I just have a question about #9. I’m not sure whether I should use the Genitive in the underlined part of my translation.
The teachers were happy because of the boys’ industry.
Magisti aegri erant quia diligentae puerorum.
The teachers were happy because of the boys’ industry.
Magisti aegri erant quia diligentae puerorum.
You need to keep the “r” in magistri.
I don’t think you want “aegri”, but its form is correct.
In Latin there are two prepositions commonly used for “because of”: ob & propter. They both require accusative objects.
Magistra
I think he wants an ablative of cause:
Magistrī erant laetī industriā puerōrum
Ingrid
PS: aeger means ill, you want laetus here 
.
3 spelling mistakes in 4 lines. Duh…
What do ampersand hatch mark 299, ampersand hatch mark 257, and ampersand hatch mark 333 stand for?
It means that we don’t have that coding :-q
:
sorry, I use macrons in my notes, and copied the sentence.
magistri erant laeti industria puerorum.
Silly of me to see the spelling mistakes, and leaving the codes… 
Ingrid
The teachers were happy because of the boys’ industry.
Magisti aegri erant quia diligentae puerorum.
Magister, magistri, m
happy = laetus, -a, -um / alacer, -cris, -cre
because = quia, quoniam, etc. when it introduces a sentence.
When you only have one word or a few, but certainly not a sentence, you can use the ablative of cause or a preposition like propter +acc.; gen. + causa (gen. preceeds); gen. + gratia (gen. preceeds); and other prepositions. But in classical prose ob +acc. is only found in a few expressions.
Mostly you express the cause by the ablative of cause and the reason by propter + acc. The difference between cause and reason is very difficult to see. The Romans also had troubles with it. But when people can change the situation themselves, it’s mostly a reason. ‘Because off the rain’ is a cause, because no person can change that.
Even the Romans mixed them up. So I would use an abl. here anyway.
you can use diligentia (possible), but also industria (better here).
erant expresses more the duration or repetition of an act.
If you want to say that the happiness of the teachers lasted a long time, you better use ‘erant’. But when you don’t want to imply that notion, and you only want to express the fact of being happy in the past, you better use fuerunt. Both are possible here.
So;
Magistri puerorum industria laeti erant / fuerunt.
Thanks ingrid 
Ablative cause is often what I look for in an ablative - that is, one day, you’ll have to see quickly, with (by means of) instinct which type of ablative is being used and just don’t make it complicated. Especially with a preposition! What I do, as a beginner also, is look for a macron on the last a or o (we’ve only done dec. 1 and 2!).
diligentia is defined as industry by Dr. B.L.D
diligentia may have that sence, but it depends from the context.
You don’t always have to believe what’s in Dr. B.L.D.There are connotations and it’s impossible to mention them all in a beginners book.
Industria is more commun.
That was sloppy on my part. I have to get accustomed to those nouns. AND drop the e,not the er!
In Latin there are two prepositions commonly used for “because of”: ob & propter. They both require accusative objects.
We haven’t learned op or propter yet, so they must be looking for something else.
[quote author=ingrid70 link=board=3;threadid=367;start=0#2768 date=1060071509]
I think he wants an ablative of cause:
Magistri erant laeti industria puerorum [/quote]
Ablative of Cause. We just covered that a few lessons ago, and I already forgot it! >:( I think this was a trick question.
Mariek est discipula misera.
As far as I know, you can’t say because of without those prepositions/constructions. You could use quia, but you would have to reword the sentence to The teachers were happy because the boys were industrious or something like that… (to avoid the “because of”).
[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=367;start=0#2844 date=1060108279]
As far as I know, you can’t say because of without those prepositions/constructions.
[/quote]
Ablative of cause
I was only saying that ‘diligentia’ is shown as “diligence; industry” - so mariek would not have known any other word for ‘industry’.
mariek, I was thinking that that was only a few lessons ago hence my “look for ablative of cause” post!
He will call upon things from many many lessons ago in big stories/dialogues! Don’t you just love "the Boys’’ Dialogues?
[quote author=mariek link=board=3;threadid=367;start=0#2843 date=1060108167]
Ablative of Cause. We just covered that a few lessons ago, and I already forgot it! >:( I think this was a trick question.
Mariek est discipula misera.
[/quote]
Cheer up. The trick is just in remembering that “because” can be a conjunction (“quia” or “quod”) and it can also be a preposition “because of” or “on account of” (“propter” or “causa”)… The English grammar is colliding with the Latin grammar…
Kilmeny
We haven’t yet learned industria yet. We’ve only learned diligentia which BLD defines as diligence, industry.
Mostly you express the cause by the ablative of cause and the reason by propter + acc. The difference between cause and reason is very difficult to see. The Romans also had troubles with it. But when people can change the situation themselves, it’s mostly a reason. ‘Because off the rain’ is a cause, because no person can change that.
Even the Romans mixed them up. So I would use an abl. here anyway.
Oh boy, more curve balls to look forward to. Sounds as difficult as trying to figure out when to use the Subjunctive in French!
I find it interesting how you all use different word order:
Magistri puerorum industria laeti erant / fuerunt.
Magistri erant laeti industria puerorum.
[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=367;start=0#2844 date=1060108279]
As far as I know, you can’t say because of without those prepositions/constructions. You could use quia, but you would have to reword the sentence to The teachers were happy because the boys were industrious or something like that… (to avoid the “because of”).[/quote]
I guess BLD will discuss these prepositions in the future, and then everything will fall into place.
[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=367;start=0#2853 date=1060111329]
The English grammar is colliding with the Latin grammar… [/quote]
It certainly appears to be. Need to stop translating literally too.
For me, what’s weird is that “fuerunt” in usual order goes to the end whilst “sunt” isn’t as important. Unless it means “there are” (I love starting a sentence with sunt)
You can put it wherever you please, no matter what word or type of word it is 
edit: well, almost any word…