Draft of Adler's Exercises: HELP!!!

Latin Learning Latin
1

Salvete,

at long last I was able to create a draft version of the Exercises contained in Adler’s Practical Grammar of the Latin Language. It contains all changes and additions (especially the translations missing in Adler’s Key) made by me. This is not the final version. So please do not bring it into circulation.

The purpose of this version is that you (yes YOU!!!) can have a look at the changes applied by me and give me feedback.

PLEASE HELP!!!

I do not normally “shout” like this, but I firmly believe that these Exercises are extremely valuable for learning Latin, especially as far as the oral part is concerned. I really count on YOU.

The draft can be downloaded from my homepage using this link (zipped html-file, zip-file has 220 kb, will be deleted mid-November).

I will create and upload the final version (probably several versions) and the plain text input file once I have sufficient feedback.

Valete,

Carolus Raeticus

2

Of course, I may be wrong.

Neque recte loqueris > nece > erras, sed puer tuus bonus errat.

neque or nec



Habeone > aliquantulum salis boni?

Habesne


How many coats has the young man of our neighbors?

This is really weird. Could the coats, rather than the young man, belong to the neighbors?

ADDED: Estne mihi adhuc aliquantulum pecuniae (> Habeone > aliquantulum pecuniae reliquum)?

Habesne

Quantum pecuniae tibi dedit consobrinus > meuus> ?

meus

Estne amicus noster > Novo Eboraco> ?

Novi Eboraci

In > conclavi > est, ubi (or in quo) tu fuisti.

conclave

Vos mihi minus (minorem pecuniam) > debeti> , quam illi.

debetis

Estne jam diu, quum amici mei filius > domae > tuae habitat (or Habitatne amici mei filius jam longum > domae > tuae)?

domi

Utrumque > factum est> .

fecit ?

3

Salve bedwere!

“Neque recte loqueris nece erras, sed puer tuus bonus errat.”
Of course, neque or nec is correct. Changed that.

“Habeone aliquantulum salis boni?”
Why Habesne? The English sentence says “Have I any good salt?”

“How many coats has the young man of our neighbors?”
“This is really weird. Could the coats, rather than the young man, belong to the neighbors?” I do not think so, because the answer to the question is “The young man of our neighbors has only one good coat, but that of your friend has three of them.”

ADDED: “Estne mihi adhuc aliquantulum pecuniae (Habeone aliquantulum pecuniae reliquum)?”
Why Habesne? The question says “Have I a little more money?”

“Quantum pecuniae tibi dedit consobrinus meuus?”
Thank you. I changed meuus to meus.

“Estne amicus noster Novo Eboraco?”
Actually, Adler insists on “Novo Eboraco” instead of Novi Eboraci, because this is an instance when the name of a city has an adjective or an appositum connected with it (never heard of this rule myself). On page 309 of the Practical Grammar he says in a footnote:

“In conclavi est, ubi (or in quo) tu fuisti.”
As far as I know Latin neuter nouns ending on -e form the ablative on -i. Therefore “conclavi” instead of conclave. Am I wrong?

“Vos mihi minus (minorem pecuniam) debeti, quam illi.”
Yes, of course debetis. Changed that as well.

“Estne jam diu, quum amici mei filius domae tuae habitat (or Habitatne amici mei filius jam longum domae tuae)?”
Missed changing “domae” to domi. Changed now.

“Utrumque factum est.”
Translating it by fecit is indeed more literal, but as far as I can see Adler deliberately chose not to translate literally and instead shift to the passive. Is that perhaps more Latin?

Thank you for your valuable help.

I updated the draft to reflect the 4 changes to create this new version. What about the things I did not change. Am I right or wrong in keeping these unchanged?

Carolus Raeticus

4

OK with habeone, conclavi, Novo Eboraco, etc. If anything else jumps to my eyes, I’ll post it here.

