Lingua Latina - Pars II - Roma Aeterna

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:55 am

yes, and moved of couse before the conjunction, which is titus-livius-like

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:05 am

Hmmmm... I'm gonna analyze this one more. Damn you, Livy!!!

Alatius · Post by **Alatius** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:12 am

Okay, let me make one more try without making a fool of myself.

I made a search through the editions of Livy at Google Books, and found one edition which refered to the following grammar in regards to the tempus: Madvig, A Latin Grammar, Â§ 337, Obs 1:

An action that was on the point of happening at a certain time (futurum in praeterito) is sometimes represented in Latin by the imperfect as already begun and proceeding: Hujus deditionis ipse, qui dedebatur, suasor et auctor fuit (Cic. Off. III. 30), who was thereby delivered up, i. q. was to be delivered up.

(What does i. q. stand for, by the way?) The relevant passage in Cicero is translated as follows in a Loeb edition:

And Postumius, the very man whose delivery [i.e. to the enemy] was in question, was the proposer and advocate of the said delivery.

So, is it fair to say then that "ipse, qui dedebatur", which corresponds to "the very man whose delivery was in question", is equal to "the one, who was going to be delivered (if it was so decided)", or "who was about to be delivered"? Then it is indeed not dissimilar to our example from Livy.

"Since, through the (hypothetical future) assault on the Saguntines/by assaulting them, the roman arms were about to be stired, he moved..."

The phrase "quibus oppugnandis" = "hos oppugnando" is only the reason for the stirring, and does not really affect the choice of tempus.

What do you think?

Edit: A further example, also from Cicero: "num dubitas id me imperante facere, quod iam tua sponte faciebas?" = "...were about to do/were on the point of doing", not literally "were already doing".

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:02 pm

Well, Alati, thanks for this reference. I don't have any books with advanced Latin grammar, so I can't confirm it. To me, all the proposed answers seem to fit.

I will, however, take everything into consideration and, for now, leave the passage marked with a pen and continue my reading.

Iterum tibi gratias ago!

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:39 pm

"Quibus oppugnandis, quia haud dubie Romana arma movebantur, in Olcadum prius fines induxit exercitum."

"porque en atacandolo sin (dubie?) mobian-se (Ã³ moberian-se?) las fuerzas romanas"

makes sense in spanish, doesnt it?

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:45 pm

Porque atacÃ¡ndolos se moverÃan las fuerzas romanas.

This conditional is translated into Latin as "moverentur." Here the imperfect "movÃanse" is incorrect.

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:25 pm

i wont try this again, i promiss

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:32 pm

Tertius Robertus wrote:i wont try this again, i promiss

Hahahae. Don't worry. We are all making mistakes as we go along. Some, like me, more than others.

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:40 am

I have just ordered a "Lingua Latina per se..., pars II: Roma Aeterna" from http://www.culturaclasica.com/lingualatina/metodo.htm and they have said me that I will recieve it in three or four days. I am studying with William SmithÂ´s First Latin Course. At this very moment I am finishing the first part of the method (page 83).
(http://books.google.com/books?id=g2ESAA ... 1#PPA83,M1)

Might anyone tell me about his/her experience after (s)he has used Lingua Latina per se illustrata?

Thanks

vicentvs · Post by **vicentvs** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:48 pm

Hola Gonzalo.
Me alegro de encontrar a otro madrileÃ±o por estos lares. Yo soy de Madrid, residente en LeganÃ©s y tambiÃ©n sigo el mÃ©todo de Lingua Latina. En concreto estoy finalizando el capitulo 33, aunque debo reconocer que a veces dudo si no habrÃ© ido avanzando dejÃ¡ndome muchas cosas en el tintero. De hecho, aunque ya tengo la segunda parte mi intenciÃ³n es probar a intentar leer algÃºn texto de los que podrÃan estar al mismo nivel que familia romana, del tipo del curso cambridge o del reading latin, para comprobar mis conocimientos.
Si te interesa conmigo cambiar impresiones por mi encantado (el inglÃ©s no es mi fuerte).

