Creta est insula antiqua quae aqua alta magni mari pulsatur.
And:
Eum Minos rex benignis verbis accepit et ei domicilium in Creta dedit.
And when translating a noun with at least two adjectives, is the following incorrect:
Original sentence: And (he) made many famous works for the king.
My translation: Et regi multa opera clara faciebat.
But the answer key reads: Et regi multa et clara opera faciebat.
So do I need to list out the adjectives when translating English to Latin with et and et and et, etc. Or would my translation be considered correct as well?
I think practice varies. I have looked at Latin Word Order Structured Meaning and Information A. M. Devine and Laurence D. Stephens OUP 2006. There are many examples given which seem to cover all possibilities. Another example where practice varies amongst authors. Note I haven’t studied this material in depth and I am just quoting it because it shows the variety of practice. The main difference seems to be one of emphasis.
In Cicero it is observed that “stacking” adjectives (ie combining them with asyndeton) " is easily licensed with intersective (nonscalar) adjectives (*multi et Romani) and/or when the adjective-noun combination is a fixed expression (boni viri, clari viri)."
multos formosos homines (Verr 2.1.91)
in multis veteribus legibus (Verr 2.1.143)
multas privatas causas (Brut 246)
multa religiosa iura (De Leg 2.57)
multos fertiles agros (De Nat Deor 2.131).
"When multi occurs with another scalar modifier in the same phrase, the adjectives are usually not stacked but (as in the pair of examples just cited) conjoined in parallel (as they are in predicate position). This is regular with the measure adjective magnus
multa et magna studia et officia (Pro Flacc 52)
multarum et magnarum voluptatum (De Fin 2.55)
multis et magnis indiciis (Ad Art 4.15.10)
multis magnisque rebus (Phil 3.26). "
"Multi also conjoins with adjectives of evaluation and other scalar modifiers.
Multi et graves dolores (Verr 2.5.119)
multos et crudelis tyrannos (Verr 2.5.145)
e multis splendidisque familiis (Pro Rosc Am 133)
multis et firmis praesidiis (Pro Font 44)
ex multis variisque sermonibus (De Orat 2.3)
multae et adsiduae lacrimae (Ad Fam 4.7.6)
multis et veteribus causis necessitudinis (Ad Fam 13.49.1)."
I won’t go on listing all the possibilities as you can find the book if you are interested in pursing this.
I guess the real difference is one of emphasis. The conjoined adjectives I think mean that the works are (equally) many and famous. Your version is that there are many works (that are) famous. The emphasis is that the works are many and that they are famous. Why did you put clara after opera? What was your intended emphasis?
I have only just read this material and so take what I say with a pinch of salt. Perhaps someone with more experience of this will put us right?
E. C.Woodcock, A new Latin Syntax, (1959) Bristol Classical Press 1996 says p. 26 "The ablative..answer[s] the questions: (1) Whence? (2) By what means? Under what circumstances? (3) Where? or When? I think it’s important to bear this in mind when thinking about the uses.
alta magni mari pulsatur
Ablative of means or instrument (without a preposition)?
Eum Minos rex benignis verbis accepit
The Ablative of Attendant Circumstances? Edit more likely Ablative of manner
Terminology varies and I have used Woodcock because that’s what I was looking at for another reason. I recommend it to you. I have already given my views on taxonomy.
Eum Minos rex > benignis verbis > accepit et ei domicilium in Creta dedit.
Ablative of manner. Now, be aware that there are many uses of the ablative, and sometimes you see usages which could be read in more than one way, or don’t seem to fit the beginning grammar categories. Just remember that the ablative in such contexts is adverbial, and work on the meaning rather than the category.
And when translating a noun with at least two adjectives, is the following incorrect:
Original sentence: And (he) made many famous works for the king.
My translation: Et regi multa opera clara faciebat.
But the answer key reads: Et regi multa et clara opera faciebat.
So do I need to list out the adjectives when translating English to Latin with > et > and > et > and > et> , etc. Or would my translation be considered correct as well?
To paraphrase Seneca’s comments, it depends… But multus is regularly followed by et when combined with another adjective, “many good men” multī et bonī… I wouldn’t say your translation is wrong, simply that it’s not the default way of doing it in prose. From your perspective as a beginner, just be aware of the range of possibilities in how an expression may occur, and as you gain competency in the language, you’ll begin to see the types of nuances communicated by the variations.
But multus is regularly followed by et when combined with another adjective, “many good men” multī et bonī… I wouldn’t say your translation is wrong, simply that it’s not the default way of doing it in prose. From your perspective as a beginner, just be aware of the range of possibilities in how an expression may occur, and as you gain competency in the language, you’ll begin to see the types of nuances communicated by the variations.