M&F Unit 11

[bingley]

My English to Latin translations are:<br /><br /><br />1. Having dared to enter the neglected house, the children fled as soon as possible when the guardian approached.<br /><br />Custode aggrediente, nati in domum neglectum ingredi ausi quam primum fugerunt.<br /><br />2. Desirous of money, the young men attempted crimes, nor did they fear the punishment which threatened.<br /><br />Pecuniae cupidi, iuvenes scelera conati sunt neque poenam minantem timuerunt.<br /><br />3. Famous consuls, don’t use all your wealth in order that you may fill the forum with statues of impious men.<br /><br />Consules noti, nolite totis divitiis vestris uti ut forum hominum statuis impiorum impleatis.<br /><br />4. The soldiers confessed that the commander’s hope of safety had saved lives in a time of great danger.<br /><br />Milites fessi sunt imperatoris spem salutis tempore periculi magni vitas servisse.<br /><br />5. Loving both one’s enemies and one’s friends is the mark of a distinguished man.<br /><br />Viri honesti est et inimicos et amicos amare.<br /><br />The themes for this unit are:<br /><br />Deponent and semi-deponent verbs<br />Subjective and objective genitive<br />Predicate Genitive<br />Infinitive as subject<br />volo, nolo, malo<br />noun and adjectival suffixes<br /><br />

[Skylax]

RVRSVS INTELLIGERE POTVIMVS QVAM PERITVS LINGVAE LATINAE FIERES !<br /><br />1. Having dared to enter the neglected house, the children fled as soon as possible when the guardian approached.<br /><br />Custode aggrediente, nati (pueri) in (not compulsory : INGREDI transitive) domum neglectam (relictam) ingredi ausi quam primum fugerunt.<br /><br />2. Desirous of money, the young men attempted crimes, nor did they fear the punishment which threatened.<br /><br />Pecuniae cupidi, iuvenes scelera conati sunt neque poenam minantem timuerunt.<br />(MINANTEM : correct form, but MINARI means "to threaten with words : here the Latin would have rather said IMPENDENTEM... not a deponent verb, however)<br /><br />3. Famous consuls, don’t use all your wealth in order that you may fill the forum with statues of impious men.<br /><br />Consules noti (nobiles? clari?), nolite totis (omnibus) divitiis vestris uti ut forum hominum statuis impiorum impleatis.<br /><br /><br />4. The soldiers confessed that the commander’s hope of safety had saved lives in a time of great danger.<br /><br />Milites fassi (confessi) sunt imperatoris (maybe rather an adjective here: imperatoriam) spem salutis tempore periculi magni vitas servasse (servavisse).<br /><br />5. Loving both one’s enemies and one’s friends is the mark of a distinguished man.<br /><br />Viri honesti est et inimicos et amicos amare.<br /><br />(Not an ancient Roman or Greek idea)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[mingshey]

I was about to post a question about M&F.<br />After reading the topic "Ranting Wheelock..." I looked for M&F on amazon to read some of the reviews.<br />There were two worst pointed(two stars) reviews that says M&F inventing rules and using odd examples that romans wouldn't have spoken, and so on. Please read these reviews there and tell me what you think.<br /><br />

<br />Moreland & Fleischer: intensive but dodgy Latin, June 9, 2003<br />   Reviewer: Lena from Southampton, UK<br />I have used this book with my students (accelerated beginners course, undergraduates/postgraduates) over a period of several years, simply because it is THE intensive course available, there is nothing else on the market that moves quickly enough for my needs. However, I have strong reservations about it. Most seriously, some of the Latin is dodgy, the grammar simply is not correct. Also, the exercises often sound very un-Roman; you get the impression that the authors are making their sentences up from the handbook but haven't read enough of the real stuff. This is not the tongue that Caesar spake! Furthermore, the exercises are full of strange people doing strange things- so the poor student can never be sure that he has got the translation right. The English is almost as stilted as the Latin. My favourite sentence is the one about the man who would easily have overcome the soldiers "if his rather heavy arms had not fallen from his very strong hands" (extra marks if you can visualise!). To complicate matters further, Moreland & Fleischer are experts at explaining a grammatical concept three chapters after they have asked the student to translate it.<br />I deal with these difficulties by giving my students strict instructions as to what exercises they are supposed to do; but it is not a suitable book for teaching yourself. For my part, it is a book I am stuck with, not one I recommend.

