I’m trying to get a grasp on these irregular adjectives. Are my translations to Latin correct?
#2 Some towns are great and others are small.
Alia oppida magna, alia parva sunt.
Alia oppida magna sunt, alia parva.
(oppida magna=NOM PL)
I wasn’t sure in which position sunt should be. However for the next question, I placed the verb at the end which felt like the right thing to do. (#3 One boy likes chickens, another horses → Aliï puer gallïnäs, equös amat. (gallïnäs=ACC; equös=ACC) )
#5 Our whole village is suffering for lack of food.
Noster tötus vïcus ïnfïrmus ïnopiä cibï est.
(inopia cibi=ABL)
Is it correct to use the ABL here without any preposition? I think this falls under the Ablative of Cause which doesn’t require a preposition.
#6 The people are already hastening to the other town.
Populus iam ad aliud oppidum properat.
(ad aliud=ACC)
Is it correct to use ad and the ACC with properat?
I feel like I can’t get a handle on which case to use with which prepositions.
Do a/ab, apud, cum, de, e/ex, and in take the ABL? ???
While ad takes the ACC? ???
#7 Among the Romans (there) is no lack of grain.
Apud Romanï sunt nüllia inopia frumentï.
#2.Some towns are great and others are small.
Alia oppida magna, alia parva sunt
#5. Our whole village is suffering for lack of food.
Totus vicus noster est infirmus inopiã cibi.
(for me ‘totus vicus noster’ sounds better and I think these special 9 adjectives usually appear first anyhow)
Abl. denoting with : cause, manner, accompaniment, means.
- , CUM , CUM , -
“cum” in manner may be left out if there be an adjective i.e
Copiae Romani magnõ studiõ pugnãbant
#6. The people are already hastening to the other town.
Iam populus ad alterum oppidum properat
(I don’t know whether this should be alter, a, um or alius, a, ud!)
Sorry I just need practise aswell ;D so I’m probably wrong in few things
Great !
> #5 > Our whole village is suffering for lack of food.
Noster tötus vïcus ïnfïrmus ïnopiä cibï est.
(inopia cibi=ABL)
Is it correct to use the ABL here without any preposition? I think this falls under the Ablative of Cause which doesn’t require a preposition.
Right. Your Ablative of Cause is basically an Ablative of Means.
> #6 > The people are already hastening to the other town.
Populus iam ad aliud oppidum properat.
(ad aliud=ACC)
Is it correct to use > ad > and the ACC with properat?
Yes
I feel like I can’t get a handle on which case to use with which prepositions.
Do > a/ab, apud, cum, de, e/ex, > and > in > take the ABL? ???
While > ad > takes the ACC? ???
>
AB + Abl.
CUM + Abl.
DE + Abl.
EX + Abl.
APUD + Acc.
AD + Acc.
IN + Abl. = in (situation)
IN + Acc. = into (motion into sth)
> #7 > Among the Romans (there) is no lack of grain.
Apud Romanï sunt nüllia inopia frumentï.
>
I would say : > Apud Romanos nulla est inopia frumenti>
Vale
Apud Romanõs nulla est inopia frumenti
=I forgot that was there 
Skylax, it sounds like perfect Latin but I can not figure out why…the nulla would go before the est although it sounds right Latin to me.
rather than …est nulla inopia frumenti
Quote:
#6 The people are already hastening to the other town.
Populus iam ad aliud oppidum properat.
(ad aliud=ACC)
Is it correct to use ad and the ACC with properat?
Think of alius as another (more than two) and alter as the other (of two). I’d use ‘alter’ here.
And I assumed they were hastening into town, so I used in + acc. But that might be a personal preference 
Ingrid
[quote author=ingrid70 link=board=3;threadid=321;start=0#2222 date=1059512592]
Quote:
#6 The people are already hastening to the other town.
Populus iam ad aliud oppidum properat.
(ad aliud=ACC)
Is it correct to use ad and the ACC with properat?
Think of alius as another (more than two) and alter as the other (of two). I’d use ‘alter’ here.
And I assumed they were hastening into town, so I used in + acc. But that might be a personal preference
Ingrid
[/quote]
yay ;D
Maybe est nulla is simply more difficult to pronounce (the group “-stn-”. The question of word order is a very difficult one. I am not sure we can still fully understand it today. The meanings of the scholars are sometimes changing. I am pretty well convinced that the last words of a clause are the most important, but aliud in ea re sentit alius…
Is that a 3rd declension noun?
what said-you??
