Textkit Logo

Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

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

Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby pmda » Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:20 pm

Perseum alium forum 'LLPSI' fecisse adimadverto sed timeo neminem hoc videbit.

In Orberg LLPSI Cap. XXIII de his cogito:

1) Hoc dicens ianitor epistulam domino suo tradit.

In 'Hoc dicens' Nonne 'Hoc' accusativus neutrum est

et 'dicens' nominativus participium masculinum est?

2) Nonne'Nemo' neutrum aut masculinum est?


3) 'ad diem' = hodie ?

4) In 'Marcus, cuius vultus ad nomen magistri colorem

mutavit, pallidus et tremens patrem legentem

spectat.' Is 'ad nomen...' a way of saying 'Marcus

whose face at [the mention of the teacher's name]

changed colour. ??

5) Sed quidnam scriptum est in priore epistulae

parte?

'priore' verbum ablativus singularum quod hoc modo

desinitur: prior, prior, priorem, prioris, priori,

priore (hoc puto). Autem Orberg 'prior, -um' dat; hoc

a me non intellegitur.

6) Iulius: "Hac epistula nulla laus continetur, nec

enim puer atque piger atqu improbus laudem meret!

In hac sententia 'Hac' et 'epistula' ablativi sunt.

Hoc non intellego. E qua causa est?

7) "Tune putas te his litteris laudari, Marce?"

Litterae, -arum = epistula, -ae ?

8) Tacente Marco, Aemilia "Quid fecit Marcus?"

inquit... Estne 'tactente' adverbum aut verbum

ablativum.

9) O Marce! Iam plane intellego falsa esse omnia quae

nobis narravisti.. suntne 'falsa .....omnia'

accusativus ?

10) Iulius: "Aspice hanc tabulam: videsne nomen

'Sexti' litteris planis in parte superiore

inscriptum?

Estne 'inscriptum' participium perfectum sine 'esse'

aut 'sum'...etc...?


11) Hocine negare audes? 'Hoc[ine] accusativus est?

12) Nonne te pudet hoc fecisse? 'hoc' nominativus est?

13) Profecto me pudet hoc a meio filio factum esse!
'hoc' nominativus est.

14) Iulius non credit Marcum promissum facturum esse.

In English is this. 'Iulius doesn't believe the promise that Marcus's has made' with 'Marcum' in acc. because of indirect speech?
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby adrianus » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:58 pm

1. Etiam ut dicis, accusativo casu neutrius generis et participium nominativo casu masculini generis
2. Communis generis est, id est aut masculini aut feminini
3. Minimè. "Ad diem" anglicè est "at/on/to the day"
4. Ità est.
5. "priore" adjectivum est comparativi gradûs ablativo casu feminini generis singulariter et partis nomini adjunctum
6 et 7. Primo sententias vertas. Nota casus ablativos instrumentales// First translate the sentence. Note the instrumental ablative.
8. Participium praesens ablativo casu singulariter.
9. Rectè dicis.
10. Adjectivum attributivum hîc est participium, ut dicam
11. Probè dicis.
12. Non est. Magìs casu accusativo.
13. Immò casu accusativo.
14. Minimè, at anglicè "will / is going to / is about to make". Accusativo casu "Marcum" est, ut dicis, orationis obliquae causâ
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: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby Perseus » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:11 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

Re: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby furrykef » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:07 pm

pmda wrote:sed timeo neminem hoc videbit.

I don't think this is correct Latin. What you want is a "fear clause", which in Latin works counterintuitively. First off you must use "ut" or "nē" with the subjunctive. The counterintuitive part is that which one you use is the opposite of the one you might expect. For example, "timeō nē abeās" means "I fear that you will go away". If you imagine it as two sentences -- Timeō! Nē abeās! -- then you'll see why the opposite conjunction is used.

So I think what you want here is "timeō nē nēmō hoc videat". :) (Also possibly "timeō ut quisquam hoc videat", but I'm not as sure about that.)

You also misspelled "animadvertō" as "adimadvertō". I believe it comes from "animus" (mind) and "vertere" (turn), which should help you remember the correct spelling.
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: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby pmda » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:27 pm

Perseus wrote:Have you seen this dedicated forum to LLPSI?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11400


Perseus I was afraid no one would see it...but I will make my next post there. I'm working through the chapters of LLPSI and posting at the end of each a series of questions all at once....and usually they're answered by some of the more expert members. Do you recommend that I should post such questions there instead?
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby Perseus » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:24 pm

If a user find a post somewhere that he knows the answer, they would join to the forum to answer it (myself this is how I join to new forums). Now, the user base is almost empty because there is no post yet, so if you post something there, and a user will see it and find the post interesting, they join to talk to you about your post and this is how a forum user base grows up. So I think someine will join and reply you soon there, if they find a post there (i.e. your post.)
So you are very welcome to join and post there with no worries about current user base. As you know each great discussion needs a starter, and if you don't start the topic, nobody will answer you. This is why I believe it worth your time to post there.
User avatar
Perseus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:33 am

Re: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby Perseus » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:37 pm

User base is still weak because: 1. It is just 3-days old. 2. There is no starter yet.
But after answering you the post above, I did check my awstat and this is number of visitors since 2 Jan.
02 Jan 2011 3190
03 Jan 2011 692
04 Jan 2011 2383
Total: 6265

I believe this is a great stat for a just 3-days old forum. So If you start something I believe one of these 6265 visitors will sign up to answer you.
User avatar
Perseus
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:33 am

Re: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby pmda » Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:58 pm

@Furrykef thanks for that and noted.

