benissimus on Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:18 am, 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 Cyborg » Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:19 pm

I can't thank you enough for this, benissime! :)
:arrow: Thank You So Much :!: :!:
User avatar
Cyborg
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:56 am

Postby Cyborg » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:43 pm

i'd just like to check some 3 more sentences. to those are just checking.

my job here was to rewrite the bolded sentences (which were previously translated by me on italics) in indirect statement after dícit and then after dícébat.
however i'm very unsure of my answer, i am finding it the most difficult subject i encountered so far in the book.
i really need to know if i converted all the tenses correctly, i think i may be confusing the thing i was taught before (subject accusative and infinitive in indirect statement) with what i am being taught now (subjunctive in subordinate clauses in indirect statement).
thanks in advance.

11 wrote:fīlius meī amīcī uīdit uōs, sed nōs neque tē neque tuōs sociōs uīdimus.
(the son of my friend saw you all, but we saw neither you nor your allies.)
11. dīcit fīlium meī amīcī uīdisse uōs, sed nōs neque tē neque tuōs sociōs uīdisse.
dīcēbat fīlium meī amīcī uidēre uōs, sed nōs neque tē neque tuōs sociōs uidēre.


13 wrote:librī quōs ad nōs mīsistī ab hominibus quī amant suum opus scrīptī sunt.
(the books which you sent to us were written by the men who love their work.)
13. dīcit librōs quōs ad nōs mīseris ab hominibus quī ament suum opus scrīptī esse.
dīcēbat librōs quōs ad nōs mītterēs ab hominibus quī ament suum opus scrīptī esse.


28 wrote:tempore careō ut perficiam opus quod scrībō.
(i am without time in order that i may complete the work which i am writing.)
28. dīcit tempore carēre ut perficiam opus quod scrībam.
dīcēbat tempore carēre ut perficiam opus quod scrīberem.


any tips would be greatly welcome - please give me some tips, i need tips.
User avatar
Cyborg
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:56 am

Postby benissimus » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:22 am

I'm sorry no one has answered this yet, I dislike this kind of exercise so I have kept my mouth shut. It seems like you can answer it many different ways and still make a sensible Latin sentence, so the only purpose of these sentences is to see if you chose the correct tense, wherein the vagueness lies.
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

Whoops!

Postby bellum paxque » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:21 am

Somehow I missed this thread entirely... I'm glad, Cyborg, that Benissimus took the time to address most of your questions. I do agree with his perspective on that type of exercise: I remember working through it with disgust, since it is not clear how the original tenses should interact with the ones supplied by the book (present, imperfect).

I do have a suggestion for the last exercise, though.

tempore careō ut perficiam opus quod scrībō.
(i am without time in order that i may complete the work which i am writing.)
28. dīcit tempore carēre ut perficiam opus quod scrībam.
dīcēbat tempore carēre ut perficiam opus quod scrīberem.


I'm pretty sure that, when using an indirect statement, one must always include the subject accusative. In your sentences, though, you omitted the "me" which is necessary to complete the meaning. I'm sure you know this, and most likely you merely overlooked it, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. Thus, "dicit me tempore carere ut perficiam opus quod scribam."

David
bellum paxque
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: nanun Hanguge issoyo (in Korea sum)

Postby benissimus » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:15 am

Good eye. You could leave out the me through the literary device of ellipsis, where the word is necessary grammatically but is not necessary for understanding, but I am surprised to see it so soon. Did the model exercise in the book write the sentence without as well?
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 Cyborg » Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:06 pm

benissimus wrote:I'm sorry no one has answered this yet, I dislike this kind of exercise so I have kept my mouth shut.

No problem. :)

bellum paxque wrote:I'm pretty sure that, when using an indirect statement, one must always include the subject accusative. In your sentences, though, you omitted the "me" which is necessary to complete the meaning. I'm sure you know this, and most likely you merely overlooked it, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. Thus, "dicit me tempore carere ut perficiam opus quod scribam."

Oh, that makes sense. So what you're saying is that, because i lost the person from careo to carere, I need to restate it by using ego in the accusative. That makes sense, thanks. :)

benissimus wrote:Good eye. You could leave out the me through the literary device of ellipsis, where the word is necessary grammatically but is not necessary for understanding, but I am surprised to see it so soon. Did the model exercise in the book write the sentence without as well?

The model writes it without it as well, yes.
User avatar
Cyborg
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:56 am

Postby potatohog » Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:46 pm

benissimus wrote:
benissimus wrote:this is not an opus est construction, opus merely means "(a) work" here.

so "dicit illud opus tibi confectum a populo lectum esse." should be
"he said that that work completed to you has been selected by the people." ?
makes some more sense than my last attempt, but still... doesn't seem right.
I don't like the "opus tibi confectum" part...

This is a rather tangled sentence. There are a couple interpretations that work and for that reason I do not think it is a great example. The translation that makes the most sense to me is "he says to you that that work accomplished by the people has been recited".

Here I have some other opinion.

dicit illud opus tibi confectum a populo lectum esse

My translation is "He says that work completed BY you has been read by the people."

See section D Dative of Agent with the passive periphrastic on page 88.
Ik hou van aardappelen.
potatohog
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:28 pm


Return to M&F's Latin: An Intensive Course

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests