Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana

[mfranks]

I want to start a new topic around Hans H. Orberg's "Lingua Latina" series. Since the series of readers, pamplets on grammar, exercises, etc. are all in Latin, I found some difficulties with the "implied/contexual" explainations.

I enjoy the methodology Orberg applies greatly. However, I find myself scratching my head and re-reading passages after long breaks before some of the meaning is clear to me.

My questions will follow shortly...

Thanks to all who contribute!

Mark

[mfranks]

I'm having trouble with the last part of the following passage on page 42:

"Iulius ab oppido ad villam suam it."

Understanding that Julius is traveling from the city to his home, I can't find any reference to the word "it" and it's (no pun intended) driving me crazy... what does "it" mean? At first, I thought the word was a pronoun meaning "his" but after looking in dictionaries and grammars, no luck... "Suam" is the possessive pronoun...

I'm at a loss, please help me...

[benissimus]

it is the third person singular present indicative active of ire "to go"

[amans]

It comes from eo, I walk. eo, is, it, imus, itis, eunt. So it means: he walks

[amans]

Oh, didn't see you there, benissime. Well, there we are. Anyhow, the main parts of the verb are: eo, ivi, itus, ire

[mfranks]

So then the passage translates to:

Julius is going from the city to his home. Correct?

Wow, you people are fast! Thank you so much!

One of the frustrations is that there are no comprehensive dictionaries/tools that you can look up a word form if you don't know the stem. This is a problem mostly with irregular verbs.

However, now that I've found this forum, I can get a number of my questions answered and not "stew" in frustration for a few days. This has been bugging me for three days now.

Thanks again!

[benissimus]

You might find this website useful. You can also download the program from here. It parses words for you and gives their definitions, principal parts, etc. Parsing is good practice for learning, so don't let it do all your parsing

[mfranks]

Thanks. The link to the Latin parser works great.

[edonnelly]

One of the frustrations is that there are no comprehensive dictionaries/tools that you can look up a word form if you don't know the stem. This is a problem mostly with irregular verbs.

If you go to the publisher's website, they have vocabulary lists for each book that you can download and print. Since the list itself is relatively short and the verbs are easy to see, you can usually find most of the irregulars pretty quickly (unless the first letter changes, like "ferre, tuli, latum" but I'm pretty sure there's a list of these kind of changes at the end of Part I).

BUT --
One of the nice things about LL is that everything is in Latin, so I wouldn't necessarily suggest that you actually use these vocab lists unless you're really ready to pull your hair out. Trying to figure it out in context with Latin only is much more useful. I found that in Part II, though, the contextual clues were much less, the introduction rate of new words very high, and I had no choice but to resort to this list. Fortunately I didn't know about it when I read the first book.

[mfranks]

The construction of this sentance bothers me:

Dominus servos malos baculo verberat; itaque servi mali dominum et baculum eius timent.

My mind translates as follows (after a lot of shuffling):

Master's bad servants are beaten with the staff/club; therefore, the master's bad servants are afraid of him.

Now, not sure whether this is quite correct or not...

Am I correct in my thinking that baculo is ablative therefore I can tanslate as "with" the staff/club?

Why is the conjuction et used in this sentance? The placement of this conjunction throws me for a loop.

If I parse this and treat "itaque servi maili dominum" and "baculum eius timent" separately - the thought falls apart for me... if I conbine them and rearrage the words, I can make the translation fit for me... but I'm not sure this is correct translation.

I feel like I shuffle things around until they fit my english syntax to understand the latin... Is this a bad habit I should nip in the butt?

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Mark

[tZeD]

Mark,

Am I correct in my thinking that baculo is ablative therefore I can tanslate as "with" the staff/club?

Yes. Also, note that "dominus" is nominative and "verberat" is an active verb, so your translation of the first part isn't completely accurate.

Why is the conjuction et used in this sentance? The placement of this conjunction throws me for a loop.

"dominum et baculum eius" together make up the direct object of "timent."

I feel like I shuffle things around until they fit my english syntax to understand the latin... Is this a bad habit I should nip in the butt?

Any suggestions?

I'd say so, and the best thing, I think, is to try to "think in" Latin as you read it. I don't know how Lingua Latina works exactly, but speaking from experience, I'd suggest making sure you know the various inflections pretty well, so you can recognize cases, etc. when you come across them.

Tim

[benissimus]

I feel like I shuffle things around until they fit my english syntax to understand the latin... Is this a bad habit I should nip in the butt?

You do need to shuffle words around to fit English syntax, but you have to do so with reason. For example, if you move a word to the beginning of the English sentence, you may have just changed its role to subject. This is obviously unacceptable if the given word was not nominative in the Latin sentence.

The construction of this sentance bothers me:

Dominus servos malos baculo verberat; itaque servi mali dominum et baculum eius timent.

My mind translates as follows (after a lot of shuffling):

Master's bad servants are beaten with the staff/club; therefore, the master's bad servants are afraid of him.

I am afraid you have read this sentence much too assumptively, without much regard to the case endings - a common mistake for beginners. First, keep these two things in mind:

nominative = subject
accusative = direct object (unless directly preceded by a preposition)

When translating a sentence into English, you generally must put the subject (= nom.) before the verb and the direct object (= acc.) after the verb, if the sentence has a direct object. This will give you the basic skeleton of a sentence, to which other things like adverbs, prepositonal phrases, conjunctions, etc. can be added.

So take your nominative subject, dominus; take your accusative direct object, servos malos; and take your verb verberat. Translate them in the order S (the lord) - V (beats) - DO (the bad servants), then add the other stuff (with a staff).

Now try that with the second clause, the part after the semicolon.

Am I correct in my thinking that baculo is ablative therefore I can tanslate as "with" the staff/club?

This is correct.

Why is the conjuction et used in this sentance? The placement of this conjunction throws me for a loop.

because it is "the lord AND (his) staff"

[Kynetus Valesius]

Dear all,

I can appreciate the difficulties that Mark is having having with the Orberg method. I'll give my expereince with it. I bought both books in the very early summer and worked my way about half way through each. The titles are "Familia Romana" and "Roma Aeterna". I had already had some training, more than some really, so my experience with Familia Romana was probably different than Mark's has been. In other words, for me in was more of a review - especially with the first book. But he is approaching the book, I believe, as a first time learner. That's completely different. I think the Orberg method (an an example of the "direct method") is terrific but I would hesitate recommending it to someone who does not have an actual teacher to clarify difficulties. On the other hand, I wouldn't give up now unless it became absolutely frustrating. In another section of this forum, I mentioned efforts to reform latin instruction. Orberg is one such effort. Correspondence with teachers who use Familia Romana, primarily European. As I recall those teachers try to bring latin into active classroom use. Working without a teacher, I think it would greatly help to try to read everything out loud after you've sure you are understanding what you are reading.