Un saludo

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:45 pm

Hi, Vicentvs,
(I response you in English in order to save my consideration for Textkit users)
I started to study Latin this week (I began to study Ancient Greek a year ago but I really cannot remember when, and Hebrew since some months.). I am finishing the first part of the method which I am using. (W. Smith´s First Latin Course: http://books.google.com/books?id=g2ESAA ... 1#PPA83,M1)
It uses the traditional way on teaching (learning, for me) Latin (memorizing declensions, doing exercises on translation, etc. In the other side, I practise my composition with Albert Harkness´ Latin Composition) but I knew about a method to learn Latin by means of direct immersion in Latin language and this morning I decided to order the second part of Lingua Latina per se illustrata. I am not going to use it as a principal book to learn Latin, but as a secondary resource of lectures.

[Bueno, Vicente, siento no haberme expresado directamente en español pero, en síntesis, le digo que pienso usar Roma Aeterna como una fuente de lecturas adicionales. El método que realmente uso es el llamado tradicional. Estudio gramática, sintaxis, prosodia, etc., luego hago las traducciones propuestas (trato de hacerlo oralmente antes que por escrito); después practico composición -sin traducir del español al latín, sino directamente- y procuro leer algo; por el momento, Esopo. Por cierto, le recomendaría que echara un vistazo a nuestros gramáticos del Renacimiento, a mí no me terminan de convencer los "métodos milagrosos", pues sin el conocimiento profundo del sistema idiomático puedes entender pero no, simultáneamente, comprender los textos. Es el Hombre del Renacimiento, el llamado por Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas, Hombre Trilingüe (Griego, Latín, Hebreo), homo eruditus, el Hombre que hemos de recuperar. Noli foras ire in interiore Hispania habitat veritas -convierte ?ngel Ganivet lo que en Santo Tomás Aquinate fue Noli foras ire, in te ipsum redi, in interiore Homine habitat veritas. [De vera religione, XXXIX, 72]
Por mi parte, soy autodidacta aunque estudio Bachillerato tecnológico, primero, y reciba un fuerte abrazo.]

Post by **klewlis** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:14 pm

Gonzalo wrote:Might anyone tell me about his/her experience after (s)he has used Lingua Latina per se illustrata?

I haven't tried it as I haven't come across a used copy yet. However, I have heard very good things about it, and in particular it was recommended by a particular Italian who is one of the world's top Latin speakers. :)

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:38 pm

Luigi Miraglia?...

Post by **klewlis** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:39 pm

Gonzalo wrote:Luigi Miraglia?...

yes!

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:51 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N8jK-1Zh9c

Post by **thesaurus** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:31 am

I just read all about Luigi Miraglia here http://www.rebeccamead.com/2001/2001_09 ... _italy.htm . I found the whole thing incredibly interesting and inspiring.

Post by **klewlis** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:43 pm

thesaurus wrote:I just read all about Luigi Miraglia here http://www.rebeccamead.com/2001/2001_09 ... _italy.htm . I found the whole thing incredibly interesting and inspiring.

I believe that was the article that first made me aware of him. It intrigued me so much that I wanted to find out more about the latin institute he was planning to start, in the hopes that I could go. I exchanged a couple of emails with him but the school part was not yet ready at that time so I went no further with it.

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:39 pm

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:01 pm

Salve, Gonzalo,

Lingua Latina is not any sort of a miraculous method. It's tough! I've been studying LL for about 18 months, and there's still more to learn. When I first heard of this method, I thought it was for pansies; the traditional method was for the strong and determined.

Now, I have made a 180 degree turn. The natural method is the way to go! With LL you begin to read "from left to right" and to understand Latin right away, even if it is greatly simplified. The course will get ever more complicated as you go through it. This is the great advantage over the traditional method, which begins (clumsily, IMO) with analysis and translation. Tell me, Gonzalo, were you taught about the accusative, the dative, the pluscuamperfectum, the conditional, the subordinated clause, etc. in the first grade? Obviously not. First you were taught how to read, and then, after many years of preparation, you were taught how to analyze literature. With LL this natural process is reduced because we are no longer little kids, but the logical order is the same.

