Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana

by **Amadeus** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:17 pm

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 :evil:

, 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?

This is the first in a series of questions I'm going to make so that nothing is left unclear in Lingua Latina.

Valetudinem vestram curate diligenter! (Et nolite me stultum appellare!)

Post scriptum: ut iam videtis, sgina Â¿Â¡ absunt. Fateor libros hispanicos de lingua latina iis non utuntur.

by **cdm2003** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:07 am

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?

Ok...I'm going to take a stab at this.

There is a difference between a syllable which is long because it contains a long vowel or dipthong (long by nature) and a syllable that is long because the vowel is followed by more than one consonant or an "x" (long by position). 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 (forgive me for I don't know how to make a macron over the first "e" on here...I know that doesn't help lessen the confusion :shock:

), the penultimate syllable contains both the long vowel "e" (long by nature) as well as being a syllable that is long by position.

The macron, in instructional texts, simply is used to demonstrate vowel quantity, and is most useful discerning between Latin words like "to be" and "to eat" and as a great help with pronunciation. Without the macrons, you will only have context as a guide, and be as lost as trying to make sense of my post. :lol:

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."

Sorry if this is lengthy or convoluted...and, if anyone has a hint or two on how to make the macrons, I'd be much obliged.

Chris

by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:32 am

by **Amadeus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:07 pm

cdm2003 wrote:Ok...I'm going to take a stab at this.

No, please, don't stab.... love! :lol:

Ok, I think I got it. Both verbs have a long penultimate "e", it's just that one is long by nature and the other is long by position.

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."

I'm guessing, then, that this last thing is conventional? Even though both are long, one is pronounced quicker than the other?

Oh, and I usually insert the e macron with:

Code: Select all: & #275;

without the space between the ampersand and the #

Vale, amice!

by **Amadeus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:39 pm

by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:45 pm

by **modus.irrealis** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:13 pm

Hi,

Being sort of a zealot about terminology, I just wanted to point out that I was confused about this sort of thing until I was introduced to thinking of vowels alone as being long or short and syllables as being heavy or light. I find it much clearer to discuss things with this terminology.

E.g. with esse and ēsse (that macron tip is very useful, thanks), I would say that the first syllable of the two words, es and ēs respectively, are both heavy, but es has a short vowel while ēs has a long vowel, so it takes more time to say.

And just to defend English (not that it's endangered or anything

), but it too has vowel length, but like Spanish and unlike Latin it occurs automatically depending on the environment. I first learned about vowel length when I read that that's the main difference between words like bad and bat, where the first word has a long vowel because it's followed by a voiced consonant. So I guess it's very different from Spanish too since it has nothing to do with stress.

Thymios

by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:16 pm

Very well noted, Thymie; I too prefer heavy and light, but it's something that neither the Romans nor the Greeks figured out â€” though, it is definitely length that we speak of in the poetry, and the music; heavy and light are somewhat artificial considering what we are really talking about.

In addition to English vowel length rules, there is the difference between "be" and "bee." That extra 'e' is in there because, for most English speakers, the insect has a longer vowel than the verb. There is a similar difference between "the" and "thee." These are also things that foreign speakers are almost never taught (as evidenced by the phonetic translations in dictionaries) and very sutble aspects that quickly define a foreigner from a native. Listen next time you encounter a foreign speaker; you'll notice that the biggest difference between your speech and theirs is vowel length.

by **modus.irrealis** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:19 pm

Hi Lucus,

Well, as far as I know, heavy/light comes from Indian grammarians describing pretty much the same phenomenon in a closely related language, so it does have a very strong tradition behind it and it can't be too artificial.

Hopefully this isn't too off-topic in this discussion, but could you elaborate on what you meant when you said:

Lucus Eques wrote:it is definitely length that we speak of in the poetry, and the music;

This is perhaps my biggest problem in understand how classical meter (more Greek than Latin since that's what I am more familiar with), but I don't understand why a heavy syllable is long in any normal sense of the word. 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?"

About English, you're right about all the little nuances that you're not consciously aware of but when they're not there, something feels wrong.

Thymios

by **Amadeus** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:47 pm

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.

Oh, goodness no. I'm well aware of the distinction. Those dipthongs are definitely composed of a short vowel (also a closed vowel) and a long vowel (also an open vowel), at least in ordinary speech. You may have heard them as being both of the same length in a class room, where the teacher has to slow down so the class can better pronounce the consonants. Or perhaps the reason is that vowel lenghts in Spanish are less noticeable, but they're there. (You can do a Google search on "prosodia" and "duraciÃ³n" and you'll see what I'm talking about)

by **Lucus Eques** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:03 am

Thymie, your question is important:

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?"

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.

by **Amadeus** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:24 pm

Ok, I apologize for returning to this subject, which I thought was already settled. But recently I've been obsessing about correct pronunciation, and the issue of long vowels will not let me sleep (just an expression, btw). I found the following quote here: http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris ... Verse.html

"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.

