Textkit Logo

Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

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

Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby pmda » Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:15 pm

Hi I've gone through Ch XX of LLPSI and I highlight a number of questions. Most of them I have answered I think correctly and I'd like some guidance as to whether this is true or not. I'd be grateful for any guidance.


1) Infans multas horas dormit.

I think I've forgotten something here. When one does something for a length of time - that's expressed in the accusative, right?
e.g. Milites romani contra germanos pugnabant annos duos ?


2) Meaning of 'carere'

I understand that this means 'be without' or 'need'. It takes the ablative I understand. Could I say Infans qui cibo caret cibum magna voce postulat. ?


3) Longus somnus infanti necessarius est.

'Infanti' is in dative right? This construction seems to be the same as the one used ascribing ownership : dat + Nom e.g. feminae formosae dentes pulchri sunt.


4) Si mater infantem suum ipsa alere non potest sive non vult, infans ab alia muliere alitur, quae ei in loco matris est.
I know what this means but I'm not sure about how the final clause works '..quae ei in loco matris est.' 'Quae' is an indefinite adjective standing in for 'muliere' - I' think. 'ei' is standing in for the infans, right? it means 'she stands (to him) in the place of the mother'. Do I have that right?


5) Do deponent verbs have a passive voice? If so how can you recognise one?


6) Infans parentibus suis dicet "Mamma! Tata!".

Does dicere take dative? As in the baby is saying this TO his mother and father?


7) Aemilia says: 'Ego alteram filiam habere volo, plures quam duos filios nolo!
I'm taking it that 'plures' is masculine accusative plural and that it agrees with 'duos filios' nolo and all of them are accusative because they are the subject of 'habere'. Do I have this right?


8. Aemilia surgit atque gradum adversis ostium facit. Does this mean that she rises (from her seat) and takes a step towards the window? My key question is the meaning of adversus. Does it mean 'towards'?


9) Aemilia says that she will look after her child if it is sick: Si aeger erit ipsa eum curabo totamque noctem apud eum vigilabo.

Does 'ipsa' refer to herself and does it qualify 'vigilabo'? Is she saying ' if it is sick I myself will look after it and watch over it all night.' I hadn'd thought of 'ipsa' being used to qualify the subject of a sentence to mean the speaker. I thought it was in third person only. I'd be grateful for some guidance on this point.


10) Iulius says 'Necesse est mihi cras rursus a vobis discedere..' I have probably forgotten something but I would have thought that 'necesse est' would take accusative 'me' and not dative 'mihi'. Can anyone explain.?


11) Iulia says to her father: 'Vel si necesse erit domo abire, non modo tertio quoque die, sed cotidie ad nos reverti debes. I'm sure I'm forgetting stuff but..: are 'die' and 'cotidie' ablative of time? I'm not sure how to translate this sentence. It seems to say: 'If it's necessary for you to leave then it's your duty not to stay away for each of three days but to return to us every day.' Do I have that right? What role does 'modo' play? Is it 'in the manner of' or 'like this'..?


12) Iulia says: 'Nolo te carere'. 'te' is ablative right? It seems that, depending on context, carere means something like 'do without'.

13) Aemilia says to her daughter, Iulia (telling her not to use babytalk) 'Ita loquuntur parvuli infantes, nec sermo infantium te decet.'

Does decet take accusative or ablative? I'm not sure whether 'te' is accusative or ablative?
Last edited by pmda on Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby adrianus » Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:13 pm

Salve pmda
1. Ità est.
2. Iterùm.
3. Dativo casu est quidem, non sensu autem possessivo at puro (ut anglicè "necessary to/for" dicimus)
4. Rectè dicis praeter hoc : relativum pronomen hîc est "quae", nisi fallor.
5. De verbis deponentibus, verum passivum est participium praeteritum perfectum.
6. Verum dicis.
7. Non mentiris.
8. Adversus (non adversis) adverbium est quod significat quod credis.
9. "Ipsa" (per a vocalem correptam) primae personae singulariter feminini generis est secus aliarum personarum inter genera et numeros.
10. Vide suprà responsum tertium: "necesse est" dativo casui servit.
11. Ita, dativo casu sunt. "...to return not merely every third day but every day..."
12. Iterum, ablativo casu.
13. Decet verbum et dativo et accusativo casibus servit, non ablativo.
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

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby Craig_Thomas » Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:48 pm

pmda wrote:5) Do deponent verbs have a passive voice? If so how can you recognise one?

Apart from one particular form called the gerundive, which you probably haven't encountered yet, deponents verbs are always active.

pmda wrote:6) Infans parentibus suis dicet "Mamma! Tata!".

Does dicere take dative? As in the baby is saying this TO his mother and father?

Verbs of speaking, like verbs of giving, can have a direct and an indirect object. You speak words (acc.) to someone (dat.) in the same way that you, say, give a letter (acc.) to someone (dat.).

pmda wrote:11) Iulia says to her father: 'Vel si necesse erit domo abire, non modo tertio quoque die, sed cotidie ad nos reverti debes. What role does 'modo' play? Is it 'in the manner of' or 'like this'..?

This is how you say "not only ... but also" in Latin. The formula does vary somewhat: sometimes you find "non modo ... sed etiam", sometimes "solum" instead of "modo", or "verum" instead of "sed", or "et" or "quoque" instead of "etiam" (but it's much easier to recognise than that makes it sound).
Craig_Thomas
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:42 am

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby pmda » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:58 pm

@Craig_Thomas et Adrianus

Gratias vobis ago

Adrianus, hanc sententiam "Ipsa" (per a vocalem correptam) primae personae singulariter feminini generis est secus aliarum personarum inter genera et numeros.' intellegere vero non possum.
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby adrianus » Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:34 pm

Salve pmda
"Ipsa" (with the letter "a" as a short vowel") belongs to [a pronoun which is] first-person feminine singular (I bypassed saying its nominative qualifies the first person pronoun ego in the nominative) together with other persons [other than first person] between genders and numbers. "Ipsa", in other words, goes with anything in the nom. fem. sing., nom./acc. pl. neuter. and abl. fem. sing. when "a" is long. I didn't express myself very clearly—just in shorthand.
Clarissimè me non expressi at breviús.
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

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby pmda » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:08 pm

pmda wrote:11) Iulia says to her father: 'Vel si necesse erit domo abire, non modo tertio quoque die, sed cotidie ad nos reverti debes. What role does 'modo' play? Is it 'in the manner of' or 'like this'..?

This is how you say "not only ... but also" in Latin. The formula does vary somewhat: sometimes you find "non modo ... sed etiam", sometimes "solum" instead of "modo", or "verum" instead of "sed", or "et" or "quoque" instead of "etiam" (but it's much easier to recognise than that makes it sound).[/quote]

@Craig_Thomas I'm still not clear about this. I had it in my mind that pronouns with -que on the end indicated something like 'each...' e.g. Quaque syllaba vocabuli 'amica' numerus syllabarum et vocalium idem est.

Hence the sentence would seem to mean (and I know it doesn't) something like 'If it's necessary that you are to be away from home then not only should you return on each (!) third day but every day....' which of course makes no sense. She's asking him to do not only one thing but also another - yet clearly she's really asking him Not to do one thing But another...???

The big mystery for me is what does 'quoque' mean and what exact role does it play in this sentence? If it means 'only' then it's playing the same role as 'modo'. I'm a bit clueless as to what's going on here...
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby adrianus » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:21 pm

As I said above // Ut iam supra dixi
"...to return not merely every third day but every day..."
non modo = not merely/just/only
tertio quoque die = every third day
sed cotidie = but daily/every day
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

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby brookter » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:54 am

adrianus wrote:As I said above // Ut iam supra dixi
"...to return not merely every third day but every day..."
non modo = not merely/just/only
tertio quoque die = every third day
sed cotidie = but daily/every day


I think I'm a few chapters behind pdma, so apologies for reviving this thread, which has been very useful as I've just reached Chapter XX...

My question is on the translation of tertiō quōque diē. I know the literal translation is 'every third day', but IIRC, the Romans counted inclusively - so today is the first day, tomorrow is the second and the next day is the third. In other words, is this phrase equivalent to the English 'every other day', rather than 'every third day'? I.e. He's actually spending one night away from home each time, not two as the literal English translation would imply.

