A lesson in inadequacy ch.20

Textbooks Wheelock's Latin
1

I finished ch.20 yesterday and have a few questions about the review stuff. I think I got them right, but I wasn’t sure so I thought I’d check. If any of you could assist me, I would be most thankful. :slight_smile:
-A quibus studium difficilum artium eo tempore neglectum est.
By which people has the pursuit of the difficult arts (skills?) been neglected?

-Those bands of unfortunate men and women will come to us from other countriies in which they are deprived of the benefits of citizenship.
Illae manūs miserorum virorumque feminarum nobis ex aliis patriis venient in quis beneficiis (fructibus) civitatis carent.

-Who began to percieve our common fears of serious crime?
Quis metūs communes sceleris gravis videre (sentire/intellegere) coepit? (Which verb do I use?)

-Vir scelere vacuus non eget iaculis neque arcū.
A man free from crime/evil doesn’t need javelins or a bow. (why are iaculis and arcū in the abl.? [of separation, I assume] unless the crimeless man doesn’t need the weapons, but something else. He doesn’t need help perhaps?)

I translated all these at about 3:00 yesterday morning, so if they have any really obvious mistakes, sorry.

I’m starting to enjoy the little stories that Wheelock’s gives at the end of each chapter. In the one after ch.20, I got the distinct feeling :wink: that Cicero was taunting Cat. It was really quite amusing. :slight_smile:

2

you are perfectly welcome to translate a relative pronoun, whether singular or plural, as “who”. You also forgot to translate eo tempore, which is going to roughen your sentence unless you translate the perfect with a simple past tense English verb.

-Those bands of unfortunate men and women will come to us from other countriies in which they are deprived of the benefits of citizenship.
Illae manūs miserorum virorumque feminarum nobis ex aliis patriis venient in quis beneficiis (fructibus) civitatis carent.

-que connects to the second thing to be joined: “of men and women” = virorum feminarumque. You put it on the first thing to be joined, which is not acceptable, because now you are saying miserorum and virorum, instead of virorum and feminarum.

“to come to” is usually venire + ad, rather than with a dative. I would also prefer ab to ex here, since ab is more often used to describe a thing’s place of origin.

quis (with long I) is an acceptable alternative form with quibus, but I doubt you meant to put it there (most people don’t know it). I would switch the order of civitatis and beneficiis lest quis and beneficiis be thought to agree with one another.

-Who began to percieve our common fears of serious crime?
Quis metūs communes sceleris gravis videre (sentire/intellegere) coepit? > (Which verb do I use?)

videre is fine, the choice is yours.

-Vir scelere vacuus non eget iaculis neque arcū.
A man free from crime/evil doesn’t need javelins or a bow. (why are iaculis and arcū in the abl.? [of separation, I assume] unless the crimeless man doesn’t need the weapons, but something else. He doesn’t need > help > perhaps?)

egere, like many verbs of “lacking/needing” takes the ablative instead of a direct object. “need” is the better translation here; i.e. he doesn’t need weapons because an innocent man has nothing to fear (if only that were true).

I translated all these at about 3:00 yesterday morning, so if they have any really obvious mistakes, sorry.

Hey, some of my best work was done around 3 AM!

3

You’re right, I didn’t know that quid can be used in that way.. Thank you. I meant to put, quibus, I think. Or maybe I’m just trying to weasel my way out of admitting that I made a mistake like that. :slight_smile:
Hae terrae discedo in quibus delectare fructus laborum mearum non possum.
" " in quis delectare.. etc.
just to make sure I’m right… I leave these lands in which I cannot enjoy the fruits of my labor. (mihi ignosce, pater, nam peccavi)… Labor is feminine, no?
Am I doing that right? I think in quibus would be easier for me to understand right now, though.

illi viri feminaeque eo tempore veniunt ad me a quis amabar sed nunc osurus sum et qui sapientia mea nunc egent= illi me eo tempore adveniunt a quibus amabor sed nunc osurus sum et qui sapientia mea nunc egent?… to kinda sum it all up correctly or not… the real question, I guess was; can I use … nos advenient… and … ad nos venient…?

Hey, some of my best work was done around 3 AM!

Some of my best music was written in the early morning, but I tend to screw everything else up at that time… :slight_smile:

Thank you for the help. If my effing college would actually offer a Latin course, I wouldn’t have to check so much of my stuff here. But thanks for helping, anyway. :slight_smile:

4

“I leave these lands” requires a preposition in Latin: ab/ex/de his terris. labor, like all 3rd declension ‘-or, -oris’ nouns (except for arbor), is masculine - or more precisely, like all nouns that have the stem ending -or- (with a long O).

illi viri feminaeque eo tempore veniunt > ad > me a quis amabar sed nunc osurus sum et qui sapientia mea nunc egent= illi me eo tempore > ad> veniunt a quibus amabor sed nunc osurus sum et qui sapientia mea nunc egent?> … to kinda sum it all up correctly or not… the real question, I guess was; can I use … > nos > ad> venient… > and > … > ad > nos venient…?

you wouldn’t use advenire when talking about coming to a person, since it is generally “to arrive (at a location)”. Also, while you are seeing ad ___ venire as being similar to _____ advenire_, do not miss the possibility of ad ____ advenire, which is about equal to but far more common than advenire with a direct object.

osurus sum in your Latin above seems a bit out of place: “…by whom I used to be loved and I am now about to hate and who now are in need of my wisdom.” If it is “whom I am about to hate”, then “whom” must be written. If it is “(by whom) I am about to be hated”, then you can share the quibus from earlier, but there is no future passive participle and a periphrastic is required.

5

Thank you sir.
Really, I was just trying to ask about the ad__venire/__advenire question.
Ad nos veniunt but Ad urbem adveniunt.
they —> person they ----> place
?
I’m pretty new with defective verbs, as I just encountered odi. I thought that osurus sum means I am hated. I thought Nunc osurus sum meant “Now I am hated”.
What I wanted to say was: … by whom I used to be loved but now am hated and who now need my wisdom.
did I screw up royally with the defective verb? :cry:
Maybe I need to review a bit before I go on. that brings me to another question… in the last sentence, would “before” be translated as antea or ante? My guess was antea, but Cassels also lists ante as an adv… I would need an adv., right?

6

you can use venio + ad with locations or people, advenio + ad only with locations (sometimes more figuratively, e.g. advenit in mentem, ad auris, etc.). I actually just found an example ad vos adveniens, but it is by an archaic author.

I’m pretty new with defective verbs, as I just encountered odi. I thought that osurus sum means I am hated. I thought > Nunc osurus sum > meant “Now I am hated”.

This isn’t really a matter with the defective verb as much as it is of participles. If you haven’t done the chapter on participles yet, then you would have no way of knowing that osurus is a future active participle, meaning “about to hate”; nunc osurus sum means “now I am about to hate”. There is no way to say literally “I am hated”, but quibus (dat.) odio sum is a makeshift passive through the noun odium.

Maybe I need to review a bit before I go on.

If you like, but that would be a difficult clause to render even if you know everything in chapters 1-20 (or 40 for that matter).

that brings me to another question… in the last sentence, would “before” be translated as > antea > or > ante> ? My guess was > antea> , but Cassels also lists > ante > as an adv… I would need an adv., right?

I don’t know which sentence you are referring to or how you plan to insert the proposed word. ante and antea can both be used as adverbs in the meanings “before”, “previously”, etc. (not to be confused with “before,” the preposition or conjunction).

7

whew! I was thinking that I missed something somewhere! :slight_smile:

Maybe I need to review a bit before I go on.

that was the last sentence which I was reffering to, btw.
Thanks again for all the help!