Textkit Logo

***In need of a big favor from a kind person** (Scanning)

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

***In need of a big favor from a kind person** (Scanning)

Postby JessicafromTexas » Thu May 22, 2008 5:02 am

Hi everyone, my name's Jessica, this is my first post. : )

All year in my Latin class I've made straight A's (yipee!!), but one thing I stuggled on was scanning. Thankfully, we never took a grade on scanning until now.

By monday, as one part of a much bigger final exam project, I need to scan and identify the meter of 25 lines of a poem.

It's frustrating because I see so many people scan something in no time, yet I can't get past one line.

Finally my question: Can someone please, please scan these 25 lines for me? It's the first 25 lines of Amores 1.6, we're doin it as our final poem.

I'm not sure if the best way is to write by hand and scan and send in an email or if there's an easy way to do it all on the computer, but either way I would love it if someone could take the time out of their day to help me out.

If someone could post here and help me out it would be much appreciated!!

--



1 ianitor (indignum) dura religate catena,

2 difficilem moto cardine pande forem.

3 quod precor, exiguum est: aditu fac ianua parvo

4 obliquum capiat semiadaperta latus.

5 longus amor tales corpus tenuavit in usus

6 aptaque subducto pondere membra dedit;

7 ille per excubias custodum leniter ire

8 monstrat: inoffensos derigit ille pedes.

9 at quondam noctem simulacraque vana timebam;

10 mirabar, tenebris quisquis iturus erat:

11 risit, ut audirem, tenera cum matre Cupido

12 et leviter 'fies tu quoque fortis' ait.

13 nec mora, venit amor: non umbras nocte volantis,

14 non timeo strictas in mea fata manus;

15 te nimium lentum timeo, tibi blandior uni:

16 tu, me quo possis perdere, fulmen habes.

17 adspice (uti videas, inmitia claustra relaxa)

18 uda sit ut lacrimis ianua facta meis.

19 certe ego, cum posita stares ad verbera veste,

20 ad dominam pro te verba tremente tuli.

21 ergo quae valuit pro te quoque gratia quondam,

22 heu facinus! pro me nunc valet illa parum?

23 redde vicem meritis! grato licet esse quod optas.

24 tempora noctis eunt; excute poste seram.

25 excute: sic, inquam, longa relevere catena,
User avatar
JessicafromTexas
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 4:59 am

Postby benissimus » Thu May 22, 2008 5:36 am

Sorry, but the purpose of this website is to help people learn. I don't see how scanning these lines for you would teach you anything. Otherwise, if you actually want help with learning how to scan these lines yourself, please say so.
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

Postby Lucus Eques » Thu May 22, 2008 7:00 am

Salve, Jessica! Welcome.

I'm afraid we ought not to do your homework for you, but we can definitely teach you how to scan. Actually there are some others here who recently have wanted to know more about Latin verse and scansion, so this'll be a great lesson for everybody. Understanding the natural rhythms of Latin speech and poetry is by for the most satisfying, beautiful aspect of the language (that and the trilled 'r's, of course, my favorite of all consonants).

In any case, these are easy lines to scan, we'll show you how. :)

First of all: what do you know about Latin scansion? Tell me, how do you recognise long and short syllables? Ovid uses a pairing of two kinds of metres fairly exclusively in his poetry; do you know their names and how they scan?
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Episcopus » Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:23 pm

omfg

nice picture, but i'm afraid it don't function like facecock. however, sinistra 4/10 (facerem nilominus)
dextera 5.75/10 a fair performance by the genes

this thread should have been called skany for phanyn

then i would have replied sooner
User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Postby Amadeus » Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm

You don't need to be rude, Episcope. :?
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby adrianus » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:35 pm

Well, at least one can't accuse Episcopus of speaking hastily, Amadeus. It took two months.
Verò, Amadee, te non dicere ferè potest Episcopum properanter scripsisse. Ad considerandam rem duo menses adhibuit.
Last edited by adrianus on Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:41 pm

Huh, funny I didn't notice the date of the original thread. :lol:
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby adrianus » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:33 am

Episcopus does, though, make the funniest (and rudest) posts around.
Omnium epistularum jocosissimae quamquam (et maximè rudes) sunt illae Episcopi.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Essorant » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:03 am

Give me a break. That comment doesn't belong here and should be removed by the moderators as soon as possible. This is a site for learning and helping, not for making up lewd and disrespectful suggestions.<pre> </pre>
Essorant
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: Regina, SK; Canada

Postby adrianus » Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:27 am

Essorant wrote:Give me a break. That comment doesn't belong here.<pre> </pre>
Well, I agree. It doesn't belong. I meant that if you look at Episcopus's contributions, they're often differently creative and entertaining. This one was least good, badly timed, not wise and rude.
Concino. Hic non est aptum. Erat minimè bonum, cum malo temporis sensu, indoctusque et improbum. Alias Episcopum cum artifice externo genereque in his paginis contribuisse dicere volui.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby cdm2003 » Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:37 am

It may be rude, but I think he's taking into consideration that this post was made by a user who has yet made no other post, who included a pic of themselves (and another) in less than "formal" attire, asked for a "big favor" from a "kind person" (sounds like a line in a Tennesse Williams play), and who asked people to "please, please" do her homework for her (a request which, I may add, is discouraged in a sticky at the top of the board without adding your own attempts).

I think it's fair to assume that Jessica passed her Latin class with the "A" she'd been earning all along, and is enjoying her summer on the beaches of Corpus Christi.
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae
User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Postby Amadeus » Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:04 am

I still think the Bishop's reply is beneath Textkit standards, and should not be justified.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby adrianus » Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:21 pm

It should not be justified.
Paradoxically and between the lines, people's behaviour can benefit from a having a bogeyman around, though. What do you think of the paradox, Amadeus, cdm2003, Essorant and others?

Legitimum non est.
Praeter opinionem autem et indocto modo, fieri potest quod parvus daemon alios se meliùs praebere efficiat. Quid est, Amadee vel cdm2003 vel Essorant vel alie, quod de hoc paradoxo censes?
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:43 pm

BTW, going by the rule that it's alright if it doesn't frighten the horses or children (and I agree), the remarks of Episcopus were out of place. Offensive to many others, too.

Obiter, eâ lege ut legitimum est quod nec caballos nec liberos terret (quocum assentior), non legitimi adnotatus Episcopi. Fuerunt multis aliis quòque taetri.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:23 pm

adrianus wrote:Paradoxically and between the lines, people's behaviour can benefit from a having a bogeyman around, though. What do you think of the paradox, Amadeus, cdm2003, Essorant and others?


I'm not quite sure I follow, amice. :oops:
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby adrianus » Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:46 pm

I mean, take these two scenarios.

Scenario 1. AdeleFromBoston behaves either in a silly manner, or in a wily manner, to try to get other people to work for her. She fails. Antistes whams her in a way so outrageous and shocking that AdeleFromBoston alters her ways (possibly,—certainly, she never asks again). Antistes's actions, however, cause some readers to be entertained but more to be outraged,—some out of sentiments that seek to protect others; some for reasons of political correctness; some out of personal moral conviction. Did the bad outweigh the good?
On reflection. Probably the bad outweighed the good, yes. Furthermore, when Antistes acted, it was already evident that AdeleFromBoston had got the message. So why did Antistes act? Because Antistes couldn't resist the opportunity for an outrageous joke (a little bit of vanity there). By revealing this weakness, Antistes tips the balance yet further to the bad.