Does this make sense?

regards

David
Last edited by brookter on Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
brookter
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby furrykef » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:01 pm

While I wouldn't say for 100% certain, my guess would be no. Your method would be counting each day twice. For example:
* Monday -- the first day
* Tuesday -- the second day
* Wednesday -- the third day / the first day
* Thursday -- the second day
* Friday -- the third day / the first day

I can't really imagine any reason for them to overlap, even if the Romans did consider "today" to be "the first day".
Founder of Learning Languages Through Video Games.
I also have a lang-8 journal where I practice Spanish and Japanese.
User avatar
furrykef
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 7:18 am

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby brookter » Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:30 pm

Furrykef

Thanks for your reply. I can certainly see what you mean, and it does seem odd. But then, so does inclusive counting in general, and there are some parallels, perhaps. I've just done a more detailed search on Google and came up with a couple of links.

For example: (from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dquisque)

Plaut. Ps. 4, 2, 17: “tertio quoque verbo excitabatur,” at every other word, Cic. Rab. Post. 12, 34: quinto quoque anno, every fifth year, i. e. every four years,


Unfortunately, I don't have full access to Cambridge Journals Online, so I can't get the full text of the next one:

Quisque with Ordinals - 17:19
by CL Howard - 1958 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
the most likely assumption is that tertio quoque die means 'every other day', ... 3: igitur tertio quoque die cibus aegro commodissime datur, ut alter ...
[url]journals.cambridge.org/article_S0009838800016359[/url]


And finally, apparently it's even a current medical abbreviation! From http://www.mtworld.com/tools_resources/medicalabbreviations.php?letter=all

q.o.d. Every other day (tertio quoque die)


It still seems odd, though.

Regards

David
brookter
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby parjanya » Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:50 pm

I think it is called 'inclusive counting', and it's very confusing to learn, and very confusing to count after learning it ; ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting#I ... e_counting

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/72093.html

Unfortunetly I couldn't find any book explicitely about it, if anyone remember any references, please post, it's a useful thing to have.
User avatar
parjanya
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:48 pm

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby Craig_Thomas » Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:50 pm

That article by C.L. Howard is interesting, brookter. He finds some 40-odd occurrences of "quisque" used with ordinal numbers by classical authors, and tries to determine for each whether the author is using inclusive or non-inclusive counting. Evidently, we can't simply say that the Romans always counted inclusively.

His conclusions are worth quoting:

C.L. Howard, Quisque with Ordinals wrote:(i) There is a very strong presumption that any instance of quisque with an ordinal higher than septimus involves the non-inclusive method of reckoning, irrespective of the date of the quotation.
[...]
(ii) There is a fairly strong presumption that any instance of quisque with tertius, quartus, or quintus involves the inclusive method of reckoning; and the earlier the date of the quotation the stronger this presumption is.


He also observes that this construction is rare in poetry, possibly rare in Christian and later Latin, and that "a number of Roman authors, especially of course those who dealt with chronological matters, recognized the problem presented by the use of two methods of reckoning intervals, but they did not evolve an unambiguous terminology."
Craig_Thomas
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:42 am

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby brookter » Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:43 am

Craig

Thanks for the update - interesting! I presume that some of the references are to medical texts, hence the modern use of the abbreviation?

Thanks

David
brookter
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby Craig_Thomas » Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:54 am

brookter wrote:I presume that some of the references are to medical texts, hence the modern use of the abbreviation?

There are a few from Celsus' De Medicina, such as this one, on the proper treatment of fever sufferers:

Igitur tertio quoque die cibus aegro commodissime datur, ut alter febrem minuat, alter uiribus subueniat.
Craig_Thomas
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:42 am

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby adrianus » Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:07 pm

brookter wrote:'every other day'
Certum! Macte! // Yes! Nice one!
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

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby brookter » Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:06 pm

Craig_Thomas wrote:
brookter wrote:I presume that some of the references are to medical texts, hence the modern use of the abbreviation?

There are a few from Celsus' De Medicina, such as this one, on the proper treatment of fever sufferers:

Igitur tertio quoque die cibus aegro commodissime datur, ut alter febrem minuat, alter uiribus subueniat.


Thanks Craig!

David
brookter
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: Deva

Re: Some questions re LLPSI Cap XX

Postby Perseus » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:14 am

Have you seen this dedicated forum to LLPSI?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11400
User avatar
Perseus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:33 am


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Craig_Thomas, Exabot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 36 guests