“Chacun a sa petite idée”.
ah…je comprends maintenant - c’est pourquoi j’aime cette langue bien, on peut dire ce qu’on veut dire mais ça veut dire la même chose ;D
[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=321;start=0#2203 date=1059509160]
#6. The people are already hastening to the other town.
Iam populus ad alterum oppidum properat
(I don’t know whether this should be alter, a, um or alius, a, ud!) [/quote]
Interesting how you chose to use alter while I chose alius. I’m note sure what the difference is between these two.
Gratias! Gratias! Gratias! That’s exactly what I wanted to know. I’ve added this to my notes. Hopefully I’ll get all this into memory someday.
I would say : > Apud Romanos nulla est inopia frumenti >
Oh I see. Since Apud should be followed by the ACC, it’s Apud Romanos…. I hadn’t known that, which is why I used the NOM Romani.
I was going to ask why you used est, but I see the subject “Among the Romans” is considered singular. I was thrown off by “Romans” and thought the sentence was plural. How do you know where to put nulla? I would want to put it next to inopia.
[quote author=ingrid70 link=board=3;threadid=321;start=0#2222 date=1059512592]
Think of alius as another (more than two) and alter as the other (of two). I’d use ‘alter’ here.
And I assumed they were hastening into town, so I used in + acc. But that might be a personal preference [/quote]
Thanks for the tip, I’ve jotted that down and will try to remember it that way. Your reasoning for using alter is that they are obviously leaving one two for another town, so there are two towns in the picture? That seems to make sense.
As for ad vs in…hmm… I guess it would depend on where they are in relation to the town they’re heading towards. If they’ve just left the first town and are far away from the second town, then perhaps it should be ad since they’re making motions towards the second town. However if they’re getting very close to the second town, then perhaps it should be in since they’re already practically there and the next step would be to go into the town.
[quote author=Skylax link=board=3;threadid=321;start=0#2229 date=1059513050]
Maybe est nulla is simply more difficult to pronounce (the group “-stn-”. The question of word order is a very difficult one. I am not sure we can still fully understand it today. The meanings of the scholars are sometimes changing. I am pretty well convinced that the last words of a clause are the most important, but aliud in ea re sentit alius… [/quote]
I read somewhere (here? in a book? I really don’t remember where) that the first and last words in a sentence were most important. I guess that means that the parts go in decreasing order of importance/emphasis as you move towards the middle of the sentence. I haven’t really paid much attention to using this to any advantage, I’m too busy trying to get all the individual words in the correct declension/number/gender.
[quote author=mariek link=board=3;threadid=321;start=0#2194 date=1059506292]
I’m trying to get a grasp on these irregular adjectives. Are my translations to Latin correct?
#2 Some towns are great and others are small.
Alia oppida magna, alia parva sunt.
Alia oppida magna sunt, alia parva.
(oppida magna=NOM PL)
I wasn’t sure in which position sunt should be. However for the next question, I placed the verb at the end which felt like the right thing to do. (#3 One boy likes chickens, another horses → Aliï puer gallïnäs, equös amat. (gallïnäs=ACC; equös=ACC) )[/quote]
It doesn’t affect the correctness of the sentence wherever you place the verb. It may change the nuance, but you could put the sunt between oppida and magna and the sentence would make just as much sense.
To translate it idiomatically, alius usually means “other” and alter usually means “the other.”
Prepositions of position typically use an ablative while prepositions of motion typically use an accusative. This is not universal, as demonstrated by apud.
I would say : > Apud Romanos nulla est inopia frumenti >
>
Oh I see. Since Apud should be followed by the ACC, it’s > Apud Romanos…> . I hadn’t known that, which is why I used the NOM > Romani> .
I was going to ask why you used > est> , but I see the subject “Among the Romans” is considered singular. I was thrown off by “Romans” and thought the sentence was plural. How do you know where to put > nulla> ? I would want to put it next to > inopia> .
>
“Among the Romans” isn’t subject, nulla inopia frumenti is subject. That’s singular, and that’s why it’s est, not sunt.
Vale.
Ptolemaios
Well ad is more ‘toward’ and in+acc actually depicts entry. (Like in german)
[quote author=Ptolemaios link=board=3;threadid=321;start=15#2290 date=1059558873]
“Among the Romans” isn’t subject, nulla inopia frumenti is subject. That’s singular, and that’s why it’s est, not sunt. [/quote]
Could the subject be “there is”?
uh no 
“est” est mea mater… 
[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=321;start=15#2325 date=1059585665]
“est” est mea mater… [/quote]
What are you saying here?
??? “est” is my mother ???