Hello again,
Until now, I haven’ found a grammar book that teaches how to communicate in everyday life. Don’t you agree that it’d be cool to at least know the basics of communication? If you do, how do you say:
Hello
Good morning/evening
How are you?
What’s new?
Goodbye!
There is more, I know, but I’m afraid to break the rules here. 
Maybe we could set up a new section for communicational grammar, eh?
Thanks for your help.
Maybe you should look for a book/audio CD set called (I think) Teach Yourself Beginners Latin. I don’t know anything about it, but I’m pretty sure that’s the one I’ve seen in the bookstores that says its goal is “everyday communication” and it offers “words and phrases for everyday situations.” I always thought that was kind of funny. Maybe someone here knows if it’s any good (and if I have the right title).
Lingua Latina is even better.
A few specific answers:
Hello: Salue!
Good morning: Bonum diem!
Good evening: Bonum uesperum!
How are you/what’s new? Quid agis?
Goodbye! Vale!
salue Amadee (I do wonder if that is the vocative of Amadeus…)
In addition to Luke’s excellent suggestions, you might say:
Hello: aue / auete
What’s new: quid noui?
I’ve seen this title by Traupman several times, but I haven’t read it. It might be good:
http://www.bolchazy.com/prod.php?cat=latin&id=438X
Cura ut ualeas! 
Hey, thanks for the suggestions. I especially like the descriptions of this last one (Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency). Now, I just need the money. 
Valete!
Post Data: So “good morning” is in accusative, eh? Bonum diem?
Post Post Data: And there’s no written “V” in latin? Huh!
I’m curious if anyone actually used these (I have no idea).
Hi. Yes, it is the accusative, since there’s an implied: tibi opto. (I wish you a) good morning.
Salue, amans.
I believe that “Amadi_” or “Amadiue” should be the appropriate vocative of “Amadeus” – I’ve had to think about it before since it is my real middle name. “Diue” would naturally come from “diuus,” the much older form of the word that became “deus.”
Iterum salue, Amadiue.
As for my usage of “V” and “u”, Latin neither contained the sound nor the letter ‘v’ as we know it in most modern languages. The sound and letter that became ‘v’ in later languages was in Latin merely ‘u’ or ‘w’, always written “u”. The present and outdated convention of writing ‘v’ and ‘j’ to indicate consonantal ‘u’ and ‘i’, respectively, is often very confused (such as in Wheelock, and most modern texts), for ‘v’ is written, and meant to mean ‘w’ or ‘u’, while ‘j’ is not. This grave inconsistancy breeds naught but confusion. Nor did the Romans write a letter ‘v’, certainly not by hand; most always, if you see ancient papyri, the letter in question will always resemble, even identically, this ‘u’, often with a little tail (especially by the late Empire). However, I write the majuscule “V”, for a couple reasons: the primary reason is aesthetic; the shape is strong and universal in monumental inscriptions, whose letters we naturally associate with contemporary majuscule.
Thus for the word “University,” I would write: “Vniuersitas” For “The United States of America,” I write “Vniti Status Americae.” This “V/u” convention has achieved great popularity in modern Latinist circles, and I by far find it the clearest and most lovely.
Tibi ut semper plurimam dico salutem, care Benissime.
The usage of “bonum diem,” among others, may be a more modern convention, or just a logical assumption, among contemporary Latinists. I can’t say I’ve actually witnessed it in any classical texts; then again, my acquaintance with Latin literature remains excessively poor at this time.
Vobis omnibus saluere iubeo atque ualere ac praecipue Q.B.F.F.F.Q.S._
Hmmmm… Does this mean that Salve, Vale, Ave, Vos, etc… should be written and pronounced Salúe (or Salwe), Uale, Aue, Uos? Boy is latin confusing! 
quid 
The vocative for deus is deus, right? So why wouldn’t the vocative for Amadeus be the same as the nominative?
Amad[eus/i/ii/ive], you can write latin as the Romans did (ie. as Lucus does. V, u (Amadeus bene uiuit). some use only 'v’s (Amadevs bene vivit), but I haven’t come across this too often.. at least with words that aren’t carved in stone. 
) or the old way ( as Lucus does not.. with 'v’s and 'j’s ( Amadeus uxore ejus videtur), but you should pronounce it the same with either spelling. Spell it how thou wilt, but speak it proper. Not using 'v’s or 'j’s would make more sense, but you should learn to recognize Latin when those letters are used, anyway. In music, especially old publishings, the older way of spelling is used alot. (not so much the 'j’s, though… it does look a bit ugly, in my opinion). Although, when singing ecclesiastical music, 'v’s are sometimes pronounced as in ‘violent’, they should be pronounced as in ‘wall’ if not told by your director otherwise..(if you’re not in choir, then you have no excuse. )
Vale semper amice
doesnt the 2nd declension -us have vocative in -e, Deudeditus?
I’m not sure about that. I’ve read in several grammars that the vocative for deus does not exist in classical latin (at least in the singular). I’ve heard arguments for dee (following the 2nd declension paradigm) and deus (what the Vulgate uses), but I’m not sure if either is considered to be classical latin.
I think I’m going to stick with what I’ve already learned, i.e., using Vs and pronouncing v as in violent. Also, to start praying Awe Maria sounds a little weird 
“QBFFFQS” stands for “Quod Bonum Felix Faustum Fortunatumque Sit,” meaning " _What is good, happy, lucky, and fortunate." I just learned recently myself this abbreviation and I was eager to use it.
