Textkit Logo

BLD Ex136 Pg57 Niobe and her Children

Are you learning Latin with D'Ooge's Beginners Latin Book? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback and comments from others.

BLD Ex136 Pg57 Niobe and her Children

Postby mariek » Thu Aug 07, 2003 4:45 am

<br />I think I have correctly translated the last sentence of the passage from Ex 136. But there is something I don't understand about it. The exercise points out that reginae and liberis are Dative. Is it because of the "to the queen" and "to the children" being indirect objects? Also, causa appears to be Nominative. Shouldn't it be Accusative?<br /><br /> Sed ea superbia erat reginae causa magnae tristiae et liberis causa durae poenae.<br /> But her pride was cause of great sadness to the queen and cause of hard punishment to the/her children.<br /><br />Here is the entire passage from this exercise:[face=SPIonic][size=18=9]<br />Niobe, regina Thebanorum, erat pulchra femina sed superba. Erat superba non solum forma sua maritique potentia sed etiam magno liberorum numero. Nam habebat septem filios et septem filias. Sed ea superbia erat reginae causa magnae tristiae et liberis causa durae poenae.[/face][/size]<br /><br /><br />
User avatar
mariek
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
Location: California

Re:BLD Ex136 Pg57 Niobe and her Children

Postby benissimus » Thu Aug 07, 2003 4:59 am

Your translation appears to be correct - I don't understand your confusion. The Datives reginae and liberis mean "to the queen" and "to (her) children." Causa is nominative because esse, here in the form erat, cannot create direct objects, just like in correct English ("It is I", not "It is me").
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re:BLD Ex136 Pg57 Niobe and her Children

Postby bingley » Thu Aug 07, 2003 5:36 am

Causa is indeed nominative. est/sunt/ etc. is not followed by an accusative but by a nominative, because (in this case) the superbia and the causa are the same thing, so they need to agree with each other. You know how some people inist you should say It is I instead of It is me? This is the origin of it.<br /><br />It might help to think of it like this. With an action of giving, for example, there are three entities involved, the giver, the gift, and the recipient. The dative is the case for the recipient. Servum reginae dedi = I gave the queen a slave. Servum is accusative, it was the gift. The queen is the dative reginae because she is the recipient -- she gets the slave.<br /><br />So, in your sentence the queen is the "recipient" of the sadness produced by her action so she's in the dative, and similarly the children are the "recipients" of the punishment, so they are in the dative as well.
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Re:BLD Ex136 Pg57 Niobe and her Children

Postby mariek » Thu Aug 07, 2003 7:03 am

<br />I think some of my neural pathways connections were broken. :-\ I started translating most of the parts of the sentence except for reginae and liberis. I didn't immediately recognize them as Dative, and I didn't know what to make of them or how they fit into the big picture. But the footnote said they were Dative, so I rearranged the sentence and filled in the blanks. I guess I was a bit rusty with Dative because it feels like I haven't done anything with it for a while. Translating Latin to English (or vice versa) is like playing a word game, and after more practice I might even get really good at it!<br /><br />
User avatar
mariek
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
Location: California

Re:BLD Ex136 Pg57 Niobe and her Children

Postby tdominus » Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:21 am

Why is "ea superbia " used instead of "sua superbia"?
phpbb
tdominus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:15 pm
Location: Terra Australis

Re:BLD Ex136 Pg57 Niobe and her Children

Postby bingley » Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:39 am

ea superbia here means 'this pride' rather than 'her pride'.
bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Re:BLD Ex136 Pg57 Niobe and her Children

Postby tdominus » Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:30 am

Thanks for the help, Bingley. :)<br />I mistook the demonstrative pronoun for a personal pronoun.
phpbb
tdominus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:15 pm
Location: Terra Australis

Where is nam?

Postby Timothy » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:09 am

§136

Nam habebat septem filios et septem filias.

I can't find a previous definition of nam.

The Key translation is right but the exercise specifically says not to use the general vocabulary for any words other than the 3 mentioned. I thought it might have been a misprint for iam, but I'm not sure; that translation doesn't seem right in light of the definition of nam. There is a footnote on habebat that inidcates the translation should be had, but it doesn't really encompass the word nam.

idunno.