Scenario 2. God causes the bogeyman to exist, so that children have a choice but, more importantly, so that the negative consequences of doing ill will be apparent. To ensure that responsibility for one's actions cannot be dodged, however, God must cause the bogeyman's existence and work to be known. So parents frighten children into doing good, or at least fearing to do wrong, by warning them of the bogeyman. Some children grow up angry at the bogeyman and their parents for frightening them when they were little, and then become angry at God for letting it all happen. Others, of course, grow up good and do good, for fear of the bogeyman. Was the story of the bogeyman good? Did the bad outweigh the good?
On reflection. ??????? What do you think?

Disclaimer. Despite the coincidence of events and names (AdeleFromBoston, Antistes, God, bogeyman, parent, child), the events and names in these scenarios are fictitious and no horses were harmed.

Tuâ veniâ, ecce duo scaenaria.

Primum scaenarium. Ineptè AdeleFromBoston gerit, vel modo versuto, quae alios pro suo laborare hortatur. Deficit. Taliter cum impulsu et flagranter Antistes eam invitat, ut AdeleFromBoston viam mutat (cùm non certum est,—dicamus saltem eam non etiam rogavisse). Actione autem Antistitis, nonnulli qui lautio fruuntur sed plus qui, eâ ratione aut alios tueri quaerendi, aut rectitudinis politicae, aut convictionis moralis, furiosi fiunt. Malumne bonum vincit?
Considerantiâ. Malum bonum vincit, probabiliter quidem. Cum Antistes agebat, iam clarum erat AdeleFromBoston regulam fori intellegere. Cur ergo Antistes egit? Quià eum jocum ferocem resistere non potuit (nonne hic vanitatis odor). Hoc impotentiâ apertâ, Antistes libram ampliùs ad malum inclinare facit.

Secundum scaenarium. Deus parvum daemonem esse facit, ut liberi optent et, quod gravius est, consequens malum faciendi acclaretur. Ne responsabilitem actionum vites, Deum ostendere oportet faciem factaque parvi daemonis. Eò, de parvo daemono admonendo, parentes terrent ut liberi bona faciant vel malum saltem fugiant. Nonnulli liberi qui, dein adulti, daemoni irati sunt et parentibus quoque qui terruerant. Denique deo irascuntur qui omnia permiserat. Certè alii sunt qui boni augescunt et benè faciunt, ob daemonem metuendum. Bonane erat fabula parvi daemonis? Malumne bonum vincit?
Considerantiâ. ??????? Quid censes?

Abdicatio. Coincidentia eventuum nominumque nihilominùs, commenta haec scaenaria et nullus caballus erat qui injuriam passus est.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:43 pm

A quick note, amice Adriane, totally tangential (but what isn't tangential at this point in this thread?):

scena, not "scaena," which was an Imperial hypercorrection. It is a borrowed word from Greek σκηνή.

Also consider: "plodere," not "plaudere."

Although these hypercorrections are Classical, we are beyond Cicero, and our Latin is recentior, which takes advantage of all modern, Mediaeval, Greek, and foreign vocabulary naturally developed since Caesar.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 am

Thanks, Lucus. I appreciate what you say, truly. I'm just writing, though, in accordance with L&S and OLD.
OLD says Accius and some others occasionally favour scena but scaena is more classical Latin, due to a vowel shift from the Greeks caused by the Etruscans. L&S go further and say scena is used "falsely", and "scaena" is correct.
L&S favour "plaudere" and put "plodere" into second place classically. OLD is this time the more severe and says "plaudere" is correct and "plodere" is "dubious".
You used to favour Classical usage and argued vehemently against modern alterations, and not that long ago.
Surely it would be totally silly of me to start pronouncing all borrowed words in English in accordance with the languages they were borrowed from. The English language would become unrecognisable. So why twist things with Latin? I don't agree with your experiments in English spelling, but I know where you're coming from, although I would object if you suggested everyone else would be better writing "exsist" for "exist", say.