The usage of “Deus” as the vocative seems to be a much later event in early ecclesiastical Latin. Logically, the vocative of “deus” should be “dee,” as in “O Meliboee,” or perhaps simply “di,” as in “o mi amice.” Apparently the exclamation “o dii!” or “o di!” in classical Latin was always inherently plural in nature. Nevertheless, I find it odd that there should be no vocative form attested somewhere, where a hero actually speaks with a god (certainly happens enough with the goddesses). My Latin to Italian dictionary presents “diue” as the rare but apparently used vocative form of “deus,” based off the alternate forms “dius” from “diuus.”
Salue, Amadi,
If you have learned that Latin 'v’s must be pronounced as English 'v’s, then you will have to pronounce every consonantal ‘i’ (that is, ‘j’) as an English ‘j’. For example, “maior” means “bigger” in Latin, and the post-classical spelling is seen sometimes as “major” (this is the j/v addition Jon and I’ve been talking about). Frequently this ‘j’ is pronounced as the English ‘y’ in “yes.” Which is the correct, classical pronunciation (the ‘j’ is of course superfluous). However, the end-of-the-Empire-Rome-on-fire pronounciation, and thus in the later Romance languages, pronounced this ‘j’ as the English ‘j’, like in “jet.” That’s why we have the English word “major.”
There are only two conceivable reasons for writing 'v’s and 'j’s in Latin: I. The author of the text wishes to remind the reader of the spellings and thus the pronunciations of cognate words in Latin as they came down to our modern languages, but he means to pronounce the actual Latin in the true classical manner (v = consonantal ‘u’, j = consonantal ‘i’). II. The author actually pronounces the 'v’s and 'j’s as English 'v’s and 'j’s, which historically, at least, has some merit.
But ‘j’ and ‘v’ go as a pair. It can’t be one or the other. Writing ‘v’ but not writing ‘j’ makes absolutely, entirely no sense. Moreover, actually pronouncing ‘v’ but not pronouncing ‘j’ where they might fall is an even worse crime, one of complete, willful ignorance.
As for saluting the Madonna “Aue Maria,” you may find the Holy Mother more receptive; after all, that would have been the Latin of her acquaintance.
I understand, though, your reaction: first, reading ‘v’ but saying ‘w’ is very weird. It took me at least a year to really get used to the idea, and the same for ‘c’ and ‘g’ always hard like ‘k’ and ‘g’ as in “get” respectively. But I was convinced by the Roman authors who explained themselves rather clearly on the subject. And now that I’m much better educated in the language, I elate to truly know the sonority of the language of Cicero and Virgil, of Catullus and Horace. Sina qua, it would be impossible to really appreciate the work. I also find my mind especially at ease now that I write ‘u’, as the Romans. To ease the transition and retain the sanity, I recommend you do so compulsively – after all, there was no written ‘v’ distinct from ‘u’ until well into the Rennaissance. Before that, it was always ‘u’. I find it very rewarding.
This may be helpful:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521379369/203-0542146-9782343_
Lucus – I can’t believe you would say such a thing about Lingua Latina!
Actually, I don’t disagree with you, but it is so common to find books that use both u and v, but not j, (Wheelock, Lingua Latina, Cassell’s, etc. and even most online resources) that I can see why so many students of the language stick with that convention.
Always, though, even in Catholic high school 20 years ago, I have been taught that the pronounciation of the ‘v’ is like our w. (Though my father, who once studied in the seminary, would always laugh at that and insist that there was no way Caesar ever said “weni, widi, wici.” Apparently he thought that sounded too wimpy.)
Well, Ørberg, I believe, since he clearly puts forth the classical pronunciation in his CDs, or so I’ve heard, seems merely to be following convention in order not to confuse people. Just look at poor Amadeus after just one thread!
As for “ueni, uidi, uici,” I agree that it sounds very strange to the ear, and my father, and I too, used to make fun of the 'w’s and 'k’s. But this mainly comes from employing the English, impure vowels. If you apply the true and pure Latin vowels, the result will be much easier to appreciate.
Well, right now I’m using textbooksboth in Spanish and English. The one in English (Collar and Daniell) presents no problems; but the Spanish one, gives the ecclesiastical pronounciation. When it comes to “j”, the latter says: «La j no tiene el sonido gutural de la j castellana, sino el de la doble ii, o semejante a la y»
Let me explain: «La j no tiene el sonido gutural de la j castellana…» In Spanish (or Castillian), the “j” has the sound of the English “h” (as in Horatio, but much harder). So my text is saying that the latin “j” is different, it sounds more like the Spanish “ii” (in English, I guess, it would be “ee”) OR similar to “y”, which would be equal to your English “y”. Makes sense?
Bottom line, it seems that I can have my cake and eat it too, i.e., use v instead of u, and pronounce the latin “major” with y. Ah, it feels good! 
Valete! (or Ualete!)
There are only two conceivable reasons for writing 'v’s and 'j’s in Latin: I. The author of the text wishes to remind the reader of the spellings and thus the pronunciations of cognate words in Latin as they came down to our modern languages, but he means to pronounce the actual Latin in the true classical manner (v = consonantal ‘u’, j = consonantal ‘i’). II. The author actually pronounces the 'v’s and 'j’s as English 'v’s and 'j’s, which historically, at least, has some merit.
Couldn’t we append a third reason to these two, which, if not meritorious, is at least conceivable:
III. The author wishes to indicate when i and u are being used as vowels and when they are being used as consonants.
Especially for beginning students, pronouncing certain words can be quite difficult without this distinction. What does one do with eiecerunt on first sight?
-David