I liked Orberg but didn't finish working through the two books. The reason, I switched to "Latin sans Peine", another "direct method" that comes with tapes to support the readings.

Best of luck and stay with it. The rewards are great.

Kenneth Walsh
Kynetus Valesius

[Señor Boethius]

The CD ROM for Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana has an audio recording for the first 30 chapters. I've been using it and like it quite a bit.

I do think the grammar explanations in Lingua Latina are brief to say the least. They do need to be supplemented with something else, but if you have some knowledge of Latin, I think Lingua Latina is a great way to review and progress in the language.

[Kynetus Valesius]

Salve Domne Boethi

Thanks for the info re the audio on the Familia Romana. I was aware of the existence of this item but took a pass on it, figuring I spend too much time in front of a computer as it is. However, I'm very big on the idea of learning via audio and so IF there a way to exatract the audio portions from the CD for eventual use on a .MP3 player, I would change my mind quickly about this and other computer CD programs with audio content. The problem is I'm an idiot when it comes to these things. Any ideas, Boethius or anyone else?

Salve Benissime: It was you, nisi fallor, who suggested Whittiker's "Words" program to our student. I strongly concur. That program is invaluable for word lookup and parsing. It would seem particularly important in a case like this where there is no general glossary of previously introduced words.

Back to you, Boetius. One of the works that first drew me to these studies was "Consolatio Philosophiae". I take it you are fan?

Now to Mark: Nobis perseverantia difficilia vincenda sunt; we must overcome difficulties by perseverance. I am not suggesting that you are not a hard worker or anything - I'm sure that you are are or you would not be taking latin. My only thought is this: latin can be darn tough and sometimes I myself have wanted to give up. No doubt you have other stuff going on your life - that's good. But whatever you do, I urge you to stay with this project for the long haul - even if sometimes it seems as if we have to learn each rule and word sescenties (six hundred times). Once again, good luck.

[mfranks]

Hi Ken,

I have the audio and find it invaluable for understanding the pronounciation and cadence of the language.

However, I'm very big on the idea of learning via audio and so IF there a way to exatract the audio portions from the CD for eventual use on a .MP3 player, I would change my mind quickly about this and other computer CD programs with audio content.

Actually, I just copied the files from the CD to my computer then transferred them to my memory card and listen to the audio files using my PocketPC Phone... I had to rename the files so they are arranged in the proper order:

cap1.mp3 -> cap01
cap2.mp3 -> cap02
cap3.mp3 -> cap03

Otherwise, the order would be:

cap1.mp3
cap10.mp3
cap11.mp3
cap12.mp3

So you just have to rename the first 9 files and you are good to go.

I purchased all the other companion items as well:

Latin-English Vocab I
Latine Disco (Student Manual)
Exercitia Latina I
Colloquia Personarum
Grammatica Latina

In my opinion, Orberg should have combined all of these into a single book and expanded the Grammatica, providing more explainations and examples.

Cheers,

Mark

[mfranks]

Ken,

Regarding your following comments:

Nobis perseverantia difficilia vincenda sunt; we must overcome difficulties by perseverance. I am not suggesting that you are not a hard worker or anything - I'm sure that you are are or you would not be taking latin. My only thought is this: latin can be darn tough and sometimes I myself have wanted to give up. No doubt you have other stuff going on your life - that's good. But whatever you do, I urge you to stay with this project for the long haul - even if sometimes it seems as if we have to learn each rule and word sescenties (six hundred times). Once again, good luck.

I won't give up... I was only seeking some help from good people like yourself... It's been awesome seeing all these responses and I appreciate all the commentary and advice - it's been taken to heart and some of it applied already!

I like the fact that Latin is tough. Given this fact, makes Latin all the more appealing to me! Someone once said, "It wouldn't be worth doing if it wasn't difficult" or something like that...

When I was a young boy, long ago... I was told many times by many people that I was "dumb" and "stupid"... What I came to realize over time was that I wasn't "dumb", "stupid", or incapable for that matter - it was that I was lazy and gave up too easily. "Why bother? I can't understand this stuff, it's too hard." Once I realized that if I worked hard and sought help when necessary, I would eventially overcome the difficulties. I've been a hard worker (at things I care about) ever since and it has served me well!

Regards,

Mark

[Kynetus Valesius]

Marco Kynetus salutat
Kenneth salutes Mark

Magno gaudio epistiolas quas mihi misisti legi.
I read the letters you sent to me with joy.

Illud de plicas audibiles magno auxilio mihi erit.
That [part] concerning the audible files will be a great help to me.

Immo nunc rem ipse probare volo.
Indeed I want to try it myself now.

Sine ullo dubio bonam viam sequeris.
Without any doubt you are on the right path.

Nam methoda Orbergiano quo uteris optima est.
For the Orberg method you are using is terrific. (method I believe is feminine and in case you haven't gotten that far the verb utor takes an ablative object).

Te magno ingenio studioque iuvenem es, ut puto.
As I see it, you are a youth of great character and energy (zeal).

Perge iter usque ad ad astra.
Continue your journey even unto the stars.

Volenti discipulo omnia possibilia sunt
To a willing student all things are possible.

Attamen, ut vera dicam, bonus homo omnino non sum.
However, to say the truth, I'm not a good person at all.

Una tantum virtus mihi est.
I have only one virtue.

Amore latinitatis vivae ardeo.
I am on fire with love for [of] living latin.

Vale Marce
Good-bye Mark.

[mfranks]

Hi Ken,

I wanted to thank you for the nice reply in both Latin and English!

Te magno ingenio studioque iuvenem es, ut puto.
As I see it, you are a youth of great character and energy (zeal).

Actually, I'm hardly a youth... I'm rather middle-aged (44 in a week)!

Regards,

Mark

[mfranks]

I made it through Capitulum VII with ease. I am trying really hard to think in Latin and not translate as much as possible and it seems to be helping.

However, in Capitulum VIII on Page 54-55, I was reading the following Passage:

"Qui magnum pecuniam habent ornamenta emunt et feminis dant; ceteri rursus abeunt."

Here's my translation of the sentence:

Those who have lots of money buy jewelry and give them to [thier]women; others [those without lots of money], on the contrary, go away."