Vale

5

Salvete,

first of all “Sorry!” for uploading the previous versions of the draft. I should have the read the red entries more. I added these (and the respective footnotes) as a final push towards finishing this transcription project. This project is a few years in the making and I am very eager to see it finished (and done with). I translated, wrote the conversion script for generating the html-draft and proofread (obviously not diligently enough) the passages you see in red last weekend.

But, on the positive side: I have today proofread it thoroughly, got rid of everything that I do not think should be there and uploaded a new draft. To make this draft easier (and quicker) for you to check, I colored the normal text white so that only those passages are visible (in red) which need to be checked. The other text is still there and can be viewed by marking it using the mouse.

Please have a look at it and give me feedback, especially concerning

  • the added sentences
  • a few question posed in the notes.

Should you think that these red passages are okay, then please say so. I believe that this set of exercises is very useful to learn Latin (especially the question/answer bit). So please help (and ignore my previous blunder).

Valete,

Carolus Raeticus.

6

ADDED: Taeniam tuam pulchram habeo (Taenia tua pulchra mihi est).
—OK, but this would ordinarily mean “I think your new ribbon’s beautiful.”
Similarly with Lignum tuum bonum habeo.

Has he my umbrella or my stick? Utrum ei est umbraculum meum an baculum meum?
—Of course this could also be e.g. Habetne meum imbr. aut m. b.?

Am I right or wrong? ADDED: Utrum recte loquor an erro?
—OK

You are neither right nor wrong, but your good boy is wrong. ADDED: Neque recte loqueris neque erras, sed puer tuus bonus errat.
—Add tu? (Weird sentence!)

Has your tailor my good buttons? Tenetne sartor tuus orbiculos fibulatorios meos bonos?
—OK

Has your friend my large letters or those of the Germans? Utrum amicus tuus epistolas meas longas habet an illas Germanorum?
He has neither the one nor the other (neque has neque illas, or neque illas neque alteras). Non habet neque has neque illas (neque illas neque alteras or neque unas neque alteras).
CHANGED: added the two Latin constructions suggested in the English text of the Exercises to the one given in the Key (“neque unas neque alteras”).
—In previous sentence, “long” for “large”? “Large letters” wd be litterae magnae.
—Or Neque has neque illas habet. Or alteras … alteras.

Has any one the tall tailor’s gold buttons? Tenetne aliquis (Num quis tenet) orbiculos fibulatorios aureos sartoris proceri?
—Looked over to here. Selectively after this. I’ve skipped through a bit more than a third of it all, could well have missed things.

Those Englishmen have some. Angli habent aliquas.
—Illi angli
—Or nonnullas. or Nonnullae sunt illis anglis.

Have you a good letter? Habesne unam epistolam bonam?
CHANGED: “epistolam” → “epistolam bonam”.
I have a good letter and a good book. Unam epistolam bonam et unum librum bonum habeo.
CHANGED: “epistolam” → “epistolam bonam” and “librum” → “librum bonum”.
—Delete unam and unum? That would mean just one, a single one.
—Habeo better placed after epist.bonam?

He has some. ADDED: Sunt ei aliquot (nonnullae).
—aliquae corresponds better? (aliquot “several”?) but nonnullae better?

Does he give you hats? ADDED: Datne vobis pileos?
He does not give us any. ADDED: Nobis non dat.
—Nullos dat nobis?

Has your friend a mind to write as many letters as I? Cupidusne est amicus tuus tot epistolarum scribendi quot ego?
CHECK: “Cupidusne…epistolarum scribendi” is not a mistake but a not unfrequent violation of the general rule. Compare Lesson 25 F.
—But epistolas ok too.

I am able to drink as much as he; but our friend the Russian is able to drink more than both of us (uterque nostrum). Tantum bibere possum; amicus autem noster Russus plus quam uterque nostrum bibere (potare) potest.
—Add ego quantum ille to first sent.

He has nothing to do. ADDED: Non est ei quidquam faciendum (Nihil faciendum habet).
—or Nihil est ei faciendum

When dost thou receive thy letters? Quo tempore tu epistolas tuas accipis? CHANGED: “litteras” → “epistolas” to avoid confusion when “litteras” is used without a distributive numeral.
—Nothing wrong with litteras.

Hope this helps,
Michael

7

Thank you, Michael!

ADDED: Taeniam tuam pulchram habeo (Taenia tua pulchra mihi est).
—OK, but this would ordinarily mean “I think your new ribbon’s beautiful.” CR: Changed to “(Mihi est taenia tua pulchra)”
Similarly with Lignum tuum bonum habeo.

You are neither right nor wrong, but your good boy is wrong. ADDED: Neque recte loqueris neque erras, sed puer tuus bonus errat. CR: Changed to “Tu neque recte…”
—Add tu? (Weird sentence!)

Has your friend my large letters or those of the Germans? Utrum amicus tuus epistolas meas longas habet an illas Germanorum?
He has neither the one nor the other (neque has neque illas, or neque illas neque alteras). Non habet neque has neque illas (neque illas neque alteras or neque unas neque alteras).
CHANGED: added the two Latin constructions suggested in the English text of the Exercises to the one given in the Key (“neque unas neque alteras”).
—In previous sentence, “long” for “large”? “Large letters” wd be litterae magnae. CR: Changed “epistolas meas longas” to “…magnas” (to match the opposite #parvas# later on.
—Or Neque has neque illas habet. Or alteras … alteras. CR: left it as it because the translation looks complicated enough as it is.

Those Englishmen have some. Angli habent aliquas.
—Illi angli. CR: Changed “Angli” to “Illi Angli”
—Or nonnullas. or Nonnullae sunt illis anglis. CR: Left the construction as such as it is because Adler chose it (I am not “improving”).

Have you a good letter? Habesne unam epistolam bonam?
CHANGED: “epistolam” → “epistolam bonam”.
I have a good letter and a good book. Unam epistolam bonam et unum librum bonum habeo.
CHANGED: “epistolam” → “epistolam bonam” and “librum” → “librum bonum”.
—Delete unam and unum? That would mean just one, a single one. CR: Left these as they stand because Adler deliberately translates “a” as if “one”. In this case, it was certainly meant this way because Adler introduces the cardinal numbers in this Lesson.
—Habeo better placed after epist.bonam?

He has some. ADDED: Sunt ei aliquot (nonnullae).
—aliquae corresponds better? (aliquot “several”?) but nonnullae better? CR: Changed “(nonnullae)” to “(aliquae, nonnullae)”

Does he give you hats? ADDED: Datne vobis pileos?
He does not give us any. ADDED: Nobis non dat.
—Nullos dat nobis? CR: Changed “Nobis non dat.” to “Nullos dat nobis.”

I am able to drink as much as he; but our friend the Russian is able to drink more than both of us (uterque nostrum). Tantum bibere possum; amicus autem noster Russus plus quam uterque nostrum bibere (potare) potest.
—Add ego quantum ille to first sent. CR: added the “quantum ille” variant in a footnote.

He has nothing to do. ADDED: Non est ei quidquam faciendum (Nihil faciendum habet).
—or Nihil est ei faciendum CR: Change “(Nihil faciendum habet)” to "(Nihil faciendum habet or Nihil est ei faciendum

When dost thou receive thy letters? Quo tempore tu epistolas tuas accipis? CHANGED: “litteras” → “epistolas” to avoid confusion when “litteras” is used without a distributive numeral.
—Nothing wrong with litteras. CR: I kept all the changes of “litterae” → “epistolae” (etc.) because all sources indicate that the basic meaning of plural “litterae” is a single letter unless accompanied by a cardinal number. As these Exercises are geared towards beginners…

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus

8

Salvete!

Thanks to the help from Textkit-users bedwere and mwh I have finalized the draft version of the Exercises in Adler’s Practical Grammar of the Latin Language. I have uploaded for perusal the complete draft. But I also created an excerpt containing only the translations added by me. I believe that they are fine, but a last check would not hurt. By trimming the complete version there are only a few screens worth of text in this version.

I intend to create the final version using these translations added by me (with a few alterations thanks to the input I got here).

Valete,

Carolus Raeticus