Gratias, Luce, tibi ago. Quod dicis sincerè existimo. Scribo autem apud et L&S et OLD.
Dicit OLD "scaena" classicum esse, etsi Accius et alii quidam litterae "scena" favent. Dicit etiam mutationem vocalum dictionis Graeci viâ Etruscae linguae in Latinum intravit. Insuadibiliores L&S qui adnuntiant orthographiam "scena" falsam esse.
Similiter, L&S "plaudere" suprà "plodere" classicè favent et OLD, nunc vehementior, "plodere" orthographiam dubiam esse declarat.
Usum classicum anteà praeferebas et vehementer modernum abdicebas, et sic nuper.
Nonnè ineptum sit si anglicè omnis verbum mutuum apud linguam fontem sonem? Linguam anglicam non recognoscas. Cur ità linguam latinam intorquebis? Ad experimenta orthographicae tua anglicè non assentior, sed te intellego. Etsi non tecum consentiam si alios similiter facere suggeras, ut exempli gratiâ "exsist" pro "exist" scribi requiras.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:51 am

BTW, How did you know I would say "plaudere", were I to use it, Luke? It's true, but I didn't in this thread.
Obiter, Luce, quomodò scivisti me "plaudere" dicere, si quidem eo utar. Verum est, sed in hoc filo non usus sum.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:54 pm

Salve, adriane:

Seems to me that someone's been analyzing things a little too much. :wink:

Anyway, here are my two cents:

adrianus wrote:I mean, take these two scenarios.

Scenario 1. Did the bad outweigh the good?


Reprehending somebody's behavior is not a bad thing in itself, but you do have to have the right intentions and deliver in the proper form. The Bishop's comments seem reprehensible to me because they lack the right intention (judging from what I can see, but obviously I could be wrong here) and the proper form. I highly doubt the girl changed for the better because of his comments. If she changed at all, my guess would be that she changed in spite of Episcopus' words. So, I don't see how the bad could outweigh the good here.

Scenario 2. God causes the bogeyman to exist ...


If God is God, id est, the highest Good, the fountain of Goodness, then He cannot be the cause of evil. Good can come out of evil, sure, but evil is never desirable nor justifiable.

Disclaimer. Despite the coincidence of events and names (AdeleFromBoston, Antistes, God, bogeyman, parent, child), the events and names in these scenarios are fictitious and no horses were harmed.


Sure, sure, whatever you say. :lol:

Vale!
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:32 pm

adrianus wrote:Thanks, Lucus. I appreciate what you say, truly. I'm just writing, though, in accordance with L&S and OLD.
OLD says Accius and some others occasionally favour scena but scaena is more classical Latin, due to a vowel shift from the Greeks caused by the Etruscans. L&S go further and say scena is used "falsely", and "scaena" is correct.


This vowel shift intrigues me. Can you relate more of it?

L&S favour "plaudere" and put "plodere" into second place classically. OLD is this time the more severe and says "plaudere" is correct and "plodere" is "dubious".
You used to favour Classical usage and argued vehemently against modern alterations, and not that long ago.


You are right. Let me explain my general principle for Latinity, then specifically we'll look at the scena/plodere matter.

My general principle is to utilize Classical Latin as the massive foundation it is for my own Latin. But if I thought Latin had lived and died with Cicero (or his aera), I wouldn't be so interested in Latin spoken today, or be a minor author of Latina recentior, ut aiunt. To converse today, with all our modern technology, history, and terminology, we cannot use only the words of Cicero. We use them first, then neologize as necessary.

So then, on to scena/plodere. I was first informed of this discrepancy through Vox Latina by Allen, which notes how urban Romans in the Classical aera were aware of the "rural" vowel shift of ae->e and au->o, which took hold in much of Italian and Spanish, as we know. (Really, this vowel shift was strongly influenced by Italians who came from Umbrian or Oscan speaking regions; in these native languages, the vowel shifts ae->e and au->o had already occurred, so they superimposed this upon Latin, and helped to shift it going into Vulgar Latin.) So, Roman grammarians were keen to correct letus as laetus and orum as aurum.