And I had already begun to double all the vowels that were followed by double consonants. What a waste of time! :evil:

So, the answer, if I got it right, to my original question is that the first "e" of esse (to be) is short, and is only pronounced long by position in poetry. In fact, the same source above reveals that rather than being long by position, it is long by convention in order to preserve the rythm etc.

(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.)

by **Lucus Eques** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:13 am

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-."

Latin meter is not an artificial bludgeon, as most tend to recognize it, pretending their scarecrow of an effigy be something beautiful when it is not. The meter of Latin poetry is the same as the meter of Latin prose. Latin poetry is the artful arrangement of the natural rhythms and measures that occurr in natural speech. The Romans said it so. Any arbitration to the contrary comes from fundamental misunderstanding of the tongue.

by **modus.irrealis** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:59 am

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

The way I pronounce es (that syllable alone) that s takes as long as the s at the start of stri, and tri is noticeably longer than e so that's why to me the syllable stri seems to take more time to say, even without lengthening the i, than es does, even though it's not "long" and es is. Hopefully that's clear. But I think you're suggesting that the s at the end of a syllable should be more prominent (not sure what the right word is) than at the beginning of the syllable?

(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).

I thought you meant that Italians had a tendency to lengthen stressed vowels which is very similar to what happens in (Modern) Greek. I'm not sure I understand you here.

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.

Thanks for the offer. My computer though has its issues with microphones so I don't think I can get Skype to work on it.

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-."

I also found the article odd, especially the comment that "'Long by position' means long for verse, hence in verse the vowel must be of double length." Would such problems occur if we said syllables are heavy by position?

Thymios

by **Amadeus** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:11 pm

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?

by **nostos** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:34 pm

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?

it ain't the comma; it's just Orberg's way of showing you can use both. In one, he's saying that he thinks those damned discipulos are so improbos! In the other, he's addressing his discipuli (vocative)

by **Amadeus** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:57 pm

Ok, this one definitely was slip-up: Cap. XXII, v. 92: "amabo te!" I could never figure out what that meant. "I will love you" didn't make much sense. Now I know it means "please". But, really, Ã˜rberg should've used it a little more to make its meaning a little clearer. *scoff* I will love you... Hahahae :lol:

by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:11 pm

Well, what else would the tabellarius have said in that situation instead of "please"? "truck off"?

by **Amadeus** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:23 pm

Lucus Eques wrote:Well, what else would the tabellarius have said in that situation instead of "please"? "truck off"?

He could've said a lot of things. My point is, however, that Ã˜rberg should've used "amabo te" more than just once in order to leave no room for doubt. At least for me, the conection between "please" and "love" was not obvious.

by **bellum paxque** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:21 am

One thing I love about learning other language is finding out how they express the common necessities of courtesy. So, "please," "thank you," and "sorry" often express the peculiarities of both the language and the culture that sired it.

Here are some pleases I've learned so far:

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?")
Korean: juseyo (honorific of give: something like, honorable sir, ma'am: please give); also, chom (a little, modifies requests)

I know this is off topic: what are some linguistic expressions of please?

(I apoligize that this is all in reference to English; this naturally biases the discussion, but I see no way around it.)

-David

by **Amadeus** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:15 pm

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?")

Ah, now it makes more sense. "I'll love you IF..." Thanks bellumpaxque!

And now, for something completely different.

Cap. XXIII, v. 26: Magister: "neque umquam recte respondet cum eum interrogavi". Perhap's I'm missing something, but shouldn't it be "cum eum interrogo"? Numquam suggests that every time (in the past, now, and perhaps the future) the teacher asks Marcus something he never answers correctly. So why the praeteritum perfectum "interrogavi"? OR, perhaps it's a typo and it should read "neque umquam recte respondit (p.p.) cum eum interrogavi". Thoughts, anyone?

by **nostos** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:50 pm

When yer talking about something habitual, it's common to use the perfect (with the pres.), Amadeus. O thou of little faith! :lol:

by **Amadeus** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:44 pm

nostos wrote:When yer talking about something habitual, it's common to use the perfect (with the pres.), Amadeus. O thou of little faith!

What the...? Could you elaborate more? Amabo te! :lol:

And what's all this about me having little faith?

by **nostos** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:32 pm

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!

Numquam suggests that every time (in the past, now, and perhaps the future) the teacher asks Marcus something he never answers correctly.

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 (even in English I've used the same tenses! Though generally it don't make too much sense, I don't think, in English ni tampoco en el espaÃ±ol). 'O discipulum improbum atque pigrum!' [dicit, putat, sentit, scribit(?) Diodorus]

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.

by **Amadeus** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:05 am

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!

Yes, you should.... nah, just kiddin'.

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

oooOOOhhh! Now I get it. Me get lesson. :lol:

The answer lies in the fact that I forgot that the praeteritum perfectum "interrogavi" can also be translated in Spanish as "he preguntado" (have asked him). In other words, Diodorus is saying "cuantas veces le he preguntado, nunca me contesta bien". Whew! Glad that ones' solved.

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.

Pues que te vaya mejor allÃ que en el lugar donde te encuentras ahora.