I had a problem trying to translate it without looking it up in the general dictionary. In general :oops: I though the special dictionaries are to be used until the gerneral reading material is presented or otherwise indicated.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Postby Episcopus » Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Good work Tim :wink:

Ah...I remember fondly that story...seems like yesterday...

"Nam" means "for": "For she had..."

A strengthened "nam", "namque", means "for in fact".

And D'Ooge does not typos!
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Postby Timothy » Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:16 pm

Episcopus wrote:Good work Tim :wink:

Ah...I remember fondly that story...seems like yesterday...


Thanks. (multum gratum sum?) And since it's so fresh in your memory :wink: I can't help but ask how you were able to resolve the word when you did the exercise? Something tells me you had already inhaled the general dictionary by that point. Or did you sneak a peek? :shock: Or is it that I really did miss a previous introduction of the word? :roll: I'm interested in how someone with your linguistic ability views these exercises.

Episcopus wrote:"Nam" means "for": "For she had..."

A strengthened "nam", "namque", means "for in fact".


So I discovered...well, not the "strengthed" part but I think that is down the road apiece. Sad to say, my translations seem to read like dictionary entries, strung together, right now; very declarative sentences of fact. One the other hand, that's what these elementary sentences are. So I'm happy that the grammar is coming together and my reading comprehension is way up.

Episcopus wrote:And D'Ooge does not typos!


But Ginn and Co. may! :wink: As might some of us other mortals. :wink: :wink:

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Postby Episcopus » Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:48 pm

I remember understanding it as "for", it may have been introduced before. It's strange, "nam" is quite a common word.

As for inhaling a dictionary, I wish it were the case! I hate learning vocabulary. I have problems with it. Since I have to go really quickly I resort to ancient memorization methods. Not healthy.

It may seem slightly unnatural at the moment, that you should have to decipher sentences rather than just read and appreciate them but it is always this way. When you finish the D'Ooge book however he will have served you well - you will understand the reading matter at the back (I'm sure you've taken a glance, saying 'I wish!' as I did) in a natural manner.
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Postby Timothy » Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:10 pm

Episcopus wrote:I remember understanding it as "for", it may have been introduced before. It's strange, "nam" is quite a common word.


Yeah, I couldn't find a reference to it before then when I search my html version. I think you had to look it up.

Episcopus wrote:As for inhaling a dictionary, I wish it were the case! I hate learning vocabulary. I have problems with it. Since I have to go really quickly I resort to ancient memorization methods. Not healthy.


I take it that the time constraint is a course load issue. Personally, I'm holding out for repetition breeding familiarity. Not perfect, but sufficient.

Episcopus wrote:It may seem slightly unnatural at the moment, that you should have to decipher sentences rather than just read and appreciate them but it is always this way. When you finish the D'Ooge book however he will have served you well - you will understand the reading matter at the back (I'm sure you've taken a glance, saying 'I wish!' as I did) in a natural manner.


I hope that by the end of the book I'll be able to start to tackle Caesar and begin the Collar & Danielle book, which should be easier. And I will be able to appreciate Allen and Greenough/Glidersleeve references. Then Cicero, Livy, Plateus (sp?) and I really hope to hit Erasmus. But I also want my pronunciation to get better. I've got a church pronunciations and I want the Roman. I want to speak well and not stammer.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Postby ingrid70 » Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:27 pm

Hi Tim,

I've checked my little vocab database (many thanks to Borealis for making me build it :), and I have no entry for 'nam' in the D'Ooge list. He must have overlooked it, it being so common. Well, let's not blame him, he didn't have a computer to check if he had properly introduced the word.

Ingrid
ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Timothy » Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:31 pm

ingrid70 wrote:Hi Tim,

I've checked my little vocab database (many thanks to Borealis for making me build it :), and I have no entry for 'nam' in the D'Ooge list. He must have overlooked it, it being so common. Well, let's not blame him, he didn't have a computer to check if he had properly introduced the word.

Ingrid


Thank you, Ingrid!

I have always disliked trying to prove a negative. Believe it or not, this gets a nagging little thing off my mind. (And with a mind as little as mine...) :lol:

The book had a perfect record up til then and that is such a small omission that it's easily overlooked. For people like me though, and with self study, little things like that can throw you off your stride.

Thanks again.

- Tim
User avatar
Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore


Return to Latin For Beginners by D'Ooge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests