Lessons IX to XV

[bizzaroSquirrel]

Hi all, §

I have some more questions to ask regarding the exercises in the book. These are the exercises that I have had problems with between lessons IX and XV.
As you can see, it’s a pretty long post , so I appreciate any help.


Lesson XI, §86, p37
II, 10. Friends care for the good sailors.
My trans: Amici nautis bonis curant.
Key: Amici nautas bonos curant.

I put good sailors in the dative, because of the “forâ€￾ in the sentence. If the sentence read “Friends care the good sailorsâ€￾ or something (hope you get the jist??) then I would agree that the good sailors would be in accusative, but the for has tripped me out.

Lesson XIV, §99, page 43
I, 2. Est copia frumenti in agris nostris.
My trans: There is plenty of grain in our fields.

I got this right, but just wanted to know where the “ofâ€￾ came from. Or is it just added to make more sense in English?

Lesson XIV, §99, page 43
II, 2. My son Sextus is carrying his booty to the Roman Camp.
My trans: Filius meus, Sextus, ad castra Romana praedam suam portat.
Key: Filius meus Sextus praedam suam in castra Romana portat.

I translated Roman camp in the dative, and just remembered that the dative isn’t used for motion. So what case is roman camp in?
Sextus in in nominative, booty is in accusative… I’m lost on this one .

Also, why are booty and roman camp switched places (compared to my trans) in latin? Is “to the roman campâ€￾ an adverb, and so is placed next to the verb???

Lesson XV, §107, p46
II, 3. The Roman legionnaires are armed with long spears.
My trans: Romani legionarii pilis longis armatis.
Key: Legionarii Romani pilis longis armati sunt.

Crap, I think I know this one now, but that took too long to write to delete. Does armati act as an adjective for Roman legionnaires? I have no idea what I was doing with that trans…

Lesson XV, §107, p46
II, 5. Many are sick because of bad water and for lack of food.
My trans: Multi sunt aegri quod aqua mala et cibis inopiis.
Key: Multi sunt aegri aqua mala et inopia cibi.

Why is “foodâ€￾ not in the ablative case? Shouldn’t the ablative cover both water and food?
Also, why is there no “becauseâ€￾ in the latin trans?

OK, that's it for now. I'm finding the excercises a bit harder now (my book is pretty much covered with red pen due to all the corrections). I think it's about time to go back and have another read.
I should probably also go get an English grammar book, the multiple nouns in each sentence are starting to kick my a**.

Cheers,
James

[Andrus]

Saluē Bizzaro,

Lesson XI, §86, p37
II, 10. Friends care for the good sailors.
My trans: Amici nautis bonis curant.
Key: Amici nautas bonos curant.

I put good sailors in the dative, because of the “forâ€￾ in the sentence. If the sentence read “Friends care the good sailorsâ€￾ or something (hope you get the jist??) then I would agree that the good sailors would be in accusative, but the for has tripped me out.

“CurÅ￾â€￾ is a transitive verb and needs the object in accusative. Sometimes the difficulty in translating from English (or any other language) to Latin comes from different ways to express an idea, as it is in this case.

Lesson XIV, §99, page 43
I, 2. Est copia frumenti in agris nostris.
My trans: There is plenty of grain in our fields.

I got this right, but just wanted to know where the “ofâ€￾ came from. Or is it just added to make more sense in English?

The “ofâ€￾ comes from the fact that “frÅ«mentÄ«â€￾ is in the Genitive, here Latin and English uses the same construction.

Lesson XIV, §99, page 43
II, 2. My son Sextus is carrying his booty to the Roman Camp.
My trans: Filius meus, Sextus, ad castra Romana praedam suam portat.
Key: Filius meus Sextus praedam suam in castra Romana portat.

I translated Roman camp in the dative, and just remembered that the dative isn’t used for motion. So what case is roman camp in?
Sextus in in nominative, booty is in accusative… I’m lost on this one .