Here's where I have problems with the use of the word "abeunt"

ab-it "from - go" or "go away"

From Whitaker's Words:

abi.t V 6 1 PRES ACTIVE IND 3 S
abeo, abire, abivi(ii), abitus V INTRANS [XXXAO]
depart, go away; go off, go forth; pass away, die, disappear; be changed;

Perhaps I need to refine the meaning to be "stay away" or "refrain"

If I expand the context further to the paragraph which is "supposed to be a complete thought" I can understand the use of abeunt as "Stay Away" or "Refrain from stopping".

Here's the entire Paragraph:

Multae feminae quae in hac via ambulant ante tabernam Albini consistunt, nam feminae ornamentis delectantur. Eae quae magnam pecuniam habent multa aornamenta emunt. Quae nullam aut parvam pecuniam habent ornamenta aspiciunt tantum, non emunt. Etiam viri multi ad hanc tabernam adeunt. Qui magnum pecuniam habent ornamenta emunt et feminis dant; ceteri rursus abeunt.

Here's my translation of the entire paragraph:

Many women, who walk on the street stop in front of Albini's [jewelry] store, for jewelry please women. Those [women] who have lots of money buy lots of jewelry. Those who don't [have money] or little money stop and look [quite a bit] at the jewelry, [but] don't buy. Also, lots of men, buy [jewelry] at this jewelry store. Those that have lots of money buy jewelry and give them to women; others, on the contrary stay away [or refrain altogether].

Any comments?

Thanks,

Mark

[edonnelly]

Any comments?

I think you have the right thoughts there. The only suggestions that I would make, and these may just be style, but also may help clarify some of the sense:

feminae ornamentis delectantur - women take delight in jewels (are delighted by jewels) ["jewelry" is fine, too.]

Quae nullam aut parvam pecuniam habent - who have no or little money

ornamenta aspiciunt tantum - only look at the jewelry

Also, I like the "go away" better than "stay away" translation for abeunt. We already have many men coming (adeunt). Of these, some are buying, others are going away. [It's a nice pairing of adeunt and abeunt.] In any case, you understood the meaning.

[Bardo de Saldo]

"At first, I thought the word was a pronoun [...]" ~mfranks

As a rule of thumb, the verb always goes at the end of the sentence, so whatever Iulius was doing, that was it.

Also, if you don't find a word in the dictionary, it's probably a verb form. You won't find goes in your English dictionary, for example, only go.

[mfranks]

I'm back with another couple of questions after taking a little hiatus from Lingua Latina. I haven't stopped my study of Latin - au contraire. I decided to supplement Lingua Latina with The Cambridge Latin Course. I cruised through Unit 1 and I got through half of Unit 2 before picking up at Capitulum Vndecimum again. I actually re-read all the chapters in sequence in two sittings in a day with little struggle until now.

Capitulum Sextum Decimum - Tempestas

Italia inter duo maria interest, quorum alternum, quod supra Italiam situm est, 'mare Superum' sive 'Hadriaticum' appellatur, alterum, infra Italiam situm, 'mare Inferum' sive 'Tuscum'.

The very first paragraph of the chapter is vexing! Why is 'inter' and 'interest' used in the first clause of the sentence? Both words mean "between".

As I am writing this, I might be solving my own conundrum - perhaps I should translate into the following:

Italy is sandwiched between two seas... But it still bugs me... How else should I look at the verb "interest"? inter-esse - to be between? I would love to know how others "think" about these things...

Another problem I'm having with Latin is with the passive voice.

When a Latin sentance is contructed using the preposition ab/a I have no problem with the passive such as in the following sentence:

Saccus portantur a servo.

The Sack is being carried by the servant.

This is straight forward and simple enough. But in a sentance constucted in the following way without ab/a (by) I don't translate it as passive in my mind:

Tum naves et nautae in mare merguntur.

Then the boat and the sailors plunged into the sea.

How is this passive?

Isn't the following equivalent?

Tum naves et nautae in mare mergent.

I've noticed in a lot of the Neo Latin books of Children's Classics such as Ferdinandus Taurus or Virent Ova! Viret Perna!! for example, they use alot of the passive forms of the verbs without ab/a.

So when ever ab/a is missing, I just translate the verb in my mind as if it was active. Is this wrong?

Maybe I need an English Lesson on Passive and Active Voice. I must admit English grammer was never a strong suit of mine. But Latin is certainly helping me to understand my own [native] language much better. I've been studying Latin since last May and every single day I am awed by how much of my native tongue was derived from Latin - it's awesome!

Thanks for any insights.

Cheers,

Mark

[Lucus Eques]

SaluÄ“, MÄ￾rce! Welcome back.

I'm back with another couple of questions after taking a little hiatus from Lingua Latina. I haven't stopped my study of Latin - au contraire. I decided to supplement Lingua Latina with The Cambridge Latin Course. I cruised through Unit 1 and I got through half of Unit 2 before picking up at Capitulum Vndecimum again. I actually re-read all the chapters in sequence in two sittings in a day with little struggle until now.

Capitulum Sextum Decimum - Tempestas

Italia inter duo maria interest, quorum alternum, quod supra Italiam situm est, 'mare Superum' sive 'Hadriaticum' appellatur, alterum, infra Italiam situm, 'mare Inferum' sive 'Tuscum'.

The very first paragraph of the chapter is vexing! Why is 'inter' and 'interest' used in the first clause of the sentence? Both words mean "between".

Do you remember earlier how you would see repetitions of a nature like, "IÅ«lius ad aedificium aduenit" ? They're a reinforcement. Or even better, "MultÄ« nummÄ« in saccÅ￾ Ä«nsunt."

As I am writing this, I might be solving my own conundrum - perhaps I should translate into the following:

Italy is sandwiched between two seas... But it still bugs me... How else should I look at the verb "interest"? inter-esse - to be between? I would love to know how others "think" about these things...

It's as simple as it seems: "Italy is between two seas." A more direct but less correct translation could be, "Italy between two seas is between." Just reinforcement, to get you used to the idea of one word (plus reinforcement) where two words are necessary in English (or German, or others).

Another problem I'm having with Latin is with the passive voice.

When a Latin sentance is contructed using the preposition ab/a I have no problem with the passive such as in the following sentence:

Saccus portantur a servo.

This should be "portÄ￾tur," singular. "The sack is carried by the slave." For "portantur," it would have to be two or or sacks: "SaccÄ« portantur Ä￾ seruÅ￾."

