What "really" dictates emphasis

[Kip]

In Lesson VIII 68. Order of words in Latin. I understand the nature of this explaination...I think I do anyway. But, my problem is what dictates the emphasis when translating from Latin to English. In the exercise (69.) I was able to translate about half. In a few, I basically got things totally ass-backwards.

My question is: What dictates the emphasis (of word order) in Latin to English translation?

I did read the pages in the D'Ooge's concerning this exercise, but just not grasping it too well I guess. Perhaps a few pointers or "tricks" would be handy. Thanks!!

[Episcopus]

evening Kip,

can you post some examples and i can help you from there

cheers

~E

[Kip]

D'Ooge Page 29 and 30.

Examples:

Filia mea agrocolīs cēnam parat. (normal order)

Mea filia agricolīs parat cēnam. (mea and cēnam emphatic)

Agricolīs filia mea cēnam parat. (agricolīs emphatic)

In the text, it explains emphasis "if desired" when written. My problem is how am I to determine what was desired to begin with and what dictates emphasis when translating to English? It also states that an adjective of the noun shows certain emphasis depending if it's before or after the noun. Is that the "key" on what emphasis is or is trying to relay to the reader?

On the exercises on page 30, I probably got half of them right. The others I translated so badly that the meaning was actually backwards or entirely different. The "so-called" rules of emphasis is slowing me down somewhat. So, I was wondering if there is "another" rule that helps in the translation concerning emphasis or the presence of one.

[Andrus]

Salve Kip,

I also had some difficult to understand the concept of emphasis, although my greatest difficulty was when try translate English to Latin, as English isn’t my first language.

At the bottom of page 29 you have the “normal” word order:

“Subject - modifiers of subject – indirect object – direct object – adverb – verb”

I presume that modifiers of the indirect object and of the direct object also should be after the respective object.

Fīlia mea agricolīs cēnam parat “normal” order without any emphasis

Mea fīlia agricolīs parat cēnam emphasis on “mea” and “cēnam” (how you would put that emphasis in English beats me), because mea is before “fīlia” and “cēnam” is after the verb.

Agricolīs fīlia mea cēnam parat emphasis on “agricolīs” because it is at the beginning of the phrase and before the subject.

The places of highest importance are first word and last word and they are usually the subject and the verb respectively. So if you want to make emphasis on any word you put it at the beginning or at the end. Adjectives are usually after the noun they modify so if you put them before the noun you are giving emphasis on the adjective. If you separate the adjective from the noun you are giving the adjective even more emphasis.

This is the usually word order, as you will advance your studies you will see that there are some adjectives that are usually put before the noun and not after.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Andrus

[Kip]

I understand what you are saying. I have been looking into it a lot more in the last few days. I have noticed a slight pattern concerning the placement of adjectives and nouns and their relation to emphasis. I have written down all the other examples and the exercises concerning that part of the Lesson to make comparisons down the road if and when I "catch" these emphasized sentences. Thanks so much for your help. It has helped clear the "air" sort of speak.

[sisyphus]

D'Ooge Page 29 and 30.

Examples:

Filia mea agrocolīs cēnam parat. (normal order)

Mea filia agricolīs parat cēnam. (mea and cēnam emphatic)

Agricolīs filia mea cēnam parat. (agricolīs emphatic)

This is my take on this, as a fellow novice. In the second example (as you say) mea and cēnam are emphatic. So it's my daughter, rather than someone else's, and it's dinner she prepares, rather than any other meal.

In the third example it's the daughter of the farmer, not the labourer, or the farmer's wife, or anyone else, who prepares the dinner. The emphasis, i think, often needs context from previous sentences. Sometimes it's just saying that the important thing in the sentence is not the subject, but the indirect object or preposition, or genitive. A sentence isn't always "about" the subject.

HTH,

sis.

[Andrus]

Salvete,

In the third example it's the daughter of the farmer, not the labourer, or the farmer's wife, or anyone else, who prepares the dinner.

Here the emphasis is on the fact that “my daughter” is preparing the dinner to the farmer and nobody else and not that the she is the daughter of the farmer.

I understand what you are saying. I have been looking into it a lot more in the last few days. I have noticed a slight pattern concerning the placement of adjectives and nouns and their relation to emphasis. I have written down all the other examples and the exercises concerning that part of the Lesson to make comparisons down the road if and when I "catch" these emphasized sentences. Thanks so much for your help. It has helped clear the "air" sort of speak.

In my opinion although the emphasis concept has some importance I wouldn’t loose too many time around this chapter. As you keep studding, reading all the material and making all the exercises you will start to expect some sequence of the words in a phrase. When that doesn’t happen then the author is making an emphasis on something.

That is my opinion but as the only Latin I had read so far is the texts on this book, I don’t have any idea of what will be reading a historical Latin text.

Best regards,

Andrus

[sisyphus]

Salvete,

In the third example it's the daughter of the farmer, not the labourer, or the farmer's wife, or anyone else, who prepares the dinner.

Here the emphasis is on the fact that “my daughter” is preparing the dinner to the farmer and nobody else and not that the she is the daughter of the farmer.

Oops, quite right. My mistake.

sis.

[Interaxus]

Salvete omnes!

Agricolīs filia mea cēnam parat. (agricolīs emphatic)

Quite apart from the question of emphasis, I think you'll find 'agricolis' is dative plural (dative singular would be 'agricolae'), so the translation becomes 'My daughter's preparing dinner for the farmers.


By the way, how do you manage to get those macrons over the long vowels? I wish I could do that ...

Int

[Carola]

Salvete,

In my opinion although the emphasis concept has some importance I wouldn’t loose too many time around this chapter. As you keep studding, reading all the material and making all the exercises you will start to expect some sequence of the words in a phrase. When that doesn’t happen then the author is making an emphasis on something.

That is my opinion but as the only Latin I had read so far is the texts on this book, I don’t have any idea of what will be reading a historical Latin text.

Best regards,

Andrus

Yes, when you get into "real" Latin (as opposed to exercises) it is really only used when the writer wants to push a point. You'll see it in some of Cicero's legal argument for example. We would use an audible emphasis when speaking, or underline or bold if we were writing. You can imagine Cicero in the Roman courtroom saying "He attacked a Roman citizen" and pointing rather theatrically at the accused, with the "Roman citizen" at the beginning of the sentence. You really don't see it much more often than that and by the time you are reading chunks of Cicero or whatever you'll have met so many more confusing things it will hardly rate as very important! But it's nice to show off when you are writing a 2000 word waffly essay on a piece of prose and say that you noticed it!