Amadeus wrote:Ok, so I've finished Lingua Latina, part I. What I'm trying to do now is to go over it all again in order to refresh my memory. One way is by self-recording (which I cannot do all the time because my CDs won't play in my stereo system , even though they are uncompressed wav files) and the other is by typing it in my PC. Well, I've combe back to chapter nine and there's this odd verb Ä“sse (to eat). Why do I say it's odd? Because, I thought all vowels were long if they came before two consonants, this case "ss". So, why the macron?
cdm2003 wrote:Ok...I'm going to take a stab at this.
Hence in the Latin verb "to be," esse, the penultimate "e" is a short vowel (short by nature) yet the syllable in which it is contained is long by position (because of the "ss") and thus treated for reasons of stress and accentuation as long. In the Latin verb "to eat," esse ... the penultimate syllable contains both the long vowel "e" (long by nature) as well as being a syllable that is long by position. As regards pronunciation, both words (esse, "to be," and esse, "to eat") are stressed the same way...on the penultimate syllable, since regardless of the vowel quantity, both words contain a penultimate syllable which is long by position. Yet "to be" is pronounced quickly, with the majority of the time in pronunciation being spent on the "ss" and that first "e" sounding like the "e" in "pet." "To eat" is pronounced with an almost equal time spent on the initial "e" and the "ss," with the initial "e" sounding like the "a" in "cake."
Lucus Eques wrote:it is definitely length that we speak of in the poetry, and the music;
Lucus Eques wrote:Salue, Amadeu amice,
As far as long vowels in Spanish, the Mexican dialect definitely may differ in this regard from Spanish, but I am fairly certain it does not. It sounds as if you may be confusing vowel length with vowel stress. Indeed, just as you pointed out, those vowels are accented, stressed: cliÃ©nte, DiÃ©go.
For instance, with word like Ä›sse and strÄgo (it took me a while to find such a word in Latin), where I'm pretty sure that the first syllable of esse takes less time than the first syllable of strigo, why is es "long" but stri "short?"
"Long by position" means long for verse, hence in verse the vowel must be of double length. But this does not mean that in prose the vowel is long, or that it must affect the STRESS accent. This curious double-standard is one of the things Romans lived with, with some unease. On the other hand a master like Vergil can make the verse-rhythm and the prose-rhythm work with and even against each other, creating a subtly moirÃ© effect in verse.
(Actually the word "position" is a mis-translating of the Greek grammatical term "thesis" which means "convention, agreement"; ignorant Roman schoolmasters thought it came from the verb "ti-THE-mi" which can mean "place, put in position", hence the error.)
Lucus Eques wrote:Indeed, it does not take less time to pronounce the 'es-' of "esse" than the 'stri-' of "strigo." If you pronounce "esse" correctly, the 's'-sound will be quite geminated, twinned, lengthened such that the first syllable of "esse" will be at least twice as long as the first syllabe in "strigo." You may be pronouncing the 'i' in "strigo" a little too long
(something that most Italians, for example, are not capable of doing since it runs counter to the above stressed-long-syllable rule of their tongue as I outlined above).
If you'd like, we might arrange a brief conversation on Skype; I'd be happy to show you a few things about Latin pronunciation that are quite difficult to perceive without a frame of reference, that is, without hearing a speaker speak them. That offer goes for anyone, actually.
Lucus Eques wrote:The assessment in that article that you point out, Amadeus, is incorrect. For example, the vowel 'e' in "lectus" is not long; however, the syllable is long because of the consonant combination that follows: "-ct-."
Amadeus wrote:Ok, here's another one:
On chapter XV verse 23, the school teacher says: Â«O, discipulos improbos...!Â» But then on verse 101, he says it differently: Â«O improbi discipuli!Â» In the first instance, shouldn't it be the vocative instead of the accusative? Or does one comma change everything?
Lucus Eques wrote:Well, what else would the tabellarius have said in that situation instead of "please"? "truck off"?
bellum paxque wrote:English: please (if it pleases you? it would please me if?)
French: s'il te plaÃ®t (if it pleases you)
Latin: amabo te (I will love you if...) or quaeso (I beg)
Spanish: por favor (as a favor - cf. English "Can you do me a favor?")
nostos wrote:When yer talking about something habitual, it's common to use the perfect (with the pres.), Amadeus. O thou of little faith!
Amadeus wrote:What the...? Could you elaborate more? Amabo te! And what's all this about me having little faith?
Numquam suggests that every time (in the past, now, and perhaps the future) the teacher asks Marcus something he never answers correctly.
nostos wrote:Amadeus wrote:What the...? Could you elaborate more? Amabo te! And what's all this about me having little faith?
It was a terrible joke, the faith bit. I should keep my fingers tied down, or spend a little time revising!
Precisely, Marcus' habitual/customary action.
The perfect tense is usable in subordinate clauses (in this case the 'cum' clause) whenever you have any action that is customary (o the grammarspeak!). Marcus habitually answers incorrectly (that is, never answers correctly!) when the teacher has asked him questions
I'm actually not on that chapter yet. I've been doing lotsa stuff because we're about to move to Montreal, and Latin has taken the back seat (uhuhuhu!) hasta que nos instalemos en esa ciudad.
Nautae nec mari turbido nec mari tranquillo navigare volunt; itaque in portu ventum secundum opperiuntur (id est ventus qui a tergo flat).
Now, in English, saying "it is a wind which blows from the back," is just fine. Ventus, however, is clearly masculine. Shouldn't it be is instead of id? I.e., is est ventus qui a tergo flat.
Sorry this is so basic, but it's puzzling to me and I can't seem to find a relevant explanation in my grammar books.
cdm2003 wrote:Thanks bellum, ingrid, and Lucus...of course, I never thought of such a simple answer. I was so "tunnel-visioned" on agreement of pronouns that I quite forgot about id est being id est, i.e., id est.
Thanks again and all the best,
Amadeus wrote:Hey, don't worry. I had the exact same problem in chapter XVI, and now am glad I wasn't the only one. Question: how are you liking the book? Which is your favourite character so far? Mine is/was the rebellious Marcus... reminds me of me when I was younger.
Cura ut valeas!
Users browsing this forum: Phil- and 36 guests