The Sack is being carried by the servant.

This is straight forward and simple enough. But in a sentance constucted in the following way without ab/a (by) I don't translate it as passive in my mind:

Tum naves et nautae in mare merguntur.

Then the boat and the sailors plunged into the sea.

Ah, I understand your confusion. English prefers the active voice — or more accurately, the English verb "plunge" has a transitive and intransitive sense. The intransitive sense "I plunge (myself) into the water" requires the passive voice in Latin. If it were, "Tum nÄ￾uÄ“s et nautae in mare mergunt," it would mean that both the ships and the sailors were litterally, physically dipping something or someone into the water, and not themselves. You can imagine a situation thus: "MÄ￾rcus QuÄ«ntÄ« caput in aquam mergit." The li'l bastid.[/quote]

I've noticed in a lot of the Neo Latin books of Children's Classics such as Ferdinandus Taurus or Virent Ova! Viret Perna!! for example, they use alot of the passive forms of the verbs without ab/a.

Yay for Ferdinandus Taurus! I was just showing that to some friends today; what a coincidence.

So when ever ab/a is missing, I just translate the verb in my mind as if it was active. Is this wrong?

Considering the flexible nature of English grammar, no. But now you have a better recognition of transitive and intransitive verbs in English.

Maybe I need an English Lesson on Passive and Active Voice. I must admit English grammer was never a strong suit of mine. But Latin is certainly helping me to understand my own [native] language much better. I've been studying Latin since last May and every single day I am awed by how much of my native tongue was derived from Latin - it's awesome!

Yes, isn't that neat! I think everyone should learn Latin. TÄ“ congrÄ￾tulor!

Thanks for any insights.

Cheers,

Mark

Valē, amīce!

[spiphany]

Why is 'inter' and 'interest' used in the first clause of the sentence? Both words mean "between".

It's very common in Latin to use both a compound verb and a preposition (particularly the same preposition already in the compound) where in English we would expect either a compound verb or a verb followed by a preposition, but not both. Part of this is because English likes to form complex verbs by adding a preposition after the basic verb, instead of using a prefix the way Latin does, so that prepositional phrases and verbs mush together.

Thinking of analogous forms, you would have in Latin "expellere virum ex urbe" -- "to expel the man from the city", or "to drive (out) the man out of the city". Even though the verb is compounded, you still have to use a preposition before "city" because it isn't the object of the verb. You could say "pellere virum ex urbe", I suppose, but Latin likes the extra emphasis. It seems unnatural in English, but if you see enough of it in Latin, I think you'll find that the redundancy starts to seem elegant.

Tum naves et nautae in mare merguntur.
Then the boat and the sailors plunged into the sea.
How is this passive?
Isn't the following equivalent?
Tum naves et nautae in mare mergent.

I think this is a case where the English verb (to plunge, immerse) can be used a bit differently than the Latin. I suspect the Latin verb is transitive -- you have to use it with a direct object. So to be active you would expect: naves nautas in mare mergent (the ships plunged the sailors into the sea). In your sentence, the sailors aren't causing the plunging, some unknown force or agent is. So they are "being plunged", passive.

I've noticed in a lot of the Neo Latin books of Children's Classics such as Ferdinandus Taurus or Virent Ova! Viret Perna!! for example, they use alot of the passive forms of the verbs without ab/a.

Not having examples, I don't know exactly what you're seeing, but there are several points worth mentioning:

1) Be careful not to confuse the ablative of agent (which is a person and requires a/ab) with the ablative of instrument or means (which is a thing by which something is brought about and does not use a preposition)
To use the previous example:

Naves et nautae a Iove [by Jupiter] in mare merguntur (abl. of agent)
Naves et nautae undiis [by means of waves] in mare merguntur (abl of means)

2) Passive periphrastics use a different construction (dative of a person) instead of the ablative of agent.
3) There are certain verbs which are deponent -- they have passive forms but active meanings.

[Brian]

Savete iterum

A couple of words in bold are giving me trouble.

Lines 10-11 page 163 of Familia Romana

Sed cur sanguis de naso fluit Marco? Sanguis ei de naso fluit , quod Marcus a Sexto pulsatus est.

Is Marco dative or ablative? I want to say "of Marcus" but would not that call for the genitive? Eiis the dative but why? I don't like moving on until I've got it.

Brian

[mfranks]

Salve Lucus et Spiphany - thank you for your comments they really help!

For Spiphany, I have a few lines from the Children's Classics in the Neolatin:

First from Ferdinandus Taurus

Mater Ferdinandi, quae erat vacca, interdum angebatur, verita ne solitarius sine amicis esset.

From Tres Mures Caeci

Statim Uxur cultrum acutissimum coruscans videtur!

From Virent Ova! Viret Perna!!

Dapsne mea respuetur,
Si sub tecto suggeretur?

and lastly from Arbor Alma

Defessus arboris in umbra meridiabatur.

Again, thank you for all of your assistance in helping me to progress in my Latin studies amid its many obsticles! You are all wonderful for taking the time to help me - it is greatly appreciated!

Warmest Regards,

Mark

[spiphany]

mrfranks, I think I see what you were getting at now. I thought you meant the sentences had some kind of noun functioning as an agent but not expressed with the usual construction.

Passive constructions don't have to have an agent stated explicitly. Often, in fact, if you do have to mention an agent specifically, the sentence should be rewritten in the active, as it makes for stronger writing.
For example, something like "Liber a me legebatur" ("the book was read by me") is much more direct if you put it as "Librum legebam" ("I read the book")
But you can also say simply "Liber legebatur" if you wish to emphasize the act of being read rather than the person who did it, or if the agent is undefined. "Liber clarus saepe legebatur" ("the famous book was often read" - i.e., at many times by different people. The "who" isn't important here, in fact, the point is that it isn't someone specific.)

That may have been more of a grammatical explanation than you were looking for, but I hope it's helpful.

[spiphany]

Savete iterum

A couple of words in bold are giving me trouble.

Lines 10-11 page 163 of Familia Romana

Sed cur sanguis de naso fluit Marco? Sanguis ei de naso fluit , quod Marcus a Sexto pulsatus est.

Is Marco dative or ablative? I want to say "of Marcus" but would not that call for the genitive? Eiis the dative but why? I don't like moving on until I've got it.

Brian

Your instinct is correct. Dative is sometimes used for possession instead of the genitive, particularly when the object is being emphasized rather than the owner.