So, my answer to you is, if you can read "from left to right" already, by all means use Lingua Latina Pars II, but if not, it's best if you buy the first book. It'll help you a lot.

Vale!

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:16 pm

Thank you, Amadeus, for your response. I have a great aptitude in languages and, at this moment, I can read texts I get from my method and ErasmusÂ´ Colloquia as you have said ("from left to right"). Probably tomorrow I will recieve LL II. I have read some trial pages (from CulturaclÃ¡sica.com) and I am able to understand them (except for the vocabulary). I said I am finishing William SmithÂ´s First Course (probably this weekend I will close the method) and if I find Lingua Latina II just as you tell, I will read it more seriously than a secondary lecture.
Well, I was able to read some pages from Lingua Latina Pars I at a bookshop (where it was) and I found them not very difficult to me. Because of this, I have decided to start from the Second Book. I know Grammar, declensions, conjugations, etc., and what I am looking for is a practical aplication of it; not for composition, but for reading. I do not want to start from the beginning, it would be (if you let me say) a waste of time for me. I am going to start seriously from the second part , as I said.

Un saludo.

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:09 pm

Did anyone know this course?
The Ciceronian: Or, The Prussian Method of Teaching the Elements of the Latin Language by Barnas Sears & Ernst Ferdinand Ruthardt.

http://books.google.com/books?id=I4QAAA ... =1#PPR5,M1

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:40 pm

i didnt, i took a quick look and saw some random paragraphs and sentences, how does that work? (the explanations on the method is 50 pages long -.-)

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:54 pm

hahaha... Well, the lessons really start at page 76:
http://books.google.com/books?id=I4QAAA ... 1#PPA76,M1
I supose you have to read the topics proposed and after that, DINGGGGG!!SURPRISE!, you know Latin.

I have not either read the whole book but it seems interesting.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:57 pm

Salvete!

I'm currently on chapter L of Lingua Latina --I should be ahead, but I've fallen back a little bit-- and I'm stumped on verses 77 and following:

Â«Ludis vero dimissis cursu prope omnes tendere ad imperatorem Romanum, ut, ruente turba in unum adire contingere dextram cupientium, coronas iacentium, haud procul periculo fuerit! [...] "esse aliquam in terris gentem quae sua impensa, suo labore ac periculo bella gerat pro libertate aliorum! nec hoc finitimis aut propinquae vicinitatis hominibus aut terris continentibus iunctis praestet, sed maria traiciat, ne quod toto orbe terrarum iniustum imperium sit..."Â»

My first doubt concerns adire contingere. Why two infinitives? And who is the subject of those verbs?

Second doubt, what hoc?

If anyone could clear this up for me, amabo illem. If not, I'm just gonna cheat and look at a translation.

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:40 pm

Salve, amice! You know I've been procrastinating on Pars II for about a year myself; I just finished Cap. L a few days ago. Now I'm on LIII. I'll race ya.

Ut vides in marginibus, amice, scribitur "tendere" pro "tendunt" â€” hi infinitivi nominantur historici, id est subjectivus, licet dicere, horum infinitivorum "omnes" est. Solvamus versus:

Ludis vero dimissis, cursu (id est currentes) prope omnes tendunt ad imperatorem Romanum, ut [imperator] haud procul a periculo fuerit, quod turba [hominum] cupientium ruens in unum adit ad [imperatoris] dextram contingendam, iaciens etiam coronas!

Nonne est imago vivida!

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:47 pm

Ah yes, the matter of "hoc." The "hoc" refers to the fact that the Romans have gone to great lengths to liberate another people, a noble deed. ... nec hoc beneficium Romanorum solum pro gentibus propinquis vicinitatis Romae, sed etiam trans maria! usque ad Graeciam! Ubique jus, fas, lex potentissima! Avete Romani!

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:51 pm

Lucus Eques wrote:Salve, amice! You know I've been procrastinating on Pars II for about a year myself; I just finished Cap. L a few days ago. Now I'm on LIII. I'll race ya. !

Salve, Luce!

Tibi gratias pro responso planissimo! It's amazing how you were able to re-arrange the wording in Latin.

Oh, and I wouldn't be able to race you to the finish of LL, I move like a turtle.