Also, why are booty and roman camp switched places (compared to my trans) in latin? Is “to the roman campâ€￾ an adverb, and so is placed next to the verb???

Motion to uses accusative with the proposition “adâ€￾ or “inâ€￾. “Castraâ€￾ is in the accusative, and as it is a neuter noun in the plural has the same form as the nominative plural. To my best knowledge both word order are good. You did put a little more emphasis on the fact that he is taking something to the camp and the key puts the emphasis on what he is taking to the camp.

Lesson XV, §107, p46
II, 3. The Roman legionnaires are armed with long spears.
My trans: Romani legionarii pilis longis armatis.
Key: Legionarii Romani pilis longis armati sunt.

Crap, I think I know this one now, but that took too long to write to delete. Does armati act as an adjective for Roman legionnaires? I have no idea what I was doing with that trans…

“armÄ￾tus, -a, -umâ€￾ is an adjective and is modifying the Roman Legionaries and it is what is called a predicate adjective (point 55, of lesson VI, page 23) in grammar terms. As in the case of “The girl is beautifulâ€￾ or “The house is bigâ€￾. I’m not sure if I have clarified your doubts, if not please tell me so I can try to explain better.

Lesson XV, §107, p46
II, 5. Many are sick because of bad water and for lack of food.
My trans: Multi sunt aegri quod aqua mala et cibis inopiis.
Key: Multi sunt aegri aqua mala et inopia cibi.

Why is “foodâ€￾ not in the ablative case? Shouldn’t the ablative cover both water and food?
Also, why is there no “becauseâ€￾ in the latin trans?

There aren’t any “becauseâ€￾ because you are using the ablative of cause, and so the “becauseâ€￾ is understood. To see why food isn’t in the ablative you must look for the causes that are making the many sick, they are:

1- the bad water
2- the lack of food

so “waterâ€￾ is in the ablative and so it is "bad" because is an adjective modifying water so must be in the same case, number and gender. The “lackâ€￾ is also in ablative because is making them sick, "food" is in the genitive because in this case is the lack of food.

You are doing very well but if you allow my advice you shouldn’t let your doubts unexplained before you move to the next lesson. Don’t worry to being posting more times asking for help, as here in Textkit you will always find someone who is able to help. As a rule try to only advance to the next lesson after you have clarified all points in the exercises where you aren’t sure.

I hope I have helped.

Valē James,

Andrus

[bizzaroSquirrel]

Thanks Andrus, i'm pretty sure that cleared everything up

“CurÅ￾â€￾ is a transitive verb and needs the object in accusative. Sometimes the difficulty in translating from English (or any other language) to Latin comes from different ways to express an idea, as it is in this case.

I see. I didn't even think of his when I was translating.

The “ofâ€￾ comes from the fact that “frÅ«mentÄ«â€￾ is in the Genitive, here Latin and English uses the same construction.

and

"food" is in the genitive because in this case is the lack of food.

ahhhhhh. I didn't put grain or food in the genitive because i coudn't see how they were possessing something. Maybe I still have it wrong, but could the second sentence also read "many are sick because of bad water and food's lack (or food's absence)"??
If that's not right then im lost..

There aren’t any “becauseâ€￾ because you are using the ablative of cause, and so the “becauseâ€￾ is understood.

Yep, I didn't read the "ablative of cause" section closely enough, which makes that pretty clear

I hope I have helped.

Heaps, and I appreciate it.

Cheers,
James

[Andrus]

Saluē James,

ahhhhhh. I didn't put grain or food in the genitive because i coudn't see how they were possessing something. Maybe I still have it wrong, but could the second sentence also read "many are sick because of bad water and food's lack (or food's absence)"??
If that's not right then im lost..

You are right, they are sick because the food’s lack (or absence). I don’t think this is in good English (English isn’t my first language) but the idea is that. Putting in other way, almost every time that idea is or can be written in English by “something of Xâ€￾, X would be in genitive case in Latin. Like in “sound of silenceâ€￾, silence would be in genitive case.

Valē,

Andrus