Aemilius avunculus vester est, id est frāter mātris.
Aemilius is your uncle who (qui?) is your mother’s brother.
At first I thought it was a typo for “is” . . . he is your mother’s brother, but that’s probably not the case.
. . . gladius eius brevis et levis est - brevior et levior quam is qui ab equite fertur.
Don’t know what to make of the “is”. I take it to mean: . . . shorter and lighter than that carried by the riders.
In Hispāniā et Galliā nōn multi sunt militēs Rōmānī, nam Hispanī et Gallī, qui eās provinciās incolunt, iam exercitibus nostrīs parent.
Again, no idea what the function of “eās” is in this context, but possibly another demonstrative adverb meaning . . . who inhabit those provinces.
Inter duās portās est via lāta, quae castra in duās partēs dīvidit; ea via centum pedēs lāta est.
Looking in C.E. Bennett’s New Latin Grammar I came across “demonstrative adverbs” (Para.140). Is “ea” a demonstrative adverb, meaning “that”?
Lesson 12 in F.R. and Student’s Manual don’t seem to elaborate on this - unless I overlooked it. Sorry if I’m barking up a completely wrong tree.
id est, just i.e. in English (which is where we get it!), “that is…”
. . . gladius eius brevis et levis est - brevior et levior quam > is > qui ab equite fertur.
Don’t know what to make of the “is”. I take it to mean: . . . shorter and lighter than that carried by the riders.
is is the pronoun referring to the sword carried by the horseman, “short and lighter than the one which is carried by the rider…”
In Hispāniā et Galliā nōn multi sunt militēs Rōmānī, nam Hispanī et Gallī, qui > eās > provinciās incolunt, iam exercitibus nostrīs parent.
Again, no idea what the function of “eās” is in this context, but possibly another demonstrative adverb meaning . . . who inhabit those provinces.
is, ea, id may not only be used as the third person pronoun, but also as a demonstrative meaning either “this” or “that” (whichever sounds better in context), “who inhabit those provinces…”
Inter duās portās est via lāta, quae castra in duās partēs dīvidit; > ea > via centum pedēs lāta est.
Looking in C.E. Bennett’s New Latin Grammar I came across “demonstrative adverbs” (Para.140). Is “ea” a demonstrative adverb, meaning “that”?
Again, “this/that road.”
Lesson 12 in F.R. and Student’s Manual don’t seem to elaborate on this - unless I overlooked it. Sorry if I’m barking up a completely wrong tree.
So when is, ea, id is used without modifying a substantive, it’s the third person pronoun. When it modifies a substantive, it’s being used as a demonstrative adjective.
Barry - As ever, many thanks for your rapid response and making it all crystal clear. Next the Pensa and Extra Exercises all of which I can check against the Teacher’s Manual.
Thanks Shenoute. - Have had a look at Lesson 8 and the 11 A4 pages of my handwritten notes and exercises. Feeling quite deflated since next to nothing seems to have stuck in my memory. Obviously I’ll have to proceed much more slowly than hitherto, spending more time on revision. Maybe not such a clever idea for an adult to try and tackle Latin on one’s own.
Here is a talk on Orberg by N. Llewellyn and some of its virtues/defects and the mindset to approach it. If I remember well, she specifically mentions chapter 8 as being far too content heavy, so don’t beat yourself up if you need to reread it several times!
On a more general note, I sometimes see people recommanding Orberg’s LLPSI by saying things like “it’s all in Latin and easy, just read!” but I think this type of comments is very misleading. “Just reading” Familia Romana won’t do. It has to be read in and out, figuring things from the hints in the margins, from the pictures, from the constant repetition, etc. It is a lot of work. A very different kind of work than what a book like Wheelock expects (and more efficient/enjoyable in the end, I think) but it is still a lot of work.
In this kind of work, I think rereading a lot is essential. I’ve seen people mentioning various ways they did that: like going on until it’s too hard and then start reading from chap. 1 again, or reread the last couple of chapters every day/week, etc. It seems everybody has to find something that works for himself.
One thing N. Llewellyn mentions (again, if I remember well) is that, contrary to other textbooks which highlight content they want you to learn with charts, colors, etc., Orberg doesn’t really have that because everything is embedded into the text: the way the story is told is the content. Because of that, it cannot (and should not) be skimmed through for content, repeated contact with the text is necessary.
Fascinating lecture by a great communicator. Yes, she did mention Chapter 8. At one point she said something like "They’ll put “She Assumed . . . " on my tomb stone”. That was my problem with Chapter 8. Because I (mistakenly) assumed I had understood everything I didn’t bother reading Chapter 8 of the Student’s Manual which explains interrogative and demonstrative pronouns/adjectives in English, something Nancy Ll. would presumably not approve of. But it took Barry’s explanation, in English, that when is, ea, id are used to modify a substantive they are used as demonstrative adjectives, that I realised where I had gone wrong. fēlix culpa?
Maybe
I remember Llewellyn mentioning that once students get hold of the English companion to LLPSI they have a tendency to rely too much on it and don’t interact enough wih the base text anymore. While, contrary to some LLPSI fanatics, I have nothing against relying on English explanations from time to time, I think there is a real danger/possibility of becoming too dependent on them.
The main text is designed to give the reader both understanding and practice. On the other hand, reading explanations in English will provide understanding but no practice at all. That’s why they can be some sort of last resource in case repeated interaction with the main text has failed to produce understanding but having read and understood the explanations should not be taken for a substitute to reading practice. In my opinion, anything that limits the time spent on or in Latin itself should be kept to a minimum.
But that’s just my opinion, based on what worked (and didn’t work) for me. Everyone has to find his own routine. In the end, the proof is in the pudding (not sure I’m using this correctly ): if your routine leads you to be able to read Latin texts with ease and enjoyement, it won’t matter much whether you did it “correctly” according to others.
): if your routine leads you to be able to read Latin texts with ease and enjoyement, it won’t matter much whether you did it “correctly” according to others.