But I'm glad to know I've caught up with you.

Valetudinam cura diligenter, amice!

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:25 pm

Salvus sis, care Amadeu.

No problem! Actually, I find these Periocha of Livy to be the most boring and therefore difficult passages I've ever read in Latin. I personally did not fully understand that phrase until you mentioned it. The problem is that Livy was an excellent historian â€” he does little to embellish the story and rarely if ever moralizes events or individuals â€” the modern Media could learn a lot from his non editorialist style. I found it difficult te keep track of the names and who was good or bad. Thank heavens his writings end in Lingua Latina as of the following chapter! Now Sallustius! there's a fun read! moralizing and embellishing his characters with every intriguing word.

I'd enjoy discussing any of LLpII with you at any time, amice. Deciphering some of this Livy requires real teamwork!

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:08 am

Amadeus Luco s.p.d.,

Ok, now that I've gone through those verses again with more attention to detail, a few observations and questions:

Lucus Eques wrote:Ut vides in marginibus, amice, scribitur "tendere" pro "tendunt" â€” hi infinitivi nominantur historici, id est subjectivus

I went through my copy of LL and I believe that that infinitive first appears in chapter XLV, so I am accustomed to it, but the appearance of two infinitives (adire contingere) really threw me off! Oh, and where did you learn the meaning of this infinitive? I'm finishing Lingua Latina soon, ut spero, and I want to buy something a little more "meaty"

a book that explains the various nuances in the writings of the classics. Is there one you would recommend in particular?

Now, let me see if I can arrange those verses in my own way:

Ludis vero dimissis, cursu prope omnes tendunt [or tenderunt] ad imperatorem Romanum, ita ut is haud procul a periculo fuerit, quod turba adit ruendo (aut cadendo) in unum locum cupidine dextram imperatoris contingendi...

I think now I finally get it. Besides there beign two infinitives, the presence of ruere (to hurry, to hasten) just before adire had me confused, I thought it was redundant. Until I remembered that ruere also meant to fall down. So a very vivid description indeed!

Thanks again for the help, Lucus.

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:24 am

De nada, amigo.

I learned about the "historical infinitive" when I was in Florence studying Latin litterature (Sallustius, of all things). Unfortunately I do not know what would be a good book for advanced Latin composition; perhaps there is one at Textkit?

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:31 pm

Redeamus iterum ad capitulum XLIV versumque 380, ubi legitur "[1]Arruntis Tarquinii et Tulliae minoris prope continuis funeribus [2]cum domos vacuas novo matrimonio fecissent, [3]Lucius Tarquinius et Tullia Major junguntur nuptiis"

eae res nigratae maxime notandae sunt. Sola ea in 3 scripta nominativa sunt, quam ob rem intellegi oportet [2] "Cum L et T ... fecissent" atque in anglicam verti sic: "as of the almost continuous death of A and T, at the occasion, L and T had made theirs houses empty for a new marriage, they were (then) joined in wedding" estne verum?

praeterea, dicendum est pristina verba aliter legi: "Arruns Tarquinius et Tullia minor prope continuatis funeribus cum domos uacuas nouo matrimonio fecissent, iunguntur nuptiis"

ut scriptumst A Tque sunt qui domos vacuas fecere, id quod magis intellectum esse mihi videtur.

quid censetis?

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:00 pm

Tertius Robertus wrote:Redeamus iterum ad capitulum XLIV versumque 380, ubi legitur "[1]Arruntis Tarquinii et Tulliae minoris prope continuis funeribus [2]cum domos vacuas novo matrimonio fecissent, [3]Lucius Tarquinius et Tullia Major junguntur nuptiis"

Amadeus Tertio Roberto s.p.d.,

Ecce duo nummi mei:

"Cum Arruntis Tulliaeque dua funera prope continua domos vacuas (eorum) novo matrimonio (Lucii et Tulliae maioris) fecissent, Lucius T. et Tullia m. iunguntur nuptiis."

Itane?

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:20 pm

Re vera, mi optime Roberte, ac mihi videris plane intellegere sententias Livii nostri historici.