[mfranks]

Spiphany wrote:

That may have been more of a grammatical explanation than you were looking for, but I hope it's helpful.

Actually, truth be told, I need all the grammatical explaination I can get! I'm rather grammatically challenged - hence my need for so much explaination... Latin is teaching me more about grammer than any English teacher over the years could ever dream possible.

Cheers,

Mark

[Interaxus]

Hi mfranks,

Spiphany has said it all. I just want to expand a wee bit for what it’s worth using some illustrative examples I found in Lingua Latina when I opened my copy purely by chance at page 154 (chapter entitled PARENTES, where the grammatical theme is really Future Tense).

1. As the Spiff points out, the passive is particularly suitable for sentences where the subject is not an issue. As in:

Mulier quae alienum infantem alit nutrix vocatur. (A woman who (breast-)feeds a baby belonging-to-another IS CALLED a (wet-)nurse)
Pueri parvuli qui nondum fari possunt infantes dicuntur. (Little boys who cannot yet speak ARE CALLED infants).

In these cases, we don’t care WHO calls the woman ‘nutrix’ or WHO calls the baby boys infants. People in general do so. So, no a/ab. Just as ‘geniuses are born, not bred’ – by whom is not the issue.

However, when the doer of the action IS of interest and is therefore included in the passive sentence, it becomes the ‘agent’ (BY WHOM something is/was/etc done), as opposed to the ‘subject’ (WHO does/did/etc something) in active sentences).

Neither ‘a’ nor ‘ab’ is in itself ‘passive’. They are not part of the (passive) verb at all but just happen to be used in some types of passive 'constructions' (verb + prep + agent). They introduce the agent when necessary. As per the following general rule:

a. When the agent is a person, use a/ab. As in:

Si mater infantem suum ipsa alere non potest sive non vult, infans ab alia muliere alitur. (If the mother herself cannot feed her baby or doesn’t want to, the infant is (breast-)fed by another woman).
Multi infantes Romani non a matribus suis, sed a nutricibus aluntur. (Many Roman babies are fed not BY THEIR MOTHERS but BY NURSES).
Anno post pater et mater ab infante suo appellabuntur. (Next year, they will be called ‘mater’ and ‘pater’ by their child). [See context]

b. When the agent is a thing (instrument), don’t use a/ab.

Initio pater eum sustinebit ac manu ducet, mox vero infans solus ambulare incipiet neque a parentibus sustinebitur neque manu ducetur. (In the beginning, the father will support him or lead him by the hand, soon however the child will start to walk on his own and will neither be supported by his parents nor be led by hand).

You might compare this case of ‘the missing preposition’ with other ablative expressions, eg nocte (by night), die (by day), magna voce (with a loud voice) as in:
Infans multas horas dormit non solum nocte, sed etiam die. (Baby sleeps many hours not only at night, but in the day-time too).
Infans qui cibo caret magna voce vagit. (The infant who lacks food bawls with a loud voice).

Verily, for a brain brought up on a plethora of prepositions, learning to live by endings alone is one of the harder tasks of the Latin vocation.

2. Some verbs in Latin have a passive form but an active meaning. Grammar reserves the dreaded name ‘Deponents’ for these. Loquor, loqui, locutus sum (=say, talk, tell) is a classic example.

Pueri parvuli qui nondum fari [for, fari, fatus sum] possunt infantes dicuntur. (Tiny tots who can’t SPEAK yet are called infants).
Simul infans plura verba discet et mox recte loqui sciet. (At the same time the child will learn many words and soon will know [how] to speak correctly).
Iulius adhuc in peristylo cum uxore colloquitur. (Julius IS still CHATTING with his wife in the colonnaded courtyard).
Maritus et uxor iam non de tempore praeterito colloquuntur, sed de tempore futuro. (Husband and wife ARE no longer CHATTING about past time, but about future time).

As a matter of interest, your example from Ferdinandus Taurus also seems to be a deponent verb:

In the Index Verborum at the back of the book ‘angor, angi’ (=feel distress, worry) is given in the passive form (i.e. just like a deponent). I find only the active form of the verb, ango, angere = choke, strangle, distress, tease, trouble, in my dictionary. So Ferdinand’s mum felt distress, worried (or was distressed, worried, etc).

Vale,
Int

[Lucus Eques]

OptimÄ“ locÅ«tus, cÄ￾re InterÄ￾xe!

Savete iterum

Saluē!

A couple of words in bold are giving me trouble.

Lines 10-11 page 163 of Familia Romana

Sed cur sanguis de naso fluit Marco? Sanguis ei de naso fluit , quod Marcus a Sexto pulsatus est.

Is Marco dative or ablative? I want to say "of Marcus" but would not that call for the genitive? Eiis the dative but why? I don't like moving on until I've got it.

Brian

It is dative. For parts of the body, including blood, the dative of possession is prefered. Translating it as "Marcus' nose" would be just fine. You can see how the dative of possession liberates the word order, making the concept "blood flows from the nose" a singular notion, any or all of which might be attributed to Marcus. It's not just his blood or his nose, it's all his! Though the general rule is to translate the possessive adjective with relation to the thing it's closest to.

[bellum paxque]

Regarding the "reinforcement" of compound verbs with prepositions:

...atque ibi in proximis villis ita bipartito fuerunt, ut Tiberis inter eos et pons interesset (In Catilinam Oratio III.5).

(...And there, among the nearest houses, they were separated in such a way that the Tiber and the bridge were between them.)

This is an example of this syntactic feature at work in classical Latin. Interesset is singular, by the way, because it's agreeing with the nearest of the two subjects--pons, though Tiberis is also between them.

-David

[mfranks]

Salve Amici!

I've been reading all the posts in this Forum on the topic of Classical or Medieval? A topic which has been quite amusing. I won't weigh in here since my question is around why is it that (in my view) there are inconsistencies in pronunciation of vowels in the "Classical" pronunciation of Latin words?

I happen to have purchased the Audio CD from Focus Publishing for Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana which includes every single chapter of the book - it's absolutely wonderful! As I mentioned earlier in this Topic, I have also supplemented my Lingua Latina study with the Cambridge Latin Course. And likewise, I have purchased the audio for all four volumes of that series.

Listening to someone read (LL) or act out (CLC) in the Latin lanuage really helps me with the auditory aspects of learning Latin. And it's really cool to start to understand conversations. However, for me, much more difficult! I have to listen over and over again as my mind slowly is able to distingish words when spoken at "natural" or "colloquial" speed. It's quite encouraging to see progress for a "middle-aged" dog like me...