But the original verb was indeed plodere. This can be seen in its compounds: explodere, implodere, etc. "Plaudere" cannot be the original, writes Allen on page 61, since then the compounds would be "explūdere," "implūdere," as in con+claudere = conclūdere. Quintilian also mentions that old comedies would invite applause with "plodite." Suetonius relates that Vespasian said "plostra," and Metius Florus instructed him to say "plaustra." The next day, Vespasian called him "Flaurus," which I think is hilarious.

So it must be "scena" as much as it must be "sceptrum," not "scaeptrum," another hypercorrection. I seek to imitate the Classical Romans — but I will not ape their errors.

Back in the general view of Latinity, I certainly advocate and speak of the Latin standard today as Classical Latin and the Classical Latin Pronunciation. Similarly, we may say that Standard Italian can be called Classical Italian, Classical Italian being from Petrarch to some unmarked period in the past — really, it's just Standard Italian. This is different from Italian dialect, such as Neapolitan — much as I enjoy but do not cultivate the Vulgar Latin dialects of Mediaeval Latin, like German Latin (Carmina Burana, for example), I will take pleasure in Italian dialect, but for comedy's sake mostly, which is how Italians view dialect as well.

A great example of the Standard versus Classical Italian can be seen in Mozart's Don Giovanni, the libretto for which having been written in Classical Italian by the illustrious Lorenzo da Ponte. Lorenzo da Ponte, in the aria known as the "serenata," wrote "il zucchero." But as any modern Italian will tell you, one says "lo zucchero" — all masculine words beginning with "z" take the article "lo," and not "il." And if I said "il zucchero" in Italy today, I would be politely corrected, for "il zucchero" is quite impossible.

Da Ponte did not write "il zucchero" as a hypercorrection, but as an acceptable variant at that time, so in this way the case is different from plodere/scena. However, I will not force "il zucchero" on modern Italians just because it is Classical Italian, even based on Da Ponte's usage. In modern Standard Italian, it is incorrect to say "lo zucchero" based on the rules of the language as they have been organized. And since I benefit from knowing that "scaena" and "plaudere" are hypercorrections, I do not used them either.

I don't agree with your experiments in English spelling, but I know where you're coming from, although I would object if you suggested everyone else would be better writing "exsist" for "exist", say.


You make me laugh outloud! only because, if you actuallly saw the way I write with my family members, you would know only then what my spelling experimentation is really like! hahaha. Here, I just write what I can get away with. ;)
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:50 pm

Amadeus wrote:So, I don't see how the bad could outweigh the good here.

Apologies, Amadee. I could have expressed myself better. I agree with you. When I said "The bad outweighs the good", I meant Episcopus's action had more bad aspects than good aspects.
Me excusas, Amadee, quià malè me ostensi. Tecum consentio. Cum dixi "Malum bonum vincit", volui dicere mala aspectus plus numerare quàm bona, et eâ causâ, actionem Episcopi plùs condemnari.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:39 pm

If you wouldn't mind, Luke, copy what you say above into a new thread and we'll discuss it there. Is that OK? I really want to discuss it. It's a lovely topic.
Si tibi molestum non est, Luce, amabò te quod suprà dicit verbatim in alium filum transferas. Tibine videtur? Valdè cupio de hac re nos disputare. Bona materia est.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:54 pm

I agree with you, adriane, this would be a good debate.

I think the question revolves around whether plaudere is still a hypercorrection today, after many centuries of common usage.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:59 pm

De acuerdo! :)
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:53 am

What's "acuerdo", Luke? Don't know the word.
Quid, Luce, est "acuerdo"? Hanc dictionem non intellego.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:21 am

It means "agreed" in Spanish. :lol:
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby adrianus » Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:25 pm

:oops: OK! Because you're Spanish, Amadee, or speak Spanish. I see!
Licet! Quià es hispanicus vel hispanicè loqueris! Clarum est. :)
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], msfonsecajr and 21 guests