Quod ad simplicia attinet, seu "pristina" uti dixisti, numquam equidem dicerem "magis intellectum esse" quae solutis versibus Livianis protulisti — est nobis modo Liviano χ?ονολογια quam aiunt Graeci ordinem eventuum.

Flexibilitas sermonis Latini talis est quali ordine imaginum sive ordine eventuum ipsorum doceri potest quaelibet scena historica — dum Anglice necesse est rigidissime SUBJECT VERB OBJECT, SUBJECT VERB OBJECT ordinem consequi. Maximum exemplar Livianum, quod invenire potest pagina 144 LL:Rom.Aet:

Tarquinium moribundum cum qui circa erant excepissent, illos fugientes lictores comprehendunt.

Hac sententia fertur vera scena, veluti taeniola imaginum moventium — aut etiam "comic book" (liber comicus).

Imago I: Tarquinium — Ecce Tarquinius stat.

Imago II: moribundum — Tarquinius moriturus est!

Imago III: cum qui circa erant — Alii sui circum eum stant.

Imago IV: excepissent — Ut Tarquinius cadebat, alii sui auxilio cucurrere atque excepere suum regem.

Imago V: illos — cinaedi!

Imago VI: fugientes — necatores fugiunt!!

Imago VII: lictores — vigiles, carpite illos nequissimos!

Imago VIII: comprehendunt — GOT 'EM!

Anglice ne qua quam potest hoc mirabili modo exprimi! Eventus ut ceciderunt feruntur.

Igitur intelleges sententiam Livii quam notasti etiam mirum in modum scriptum esse: Arruntis Tarquinii et Tulliae minoris prope continuis funeribus cum domos vacuas novo matrimonio fecissent, Lucius Tarquinius et Tullia Major junguntur nuptiis.

Primo videmus sororem fratremque minorem, deinde illos mortuos apud funera, tum domos vacuas videmus, ac novum matrimonium nequissimorum! at ultimo felices istos improbos nuptiis fruentes. Chronologice discimus, remoto destricto illogico Anglico.

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:38 pm

delendum

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:42 pm

delendum

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:21 pm

Prorsus nescio! Roga fortasse apud Colloquia Latina:

http://chat.yle.fi/yleradio1/latini/index.php

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:06 pm

delendumst

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:21 am

Gundisalvus plurimam salutem dicit,
Antiquus sive vetus cursus de lingua latina studio usus sum, sed egoque deserui hanc viam eruditionis linguae latinae pro uti methodum Orbergis. Incepi in die lunae praeterito uti Lingua Latina Per se Illustrata II et nunc in capitulo duodequadragesimum (sive XXXVIII) sto. Non dubio quin Orberg benissime loquetur, vero lego:
(...) et dis Penatibus litora patriae reliquit et campos ubi Troia fuit. (vv. 5-6) Elisit "ubi Troia fuit reliquit".

Intellexi hanc orationem, ellipsis autem in Minerva Francisci Sanctii Brocensis ita exposita est:
Ellipsis est defectus dictionis uel dictionum ad legitimam constructionem, ut paucis te uolo, Noctuas Athenas; Terentius: egone illam? quae illum? quae me? quae non?, ubi Donatus: Elipsis est et aposiopesis; quasi dicat: Si ad Grammaticam spectes, ellipsis est uocum, si uero ad Rhetoricam, aposiopesis, id est reticentia et abruptio sermonis. (Liber quattuor)

Dubitatio mea est hoc modo: Si vis bene Latine loqui, estne ellipsis admissa? Sententiam vestram peto.

(Purga me ubi erravi)

Tertius Robertus · Post by **Tertius Robertus** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:54 pm

............... uix prima inceperat aestas
et pater Anchises dare fatis uela iubebat,
litora tum patriae lacrimans portusque relinquo
et campos ubi Troia fuit............

ut videre potes, gundisalve, vergilium osberg est tantum imitatus. pro certo, verba potius omittere seu anteriore seu posteriore loco oportet quam totiens pravissime repetere

Gonzalo · Post by **Gonzalo** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:25 pm

Multas gratias tibi ago ob respunsum tuum.
Salve, amice!