Finally, back to my main reason for posting... I have noticed inconsistencies or what at least appear to be inconsistencies in pronunciation of the letter "u" or "V" capitalized.

Quick side-note #1: Why is the letter "u" changed to a "V" when capitalized?

Why is it that sometimes an un-marked (no macron) "u" is pronounced like "ooze" or "Zeus" and other times pronounced like "oh" or "most"?

There seems to be 3 distinct sounds that the letter "u" can have:

(1) uh like "duh" or "gutter"
(2) oh like "most" or "toast"
(3) ew like "dew" or "zoo"

The last one can be further divided by adding the french "u" which I can hear and say because of some french I took in high school and college. But for a native english speaker like myself, the French "u" seems to be a more "impassioned", and of "shorter" duration, than the english form.

Anyway, I digress a bit - forgive me.

If the correct pronounciation of "Quintus" is Quin-tews why isn't there a macron over the "u" - isn't this a long "u"??? Also, why is the word "numerus" pronounced num-er-ohs instead of num-er-ews?

Another example is "reprehendimur". I would exspect to pronounce this as re-pre-hen-di-mewr instead of re-pre-hen-di-more. Also, "tuus" correctly pronounced two-ohs, according to the LL audio.

My last example is less specific in terms of specific words... But I have noticed that many words which have the 1st person plural ending: -imus or -amus are pronounced ee-mohs or ah-mohs, respectively, while others are pronounced as I would expect: ee-mews or ah-mews. [I added this last paragraph after being reminded while listening to one of my Cambridge audio CDs during my evening commute home from work this evening.]

Quick side-note #2: Does anyone known whether Hans H. Orberg, himself is the person reading on the audio?

I triple-checked these on the audio files to make sure I was correctly reprepresenting these pronunciations on the LL Audio. I noticed similar pronunciations on the Cambridge Audio as well - although, I noticed some other inconsisencies between the LL and CLC audio on some words shared in common.

There are other examples as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Let me end here by saying that I understand there are inconsistencies in pronunciation in all languages. It just seems to me that if macrons are used to mark long vowels so that "we" can properly pronounce classical Latin then why aren't they used consistently. Also, are there other general rules of pronunciation that are not in the text books... that might apply in the cases above or others to provide a bit more predicability? I'm chuckling to myself here, as I know I asking some loaded questions.

Thank you all in advance as I always get great advice and explainations here from all you fine Latinists!

Warmest Regards,

Mark

PS: Is there a nice Latin version of "Warm Regards" that's not just a litteral translation - something a Roman would have had actually said at the end of a letter to convey a "heart-felt" regard or respect for the person or people he was addressing?

[FiliusLunae]

Salve Amici!

Salve, Amice (adressing one person)... but the verb form requires the plural here, wouldn't you agree?

I've been reading all the posts in this Forum on the topic of Classical or Medieval? A topic which has been quite amusing. I won't weigh in here since my question is around why is it that (in my view) there are inconsistencies in pronunciation of vowels in the "Classical" pronunciation of Latin words?

Mainly: the native languages of those speakers. So someone from England who won't (or can't) adhere to a Classical pronunciation in an accurate manner will sound different than someone from Germany in the same situation, simply because each will use the sounds from his own native language.
English speakers are notorious for doing one of the things you describe below: reduction/neutralization of unstressed vowels.

I happen to have purchased the Audio CD from Focus Publishing for Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana which includes every single chapter of the book - it's absolutely wonderful! As I mentioned earlier in this Topic, I have also supplemented my Lingua Latina study with the Cambridge Latin Course. And likewise, I have purchased the audio for all four volumes of that series.

Listening to someone read (LL) or act out (CLC) in the Latin lanuage really helps me with the auditory aspects of learning Latin. And it's really cool to start to understand conversations. However, for me, much more difficult! I have to listen over and over again as my mind slowly is able to distingish words when spoken at "natural" or "colloquial" speed. It's quite encouraging to see progress for a "middle-aged" dog like me...

Finally, back to my main reason for posting... I have noticed inconsistencies or what at least appear to be inconsistencies in pronunciation of the letter "u" or "V" capitalized.

Quick side-note #1: Why is the letter "u" changed to a "V" when capitalized?

I'll leave that for Lucus to answer, but it has to do with the way the letters "u/v" looked like in ancient times.

Why is it that sometimes an un-marked (no macron) "u" is pronounced like "ooze" or "Zeus" and other times pronounced like "oh" or "most"?

Mmhh.. it should sound like /u/ in Spanish or Italian; that is, somewhat like "oo" in English "ooze". A macron tells you that that vowel is long, and so is pronounced like its short counterpart, but held about twice as long. But the quality of it should be the same.
And "oh" as in "most? Goodness.. what are you listening to again?

There seems to be 3 distinct sounds that the letter "u" can have:

(1) uh like "duh" or "gutter"
(2) oh like "most" or "toast"
(3) ew like "dew" or "zoo"

Excuse me? Like I said, think of it this way: long Latin "u" (marked with macron in your text) is pronounced somewhat like "oo" in English "boo"; short Latin "u" (no macron) is pronounced the same way, but held about half as much as the long one.
This concept applies to the other vowels as well.

The last one can be further divided by adding the french "u" which I can hear and say because of some french I took in high school and college. But for a native english speaker like myself, the French "u" seems to be a more "impassioned", and of "shorter" duration, than the english form.

The sound of French "u" is that used for "y" in Latin.

Anyway, I digress a bit - forgive me.

If the correct pronounciation of "Quintus" is Quin-tews why isn't there a macron over the "u" - isn't this a long "u"???

Don't confuse quality, with quantity. Quantity here refers to the length of vowel: whether it is short or long. Quality refers to how it's pronounced.
"Quintus" is pronounced something like /kwintoos/.

Also, why is the word "numerus" pronounced num-er-ohs instead of num-er-ews?

It's pronounced roughly /noo-meh-roos/.

Another example is "reprehendimur". I would exspect to pronounce this as re-pre-hen-di-mewr instead of re-pre-hen-di-more. Also, "tuus" correctly pronounced two-ohs, according to the LL audio.

Roughly /reh-preh-hen-dee-moor/.

Again, don't reduce unstressed vowels to a schwa, pronounce them as full vowels.

My last example is less specific in terms of specific words... But I have noticed that many words which have the 1st person plural ending: -imus or -amus are pronounced ee-mohs or ah-mohs, respectively, while others are pronounced as I would expect: ee-mews or ah-mews.

