Can somebody please tell me if the following english to latin translations are correct:
-
From the middle of the sea
Ab media mare -
A brave soldier
Fortis militis -
Something bad
Aliquid mali -
More food
Plus cibi
- A brave soldier
Fortis militis
Fortis miles
militis is the genitive case. Oddly, I’ve made that exact mistake before.
Otherwise, your translations are, as far as I can see, perfect.
Other than the error in #2 there are problems with #1, the last two are very good though.
the preposition ab takes the ablative…
the ablative of mare is mari because it is a pure I-stem. Also, the agreeing adjective media should be in the neuter ablative (because mare is neuter), not the feminine.
Thanks for the help. What about these:
-
They ran to the high hilss
Cucurrit ad colles altes -
He had formed a plan for the journey
Consilium ceperat itineri -
Women are never eager for war
Feminae sum numquam avidae belli -
We shall come to long island
Veniemus ad longum insulam
-
You’ve written " he ran". “They ran” is cucurrerunt. Also, you’ve run into the trap of thinking that the endings must be the same rather than the case and gender. Collis is a masculine noun, and altus is a second declension adjective. So to the high hills is “ad colles altos”.
-
Sum needs to agree with feminae. feminae sunt
-
Longum needs to agree with insula. So it should take feminine accusative endings.
Thanks. What about these?
-
Labienus will be in command of the tenth legion.
Labienus praeerit legioni decimae -
Disaster threatens the smaller states.
Calamitati minatur civitates parviores -
That house is near the forest.
Illa domus sunt propinqua silvae -
I shall meet father.
Occuram patri
lol… yeh just keep the question piling…
-
Labienus will be in command of the tenth legion.
Labienus (i would use impero) imperabit (future not future perfect) legionis (legio, -onis, i think…
) decimae. -
Disaster threatens the smaller states.
Calamiti minores(comparative - parvus, minor) respublicas minatus. (i think… not too sure… well ask benissimus or skylax… both of them are very good…
) -
That house is near the forest.
Illa domus prope(ad. urs happen to be a verb) silvam sunt. -
I shall meet father.
patrem(acc. I will meet (object)) occuram.
This is correct.
- Disaster threatens the smaller states.
Calamitati minatur civitates parviores
As lau_kai pointed out, the comparative of parvus is minor, -oris. I suppose this sentence could be considered correct, but it literally says “it threatens the smaller states with disaster”. If you put calamitati into the nominative, it could be the subject of the deponent verb and match the English better. I think that minatur usually reserves the accusative case for the tool of threatening and puts the thing/person being threatened into the dative or ablative (though there are several constructions).
- That house is near the forest.
Illa domus sunt propinqua silvae
sunt is the plural, you need to use the singular est (there is only one house), otherwise this sentence is correct.
- I shall meet father.
Occuram patri
Keep both R’s in the stem occurr-.
All you said makes good sense, benissime carissime.
One could maybe add that MINARI means specifically “threaten with words”, thus, with CALAMITAS as the subject, the Latin would use for example IMMINEO with a dative (= IN + MANEO “remain upon”, like a stone on the point to tumble down a hill)
(By the way, if I remember well, you are not yet 20 and you have not learned Latin for more than 3 years, so, I can say, you are a born Latin teacher 
)
lol sorry I just want to make sure that my translations are right before having to write them up on the board in class. If continually posting these for people to check is a problem, just tell me and I’ll stop.
What about these?
\
-
Caesar and his men have fortified our camp.
Caesar et eius vivorum muniverunt nostrum castros -
He has given their books to us.
Dedit eorum libros eis -
He repaired the ship himself.
Refecit navem se -
The legion which he has with him is very brave
Legio quam habet cum eum fortissima
Caesar and his men have fortified our camp.
Caesar et eius vivorum muniverunt nostrum castrosHe has given their books to us.
Dedit eorum libros eisHe repaired the ship himself.
Refecit navem seThe legion which he has with him is very brave
Legio quam habet cum eum fortissima
I’d be inclined to use milites for men. It’s clearly meant in a military sense.
Caesar et milites muniverunt nostra castra.
Remember in Latin you should always drop pronouns and possessive adjectives if the sense renders them redundant.
Also castra is neuter plural and, here, in the accusative.
To us is nobis
OK
I think we can leave out cum eum.
Also, I’d add est.
Legio quam habet fortissima est.
How about:
-
Caesar and his men have fortified our camp.
Caesar et sui castra nostra muniverunt. -
He has given their books to us.
libros eorum nobis dedit -
He repaired the ship himself.
Ipse navem refecit -
The legion which he has with him is very brave
Legio suum fortissimum est
or
legio quod habat fortissimum est
Turp’s corrections are good, but in the third one you have to use the intensive pronoun ipse, not se (it is not the direct object of the sentence but the subject).
Kasper:
- Caesar and his men have fortified our camp.
Caesar et sui castra nostra muniverunt.
sua castra would be better than sui castra.
- The legion which he has with him is very brave
Legio suum fortissimum est
or
legio quod habat fortissimum est
legio is feminine. habere is second conjugation (habet)
Kasper:
Quote:
- Caesar and his men have fortified our camp.
Caesar et sui castra nostra muniverunt.sua castra would be better than sui castra.
Not unless Caesar was fortifying it with his woman. Sui is nominative plural male, his men.
legio is feminine. habere is second conjugation (habet)
Okay, mea culpa. I realise habere it second conjugation, but I thought the ‘in between’ part, “which he has” required a subjunctive.
Like: nemo dat quod non habat.
where ‘quod non habat’ takes the place of the accusative. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Sorry about the first one, for some reason I was thinking “his camp” 
. The subjunctive of habet would be habeat though. I don’t think a subjunctive would be right here, unless you were doing reported speech. A relative clause of characteristic only works in a general case, but here we are talking about a specific legion.
okay, fair enough. (habeat it will be then, if subjunctive would be used.)
legio quod habat fortissimum est
Legio is feminine, so qui has to agree with it. The feminine accusative is quam. Thus (including benissimus’ corrections): Legio quam habet fortissima est.
Well done to Kasper for writing finally the Latin in a good word order. Steven where were you son?
I would also be inclined to change position of esse because you are using a relative superlative (-est) not an absolute (very) here thus the romans would have required more emphasis in such a case. The legion which he has is strongest (stronger than all the others). A regular adjective would probably merit esse at the end in normal order, but again you might for emphasis find the copula at the end of the clause insufficient for such purposes. Remember 3 1 2 (3 - most emphasis, 1 least)
Legio tua, mi Quinte, valde sugit (Quintus your legion sucks quite a lot)
Minime! Fortissima est mea legio! (That that that’s bollocks! My legion is the STRONGEST of all! )
See the 3 emphasis (fortissima at the start) because you are contradicting a harsh insult.
Never write latin in english order this is an intolerable error as a true Roman or excellent latinist (which is not I!!) would extract many hidden innuendoes from such an unorthodox order that natives of other tongues would not notice.
-
They cannot keep us from the wall.
Non possunt nobis ab muro prohibent -
Those javelins were thrown with great force.
Illa pilum iactus est magna vie -
War deprived the wretched inhabitants of food.
Bellum privavit oppidum miserum de cibo -
There are many thousand men on the hill.
Multi mille viri sunt incolle
I’m a little confused about the last one. I don’t know whether I should use mille or milia, because the many makes me think that it’s plural, but it isn’t thousands, it’s thousand.