Vale, amice!

by **bellum paxque** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:27 am

My recollection is that a cum clause with the perfect indicates habitual action in the present, whereas a cum clause with the pluperfect indicates habitual action in the past

Cum ille mouerat, gemebat. Whenever he moved, he groaned.
Cum ille mouit, gemit. Whenever he moves, he groans.

by **Amadeus** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:27 pm

Ok, one more. In capitulo XXIX v. 1-7, we read that the sailors are not deterred by the dangers of the sea, and defiantly proclaim "navigare necesse est". Merchants, on the other hand, think little of the sailors' lives and would rather like to avoid traveling by ship, but need to anyway. Their take on the sailor's motto is: "navigare necesse est, (sed?) vivere non est necesse". Doesn't it seem odd or out of place for them to say "vivere non est necesse"? Why the hell is it not necessary? To whom is it not necessary?

Patientiam habete! Mox finem harum questionum faciam! :wink:

by **bellum paxque** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:46 pm

I think it's a cynical comment about the relative importance of commerce compared to human life. Yeah, you can be sure of sailing, the merchants say, but that doesn't mean you can be sure of surviving. They're underscoring the perils of the sea - isn't there a tempestas somewhere in Lingua Latina? Not to mention the pirate ships.

David

by **cdm2003** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:56 pm

Ok...I'm on XVI now and have a simple question...this seemed the best thread in which to ask it. The chapter is about the tempestas and Medus' and Lydia's flight to Greece. The relevant quote is:

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.

Many thanks,
Chris

by **Lucus Eques** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:38 pm

Good question! "id est" is identical to the English expression "that is." The "id" here does not reference an antecedent, or postcedent. For example, the English:

"And all of them came quickly, that is, they ran."

"No one could escape, that is they were trapped."

So it's not saying "that is the wind, that wind that you feel, that blows from behind," but instead simply, "that is, the wind that blows from behind."

by **ingrid70** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:45 pm

cdm2003 wrote:
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.

Many thanks,
Chris

According to my grammar (a Dutch one, so a reference to it is not useful I think), pronouns should agree with their predicate in gender, as you said, but later writers and poets could use a neuter pronoun (they give examples from Vergil, Livy and Tacitus). Don't know if that is the explanation here, but maybe it helps.

Ingrid

by **bellum paxque** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:31 pm

cdm: consider "i.e." in English. That's actually an abbreviation of id est! Another Latin equivalent is videlicet.

David

PS - But, as ingrid pointed out, sometimes you will see a neuter "it" (like id or illud used with a predicate of another gender. This isn't very common, though. I've come across it once or twice in my Tacitus reading.

by **cdm2003** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:30 pm

Thanks bellum, ingrid, and Lucus...of course, I never thought of such a simple answer. :oops:

I was so "tunnel-visioned" on agreement of pronouns that I quite forgot about id est being id est, i.e., id est. :shock:

Thanks again and all the best,
Chris

by **Amadeus** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:36 pm

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,
Chris

Hey, don't worry. I had the exact same problem in chapter XVI, and now am glad I wasn't the only one. :wink:

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!

by **cdm2003** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:45 am

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!

Salve!

I love the book...I have worked through different grammars before (like M&F's Intensive Course) but nothing ever made Latin "click" so easily as LL. I'm sounding like an advertisement, but in all honesty, my ability to read, write, and listen to Latin has improved markedly over just a few weeks. Plus, it's incredible how much vocab I have learned even though I'm just at lesson XVI. If I can't remember a word, I can flip back in LL and look at it's usage (as opposed to the English meaning in a dictionary) and I never have to do that more than once.

Now, I must say that Marcus is not my favorite...primarily because he picks on his sister so ruthlessly (though I think she can be a bit of a brat to the slaves)...though I couldn't help but feel badly for him getting whipped so much at school.

I do like Quintus quite a bit...a true Roman in the making if I've ever seen one. I live out my own rebellious side through Medus...whose love for Lydia overcomes his descent into thievery. Wow...I'm now sounding like a soap-opera promo. :shock:

I think Quintus and Marcus are going to turn out quite like Titus and Domitian. :lol:

All in all, the story line certainly adds a lot of pleasure to learning Latin as we're not just reading the same old contrived lines of vocabulary to get us ready for Caesar. But I really have to thank everyone here for turning me on to these books, of which I had never heard before starting to read these boards.

Chris

by **bellum paxque** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:28 pm

That's the next project ad Lucium carum - a Latin soap opera! Take Days of our Lives, or some such - render it in the crisp quantities of colloquial Latin. C'mon, Luci - you know you want to!

David

by **Lucus Eques** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:36 pm

Am I that transparent? :-P

Actually, I have bigger fish to fry. You'll all be the first to know.

by **Amadeus** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:54 pm

by **vicentvs** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:25 pm

I have a little problem with this sentence of Cap. XX, exercitium 10.

Quid Aemilia Iuliae interroganti respondet?

and I reply... Aemilia 'nos de naturas miseros cogitare' respondet
Â¿Is this correct, or this one is better... Aemilia 'nos de nautis miseris cogitare' respondet.

Thanks

by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:13 pm

The second one is good. The first I don't understand.