They're pronounced (again, roughly): /ee-moos/, /ah-moos/, never /ee-mus/ or /ee-mos/ or /ee-mohs/.

[I added this last paragraph after being reminded while listening to one of my Cambridge audio CDs during my evening commute home from work this evening.]

Quick side-note #2: Does anyone known whether Hans H. Orberg, himself is the person reading on the audio?

Luce, ubi es?

I triple-checked these on the audio files to make sure I was correctly reprepresenting these pronunciations on the LL Audio. I noticed similar pronunciations on the Cambridge Audio as well - although, I noticed some other inconsisencies between the LL and CLC audio on some words shared in common.

There are other examples as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Let me end here by saying that I understand there are inconsistencies in pronunciation in all languages. It just seems to me that if macrons are used to mark long vowels so that "we" can properly pronounce classical Latin then why aren't they used consistently. Also, are there other general rules of pronunciation that are not in the text books... that might apply in the cases above or others to provide a bit more predicability? I'm chuckling to myself here, as I know I asking some loaded questions.

Thank you all in advance as I always get great advice and explainations here from all you fine Latinists!

Warmest Regards,

Mark

And what you describe here regarding pronunciation is something English generally go through. Some don't care and just keep pronouncing it like that, with scwhas, aspirated consonants and retroflex R's (there are plenty of examples online).
If you've ever studied Spanish or Italian, keep those languages in mind.
And if you're still having trouble, I'm sure I or other people on the boards can make a few recordings of the examples for you.

~FILIUS

[Lucus Eques]

The V/u convention is merely aesthetic rather than historical. Essentially, there exsisted no letter 'v' (as in "very") in Latin, but only letter 'u'. Therefore eliminating even its suggestion is highly recommendable. Moreover, Roman "cursive" handwriting (which is often paired with our lowercase letters) would have this letter not simply in the form of a "V" but more frequently as "U" or "u," with a little tail like ours, since it was easier to flow that way into the next letter.

However, we see in majuscule a universal use of "V" even into mediæval times, such as in monumental inscriptions. This is a strong, beautiful form. And I for one think it is worth præserving. Therefore, I write "Vbi" when it begins a sentence, as well as "Vranus," but "uero" when it's lowercase, et cetera.

Mark, I'm very confused by your problems with pronunciation. I'll be happy to help, by means of Skype; feel free to email me or PM me and we can set a time to talk.

[mfranks]

mfranks wrote:

Salve Amici!

FiliusLunae wrote:

Salve, Amice (adressing one person)... but the verb form requires the plural here, wouldn't you agree?

I "meant" to say "Hello Friends" in Latin, not "Hello Friend". I thought that the imperative "Salve" was spelled the same in both the singular and the plural.

mfranks wrote:

Why is it that sometimes an un-marked (no macron) "u" is pronounced like "ooze" or "Zeus" and other times pronounced like "oh" or "most"?

FiliusLunae wrote:

Mmhh.. it should sound like /u/ in Spanish or Italian; that is, somewhat like "oo" in English "ooze". A macron tells you that that vowel is long, and so is pronounced like its short counterpart, but held about twice as long. But the quality of it should be the same.
And "oh" as in "most? Goodness.. what are you listening to again?

I'm listening to "so-called professionals" who are supposed to have the "correct" pronunciations of the readings... Here a the link to a sample file from Cambrige Classics:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/education/latin/audio.asp

Orberg use to have samle files on his website but it looks like he removed them, unfortunately.

mfranks wrote:

There seems to be 3 distinct sounds that the letter "u" can have:

(1) uh like "duh" or "gutter"
(2) oh like "most" or "toast"
(3) ew like "dew" or "zoo"

FiliusLunae wrote:

Excuse me? Like I said, think of it this way: long Latin "u" (marked with macron in your text) is pronounced somewhat like "oo" in English "boo"; short Latin "u" (no macron) is pronounced the same way, but held about half as much as the long one.
This concept applies to the other vowels as well.

For me and most "American-English Speakers" "oo" is the same as "ew". There's no distinction between "Zoo", "Boo", "Dew", 'Sue", "Clue", "Flew", etc. I'm from the western United States and my pronunciation of "English" words is the same as a typical "CNN" news anchor from the US.

mfranks wrote:

Anyway, I digress a bit - forgive me.

If the correct pronounciation of "Quintus" is Quin-tews why isn't there a macron over the "u" - isn't this a long "u"???

FiliusLunae wrote:

Don't confuse quality, with quantity. Quantity here refers to the length of vowel: whether it is short or long. Quality refers to how it's pronounced.
"Quintus" is pronounced something like /kwintoos/.

Perhaps I am confusing the two... However, why is it that pronunciation guides which distinguish "long" and "short" seem to be qualitative in nature at least in my interpretation. Here's why I think this:

For the letter "a", many of the dictionaries I have ever referenced, whether English or Latin dictionaries explain long and short like this for the letter "a":

Long: "a" as in "mate" (american dictionary symbol: Ä￾)
Short: "a" as in "cat" (american dictionary symbol: ă)

I don't see these two word's vowels held longer than the other (their duration). They are simply different sounds. That's why I've always thought this way - hence my confusion. Is this what you mean by quality?

mfranks wrote:

Also, why is the word "numerus" pronounced num-er-ohs instead of num-er-ews?

FiliusLunae wrote:

It's pronounced roughly /noo-meh-roos/.

Sorry, I was being lazy in my writing here... I just was focusing on the ending. Again "oos" is equal to "ews" to me.

mfranks wrote:

I triple-checked these on the audio files to make sure I was correctly reprepresenting these pronunciations on the LL Audio. I noticed similar pronunciations on the Cambridge Audio as well - although, I noticed some other inconsisencies between the LL and CLC audio on some words shared in common.

There are other examples as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Let me end here by saying that I understand there are inconsistencies in pronunciation in all languages. It just seems to me that if macrons are used to mark long vowels so that "we" can properly pronounce classical Latin then why aren't they used consistently. Also, are there other general rules of pronunciation that are not in the text books... that might apply in the cases above or others to provide a bit more predicability? I'm chuckling to myself here, as I know I asking some loaded questions.

Thank you all in advance as I always get great advice and explainations here from all you fine Latinists!

Warmest Regards,

Mark

FiliusLunae wrote:

And what you describe here regarding pronunciation is something English generally go through. Some don't care and just keep pronouncing it like that, with scwhas, aspirated consonants and retroflex R's (there are plenty of examples online).
If you've ever studied Spanish or Italian, keep those languages in mind.
And if you're still having trouble, I'm sure I or other people on the boards can make a few recordings of the examples for you.