<br /><br />

If you're trying to learn Latin, look elsewhere, May 1, 2001<br />   Reviewer: Kristin from Philadelphia, PA<br />If you wish to learn the Latin that was actually written and spoken by the Romans, look elsewhere. The authors of this book delight in inventing rules and misinforming the readers. Incorrectly placed long marks are just the beginning of their mistakes. The book tries to include too much information in each chapter, leaving the beginning Latin student overwhelmed and confused. On top of this, the sentences used as examples can be best described as poor Latin that no Roman would have ever used. The one good point of this book is a decent vocabulary, but if you are trying to learn Latin correctly, I recommend Wheelock or Bennett's New Latin Grammar. (On a side note, this book is notorious for its sexual innuendoes which seem a little out of place in a latin text book.)

<br />

[bingley]

Thank you once again, Scylax. ;D<br /><br />I was wondering while I was doing this exercise what exactly the difference between omnis and totus was.<br /><br />

[bingley]

Mingshey, I'd certainly agree some of the example sentences in English are strange, but that's usually because they read like an over-literal translation from Latin -- the sort of thing I remember from the cribs some people used when I was at school. I'm using it as a revision text so I'm not fazed by some things coming earlier than they're explained (indeed I believe in some circles this is regarded as a legitimate language teaching technique). <br /><br />It is after all an intensive course so it's bound to pack a lot in each unit. If there are any major blunders I haven't noticed them, but then I probably wouldn't. And I must admit I haven't noticed any sexual innuendoes either. Notorious for them, is it? Perhaps somebody could point them out for those of us a bit slower on the uptake. ;D

[Skylax]

<br /><br />I was wondering while I was doing this exercise what exactly the difference between omnis and totus was.<br /><br />

<br /><br />totus means that something is considered as a whole (without distinct parts) : tota Italia is only one thing. Horatius says that, one day, he walked on the Forum totus absorbed in futile thoughts.<br /><br />But Ovid says non omnis moriar "I will not entirely die". He means that some parts of his person (thus considered as a reunion of several parts) will survive. He refers of course to his poetry, which will make him immortal. Also when Caesar writes Gallia omnis he considers that Gaul is made up of several distinct parts. But if tota Gallia arises against Rome, it shows that all Gauls have the same mind.<br /><br />Omnis can also mean "Any kind of" : Est omnis servitus misera "Any slavery is a bad thing".<br /><br />In the plural, you will find more often omnes, omnia.<br />omnes dies "all (the) days" (Omnia mihi tempora sunt misera, Cicero said)<br />totos dies means "whole, full days"

[bingley]

thank you

[mingshey]

Thank you, bingley!<br />

[Keesa]

<br />I'm using it as a revision text so I'm not fazed by some things coming earlier than they're explained (indeed I believe in some circles this is regarded as a legitimate language teaching technique). <br /><br />

<br /><br />It may be legitimate, but I don't like it. I always get a helpless feeling when someone gives me an excercise, and I don't know how to do it. I'd rather have a chance to learn the stuff, then exercise it (many times!), then be tested on it. <br /><br />Keesa

[bingley]

I think the idea behind it is that when you come to the real thing you're bound to come across things where you get the idea but don't really know why they mean what they mean, so you might as well get used to it early on. If you're a hard-core grammar junky you might look it up, but the rule the grammar book gives you may well be some scholar's formulation based on what he/she thinks is going on in the very passage you're reading.

[Keesa]

I didn't say it wasn't useful, a good learning technique, helpful, all of the above. I just said that I don't like it. <br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />If you're a hard-core grammar junky you might look it up, but the rule the grammar book gives you may well be some scholar's formulation based on what he/she thinks is going on in the very passage you're reading. <br /><br /><br />Would you agree, then, that if the book itself assumes that there is a "right" and "wrong" answer to the question, it should teach you how to find the "right" answer before throwing the question at you, then telling you that you got it "wrong"? (Hehe. I think I have a spite against that book... ;D)

[bingley]

Maybe that's why there isn't an answer key, because often there is more than one possible answer, so you need a teacher to say, "Yes, but you could also translate it as this or this," or "This would be more idiomatic and what a Roman would say."<br /><br />I've lost count of the number of times I've had to tell students or colleagues that what they've said or written is grammatically perfect but no-one would actually say it.