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
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).mfranks wrote: 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.
Yes. Also, note that "dominus" is nominative and "verberat" is an active verb, so your translation of the first part isn't completely accurate.Am I correct in my thinking that baculo is ablative therefore I can tanslate as "with" the staff/club?
"dominum et baculum eius" together make up the direct object of "timent."Why is the conjuction et used in this sentance? The placement of this conjunction throws me for a loop.
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.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?
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.mfranks wrote: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?
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: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.
This is correct.Am I correct in my thinking that baculo is ablative therefore I can tanslate as "with" the staff/club?
because it is "the lord AND (his) staff"Why is the conjuction et used in this sentance? The placement of this conjunction throws me for a loop.
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: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.
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!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.
Actually, I'm hardly a youth... I'm rather middle-aged (44 in a week)!Te magno ingenio studioque iuvenem es, ut puto.
As I see it, you are a youth of great character and energy (zeal).
Here's my translation of the sentence:"Qui magnum pecuniam habent ornamenta emunt et feminis dant; ceteri rursus abeunt."
Here's where I have problems with the use of the word "abeunt"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."
Perhaps I need to refine the meaning to be "stay away" or "refrain"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;
Here's my translation of 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.
Any comments?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].
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:mfranks wrote: Any comments?
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".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 Sack is being carried by the servant.Saccus portantur a servo.
Then the boat and the sailors plunged into the sea.Tum naves et nautae in mare merguntur.
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.Tum naves et nautae in mare mergent.
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.mfranks wrote:Why is 'inter' and 'interest' used in the first clause of the sentence? Both words mean "between".
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.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.
Not having examples, I don't know exactly what you're seeing, but there are several points worth mentioning: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.
From Tres Mures CaeciMater Ferdinandi, quae erat vacca, interdum angebatur, verita ne solitarius sine amicis esset.
From Virent Ova! Viret Perna!!Statim Uxur cultrum acutissimum coruscans videtur!
and lastly from Arbor AlmaDapsne mea respuetur,
Si sub tecto suggeretur?
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!Defessus arboris in umbra meridiabatur.
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.Brian wrote: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
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.That may have been more of a grammatical explanation than you were looking for, but I hope it's helpful.
Salve, Amice (adressing one person)... but the verb form requires the plural here, wouldn't you agree?mfranks wrote:Salve Amici!
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.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'll leave that for Lucus to answer, but it has to do with the way the letters "u/v" looked like in ancient times.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?
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.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"?
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.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 sound of French "u" is that used for "y" in Latin.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.
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.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"???
It's pronounced roughly /noo-meh-roos/.Also, why is the word "numerus" pronounced num-er-ohs instead of num-er-ews?
Roughly /reh-preh-hen-dee-moor/.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.
They're pronounced (again, roughly): /ee-moos/, /ah-moos/, never /ee-mus/ or /ee-mos/ or /ee-mohs/.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.
Luce, ubi es?[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
Salve Luce amice mi,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.
Che buggiardo! non bevo mai la Coca Cola! solo vino è acqua minerale per me.Misopogon wrote:Salve Luce amice mi,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.
You have spent too much time with the "toscanacci", I am sure you drink HoHa Hola instead of Coca Cola![]()
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.I woulnd't say that Sicilian accent is regarded extremely low-class, it could be also funny or aristocratic, it depends.
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.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.
Sono assolutamente d'accordo.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.