~FILIUS[url][/url]

I care deeply about pronounciation! Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered with my post.

I make it a point when dealing with my many international co-workers that I pronounce their names correctly. Many of my other American co-workers don't go to the length I do to get their names right. Often times they just give up and adopt an "anglicized" form of their name.

I took a year of Italian after being lambasted by a French colleague for "trashing" his language. I was so taken aback by his abuse that I decided that I would study another language. Italian pronunciation came much easier to me (or the Italians were just nicer... I'm not sure... ) but I had trouble with the grammar as well as the fact that I have trouble with my recall memory and therefore, I stammer trying to find the words to express myself in a foreign language. So to put it in simple and somewhat vulgar terms: I suck at speaking a foreign languages, colloquially... I can read fine because my recognition memory and decoding skills are excellent!

One of the reasons I'm studying Latin is because there is no pressure to have conversations in Latin since there are very few who speak the language. I have found that having a reader such as Lingua Latina and The Cambridge Latin Course "perfect" for my learning style and goals for the use of the Latin language.

I plan to study Latin in this mode for 2-3 years. After this time, I want to start writing in the language for another 2 years or so where I plan to continue my reading program and then when I'm comfortable try to find people who can converse in Latin and venture out more fully.

Oh, also, I plan to pick up Italian again starting in about a year. I would like to study with my wife who's father's family is from Sicily. Latin has given me the confidence that I can actually learn a language other than my native tongue. I would love to find a similar approach that Lingua Latina has in Italian - If there is such a program...

Thank you for your response FiliusLunae!

Regards,

Mark

[Lucus Eques]

I "meant" to say "Hello Friends" in Latin, not "Hello Friend". I thought that the imperative "Salve" was spelled the same in both the singular and the plural.

"Saluēte, Amīcī" then is what you were looking for. The imperative changes in the plural.


Those are interesting recordings. There are lots and lots of mistakes. They could really profit from some Italian, but generally I like the attitude and pronunciation. The English accent is painfully strong, as always, but still better than nothing.

Perhaps I am confusing the two... However, why is it that pronunciation guides which distinguish "long" and "short" seem to be qualitative in nature at least in my interpretation. Here's why I think this:

For the letter "a", many of the dictionaries I have ever referenced, whether English or Latin dictionaries explain long and short like this for the letter "a":

Long: "a" as in "mate" (american dictionary symbol: Ä￾)
Short: "a" as in "cat" (american dictionary symbol: ă)

Unfortunately these are mistakes that you are interpreting from the confusing nature of the voice recordings. I would be happy to show you what I mean with Skype at your earliest convenience; it's just too hard to describe through the written word.


I commend you for your pursuit of Italian! I am indeed writing such a book for Italian based on Lingua Latina; we'll see if it turns out well. Be wary of your Sicilian assistents; Sicilian is a completely different language than Italian, and the Sicilian accent is regarded as extremely low-class, unfortunately. Most modern Sicilians speak perfect standard Italian like everyone else, however, with a minimum of accent, but there is definitely a potential danger.

[Misopogon]

I commend you for your pursuit of Italian! I am indeed writing such a book for Italian based on Lingua Latina; we'll see if it turns out well. Be wary of your Sicilian assistents; Sicilian is a completely different language than Italian, and the Sicilian accent is regarded as extremely low-class, unfortunately. Most modern Sicilians speak perfect standard Italian like everyone else, however, with a minimum of accent, but there is definitely a potential danger.

Salve Luce amice mi,
You have spent too much time with the "toscanacci", I am sure you drink HoHa Hola instead of Coca Cola
I woulnd't say that Sicilian accent is regarded extremely low-class, it could be also funny or aristocratic, it depends. Personally I like it, probably thanks to Camilleri's Inspector Montalbano (did you try to read it?). I am also curious to know which Italian regional accents you prefer.
Anyway, it is true that most expats and not only from Sicily, especially those that left in the 50'60' weren't much educated and they could speak only in dialect (I should say: regional language"), so they might not be the best teachers you can find, but I don't think it's the case and you, mfranks, will be exposed to a native speaker, that is a big advantage.in learning any language.
Regards
Misopogon

[Lucus Eques]

I commend you for your pursuit of Italian! I am indeed writing such a book for Italian based on Lingua Latina; we'll see if it turns out well. Be wary of your Sicilian assistents; Sicilian is a completely different language than Italian, and the Sicilian accent is regarded as extremely low-class, unfortunately. Most modern Sicilians speak perfect standard Italian like everyone else, however, with a minimum of accent, but there is definitely a potential danger.

Salve Luce amice mi,
You have spent too much time with the "toscanacci", I am sure you drink HoHa Hola instead of Coca Cola

Che buggiardo! non bevo mai la Coca Cola! solo vino è acqua minerale per me.

Infatti quella è la verità. Sono molto élite loro, purtroppo, e almeno un po' di quelle abitudini snobby m'hann pigliato un po', certo. Cambio la mia 'c' solo per i Toscani. Altrimenti adopro un accento più "normale," diciamo.

I woulnd't say that Sicilian accent is regarded extremely low-class, it could be also funny or aristocratic, it depends.

Assolutamente giusto; questo era il caveat, di non seguire strettamente né l'accento né la lingua sicula nell'imperare d'italiano. Secondo me, però, è il modo più facile salire dal toscano, ossia il fiorentino, agli altri accenti. Infatti, l'accento meridionale americano è ugualmente e buffo e aristocratico. Interessanti queste cose in comune.

Personally I like it, probably thanks to Camilleri's Inspector Montalbano (did you try to read it?). I am also curious to know which Italian regional accents you prefer.

Putroppo non ho letto, no. Mi piacciono in genere tutti gli accenti, sia in inglese sia in italiano. A causa della mia origine abruzzese (infatti, guardiese), ho preso una carissima affinità per l'accento e il dialetto intorno alla Majella. Altrimenti, mi piace il romano, il veneto (il tuo, m'aspetterei), il fiorentino, il napolitano, e, senz'altro, il toscanaccio.

Anyway, it is true that most expats and not only from Sicily, especially those that left in the 50'60' weren't much educated and they could speak only in dialect (I should say: regional language"), so they might not be the best teachers you can find, but I don't think it's the case and you, mfranks, will be exposed to a native speaker, that is a big advantage.in learning any language.

Sono assolutamente d'accordo.