North and Hillard Ex 32A

Composition exercises from textbooks. Post answers here for correction.
Post Reply
jacknoutch
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:07 pm
Location: East Midlands, UK

North and Hillard Ex 32A

Post by jacknoutch »

I've started making my way through North and Hillard's Latin Prose Composition, and will post some occasional attempts of the (paragraph) exercises in this sub. I am also checking what I write with the N&H key, though I am posting here my originals, minus the howlers I can immediately identify using that key. Though I do not expect it, I would welcome any feedback from those generous enough to give time and effort to comment on them, with criticisms great or small. Perhaps others working with the book may even find some inspiration from my errors or successes.

Here's the English:
The enemy being now defeated, the general led his men back to the camp, which had been fortified by a rampart. The lieutenant having been left in the camp, had not heard about the battle. When he saw the army at a distance, he went to the top of the rampart to await them. As they approached he went out and asked them about the fight. But they were so tired that they would tell him nothing, but threw away their arms and went to their tents.
Here's my Latin:
hostibus iam victīs imperātor suōs in castra vāllō munīta redūxit. in quībus relictus legātus dē proeliō nōn audīverat. ille in summum vāllum ascendit ut exercitum procul conspectum expectāret. quem accēdentem ēgressus dē pugnā rogavit, sed tam fessī erant mīlitēs ut nihil dīcerent at armīs abiectīs in tabernācula abiērunt.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: North and Hillard Ex 32A

Post by mwh »

A good exercise I think. It’s a long long time since I looked at North and Hillard, but here’s how I would modify yours, only lightly and perhaps too simplistically. We can discuss if you like.
“which had been fortified by a rampart”: a rel. clause better as in the English? (quae vāllō munīta erant)
For some reason I don’t like in quībus relictus here. Perhaps just legatus (tamen) in castris relictus?
Then perhaps qui for your ille? I feel we need some connexion with the previous sentence. —But then your following quem would have to become e.g. et cum appropinquavit, and you’re clearly out to avoid et.
accēdentem not the best choice of verb? (suggests hostile intent?)
defessi rather than fessi?
nihil dīcerent better nihil dicere vellent? but perhaps that’s overtranslating “would.”
I’d swap out your at for sed (“but instead of telling him”) and your sed for at.

But you can ignore all this. I’m badly out of practice, and this is just to encourage you to continue here.

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: North and Hillard Ex 32A

Post by Aetos »

Hi Jack,
I happen to be making my way through N&H as well. Unfortunately, I didn't save my answers to the paragraph exercises, but will do so in future. I'm currently at lesson 61 (Dative Verbs). With the sentences, I work them out in my head, then see how close I come. With the paragraphs, I've been writing up my draft in notepad, checking it, then chucking it. It is proving to be an excellent method of revision though. I'll be following your posts with interest!

jacknoutch
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:07 pm
Location: East Midlands, UK

Re: North and Hillard Ex 32A

Post by jacknoutch »

How pleasing to see this wasn't just posted for my own benefit! Thank you both very much for your replies, and mwh for your proposed edits. I shall put more attempts up as I do them. I'd be very interested to see yours, Aetos, too, so don't throw the roughs away too quickly!

I agree with most of what you (mwh) put, and think it improves my original. I particularly appreciate advice about accēdentem having an aggressive quality, and the swapping of at for sed.

Choosing between near synonyms is probably the thing I find most difficult with prose comp. (This is all revision for me, but I haven't done any for some years.) I still find that I choose words on their "vocabulary list" definition, and then struggle to discern if I've chosen the best of the bunch. I find using the Latinitum website very helpful in this regard.

I too questioned myself about in quībus relictus. It just doesn't look like what I've seen in texts, but I am now on the lookout for how connecting relatives are used with prepositions. As you say, changing this has some knock on effects for how to connect the sentences.

My ille was trying to be a Caesarian sort of (1) There once was a fellow called "legatus" (2) "ille" did this that and the other, and the way you know he's important to my narrative is because I'm using a pronoun (3) But now I've talked about him enough i'll refer to him in verbs forms primarily... But for such short paragraph, maybe connecting relatives is the way to go.

As regards at vs sed again, I wonder if anyone knows of any good exercises out there for using and differentiating (coordinating) conjunctions? Reading it in the grammars really doesn't cut it for me - real, clear examples and practice would be very helpful.

Post Reply