@Adrianus - many thanks for your detailed replies. Much appreciated.

I have a few follow-up queries about your answers:

[5) Sed quidnam scriptum est in priore epistulae parte?
'priore' verbum ablativus singularum quod hoc modo desinitur: prior, prior, priorem, prioris, priori, priore (hoc puto). Autem Orberg 'prior, -um' dat; hoc a me non intellegitur.]

You said 5. "priore" adjectivum est comparativi gradûs ablativo casu feminini generis singulariter et partis nomini adjunctum

What do you mean by 'partis nomini adjunctum' It does agree with 'parte', right? Why does Orberg give it in the vocabulary as 'prior, -um' as opposed to 'prior - ius' ? - Isn't '-um' just the plural possessive ending..??!!

[6) Iulius: "Hac epistula nulla laus continetur, nec enim puer atque piger atqu improbus laudem meret!
In hac sententia 'Hac' et 'epistula' ablativi sunt. Hoc non intellego. E qua causa est?]

You said: 6 et 7. Primo sententias vertas. Nota casus ablativos instrumentales// First translate the sentence. Note the instrumental ablative.

I translate the sentence as: 'This letter contains no praise; nor, indeed, does a lazy and bad boy deserve praise'. I don't see the ablative of instrument - unless I'm mistranslating continetur and it means something like 'No praise is offered by this letter'??? Is that it?

[7) "Tune putas te his litteris laudari, Marce?"
Litterae, -arum = epistula, -ae ?

You said: 6 et 7. Primo sententias vertas. Nota casus ablativos instrumentales// First translate the sentence. Note the instrumental ablative.

My question here was whether the plural: litterae, -arum means, in this context, the letter (epistula) and not letters (plural) a, b, c,..etc..?

[12) Nonne te pudet hoc fecisse? 'hoc' nominativus est?]

You said: 12. Non est. Magìs casu accusativo.

I'm not clear on this. I have taken 'Nonne te pudet fecisse' literally to translate as follows: 'Doesn't (Nonne) this [thing] (Hoc) that has been done (fecisse) shame (pudet) you (te) ?

In which case Hoc should be nominative??

Can you explain the grammatical workings of the sentence??


[13) Profecto me pudet hoc a meio filio factum esse! 'hoc' nominativus est.]

You said: 13. Immò casu accusativo.

Similarly here. I would translate this as 'Truly that (hoc - nominative case) [thing] done by my son shames me'.

Where am I going wrong?


[14) Iulius non credit Marcum promissum facturum esse.

In English is this. 'Iulius doesn't believe the promise that Marcus's has made' with 'Marcum' in acc. because of indirect speech?]

You said: 14. Minimè, at anglicè "will / is going to / is about to make". Accusativo casu "Marcum" est, ut dicis, orationis obliquae causâ

OK so the translation (given the context) is: Iulius doesn't believe Marcus' promise will be done. Does that make sense?


I'm not really concerned about translating per se. It's just to get a sense of the grammatical function of each word.

regards

Paul
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby adrianus » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:29 pm

5 'partis nomini adjunctum' = "qualifies the noun 'parte' ["added to the noun (of) 'part']
6/7/8. "No praise is contained by this letter"
7. I think you're right//Ut dicis "his litteris" anglicè "by this letter" significat.
12. "Doesn't it shame you to have done this [objectum accusativum]?"
13. "Certainly it shames me that this [subjectum accusativum cum infinitivo modo] was done by my son"
14. Non "Marcus' promise will be done" sed "Marcus will not make a promise".
"facturus -a -um esse" verbum est modo infinitivo vocis activae
"factum [supinum] iri" passivae vocis.
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: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby pmda » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:02 pm

Adrianus, Gratias tibi ago.

14. Non "Marcus' promise will be done" sed "Marcus will not make a promise".
"facturus -a -um esse" verbum est modo infinitivo vocis activae
"factum [supinum] iri" passivae vocis.

The context of the story wouldn't support this. Marcus has already made the promise and Julius is expressing disbelief that he will carry it out..
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am

Re: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby adrianus » Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:42 pm

Aliter tunc vertas // Then translate otherwise:
"Julius does not believe that Marcus will do/bring about/fulfill/accomplish/effect/execute/conclude/perform the/his promise"
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: Questions re Orberg LLPSI: Cap XXIII

Postby pmda » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:49 pm

thanks.
pmda
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:15 am


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bedwere and 75 guests