I think you have the right thoughts there. The only suggestions that I would make, and these may just be style, but also may help clarify some of the sense:
feminae ornamentis delectantur - women take delight in jewels (are delighted by jewels) [“jewelry” is fine, too.]
Quae nullam aut parvam pecuniam habent - who have no or little money
ornamenta aspiciunt tantum - only look at the jewelry
Also, I like the “go away” better than “stay away” translation for abeunt. We already have many men coming (adeunt). Of these, some are buying, others are going away. [It’s a nice pairing of adeunt and abeunt.] In any case, you understood the meaning.
I’m back with another couple of questions after taking a little hiatus from Lingua Latina. I haven’t stopped my study of Latin - au contraire. I decided to supplement Lingua Latina with The Cambridge Latin Course. I cruised through Unit 1 and I got through half of Unit 2 before picking up at Capitulum Vndecimum again. I actually re-read all the chapters in sequence in two sittings in a day with little struggle until now.
Capitulum Sextum Decimum - Tempestas
Italia inter duo maria interest, quorum alternum, quod supra Italiam situm est, ‘mare Superum’ sive ‘Hadriaticum’ appellatur, alterum, infra Italiam situm, ‘mare Inferum’ sive ‘Tuscum’.
The very first paragraph of the chapter is vexing! Why is ‘inter’ and ‘interest’ used in the first clause of the sentence? Both words mean “between”.
As I am writing this, I might be solving my own conundrum - perhaps I should translate into the following:
Italy is sandwiched between two seas… But it still bugs me… How else should I look at the verb “interest”? inter-esse - to be between? I would love to know how others “think” about these things…
Another problem I’m having with Latin is with the passive voice.
When a Latin sentance is contructed using the preposition ab/a I have no problem with the passive such as in the following sentence:
Saccus portantur a servo.
The Sack is being carried by the servant.
This is straight forward and simple enough. But in a sentance constucted in the following way without ab/a (by) I don’t translate it as passive in my mind:
Tum naves et nautae in mare merguntur.
Then the boat and the sailors plunged into the sea.
How is this passive?
Isn’t the following equivalent?
Tum naves et nautae in mare mergent.
I’ve noticed in a lot of the Neo Latin books of Children’s Classics such as Ferdinandus Taurus or Virent Ova! Viret Perna!! for example, they use alot of the passive forms of the verbs without ab/a.
So when ever ab/a is missing, I just translate the verb in my mind as if it was active. Is this wrong?
Maybe I need an English Lesson on Passive and Active Voice. I must admit English grammer was never a strong suit of mine. But Latin is certainly helping me to understand my own [native] language much better. I’ve been studying Latin since last May and every single day I am awed by how much of my native tongue was derived from Latin - it’s awesome!
It’s very common in Latin to use both a compound verb and a preposition (particularly the same preposition already in the compound) where in English we would expect either a compound verb or a verb followed by a preposition, but not both. Part of this is because English likes to form complex verbs by adding a preposition after the basic verb, instead of using a prefix the way Latin does, so that prepositional phrases and verbs mush together.
Thinking of analogous forms, you would have in Latin “expellere virum ex urbe” – “to expel the man from the city”, or “to drive (out) the man out of the city”. Even though the verb is compounded, you still have to use a preposition before “city” because it isn’t the object of the verb. You could say “pellere virum ex urbe”, I suppose, but Latin likes the extra emphasis. It seems unnatural in English, but if you see enough of it in Latin, I think you’ll find that the redundancy starts to seem elegant.
Tum naves et nautae in mare merguntur.
Then the boat and the sailors plunged into the sea.
How is this passive?
Isn’t the following equivalent?
Tum naves et nautae in mare mergent.
I think this is a case where the English verb (to plunge, immerse) can be used a bit differently than the Latin. I suspect the Latin verb is transitive – you have to use it with a direct object. So to be active you would expect: naves nautas in mare mergent (the ships plunged the sailors into the sea). In your sentence, the sailors aren’t causing the plunging, some unknown force or agent is. So they are “being plunged”, passive.
I’ve noticed in a lot of the Neo Latin books of Children’s Classics such as Ferdinandus Taurus or Virent Ova! Viret Perna!! for example, they use alot of the passive forms of the verbs without ab/a.
Not having examples, I don’t know exactly what you’re seeing, but there are several points worth mentioning:
Be careful not to confuse the ablative of agent (which is a person and requires a/ab) with the ablative of instrument or means (which is a thing by which something is brought about and does not use a preposition)
To use the previous example:
Naves et nautae a Iove [by Jupiter] in mare merguntur (abl. of agent)
Naves et nautae undiis [by means of waves] in mare merguntur (abl of means)
Passive periphrastics use a different construction (dative of a person) instead of the ablative of agent.
There are certain verbs which are deponent – they have passive forms but active meanings.
Sed cur sanguis de naso fluit Marco? Sanguis ei de naso fluit , quod Marcus a Sexto pulsatus est.
Is Marco dative or ablative? I want to say “of Marcus” but would not that call for the genitive? Eiis the dative but why? I don’t like moving on until I’ve got it.
Salve Lucus et Spiphany - thank you for your comments they really help!
For Spiphany, I have a few lines from the Children’s Classics in the Neolatin:
First from Ferdinandus Taurus
Mater Ferdinandi, quae erat vacca, interdum angebatur, verita ne solitarius sine amicis esset.
From Tres Mures Caeci
Statim Uxur cultrum acutissimum coruscans videtur!
From Virent Ova! Viret Perna!!
Dapsne mea respuetur,
Si sub tecto suggeretur?
and lastly from Arbor Alma
Defessus arboris in umbra meridiabatur.
Again, thank you for all of your assistance in helping me to progress in my Latin studies amid its many obsticles! You are all wonderful for taking the time to help me - it is greatly appreciated!
mrfranks, I think I see what you were getting at now. I thought you meant the sentences had some kind of noun functioning as an agent but not expressed with the usual construction.
Passive constructions don’t have to have an agent stated explicitly. Often, in fact, if you do have to mention an agent specifically, the sentence should be rewritten in the active, as it makes for stronger writing.
For example, something like “Liber a me legebatur” (“the book was read by me”) is much more direct if you put it as “Librum legebam” (“I read the book”)
But you can also say simply “Liber legebatur” if you wish to emphasize the act of being read rather than the person who did it, or if the agent is undefined. “Liber clarus saepe legebatur” (“the famous book was often read” - i.e., at many times by different people. The “who” isn’t important here, in fact, the point is that it isn’t someone specific.)
That may have been more of a grammatical explanation than you were looking for, but I hope it’s helpful.
Your instinct is correct. Dative is sometimes used for possession instead of the genitive, particularly when the object is being emphasized rather than the owner.
That may have been more of a grammatical explanation than you were looking for, but I hope it’s helpful.
Actually, truth be told, I need all the grammatical explaination I can get! I’m rather grammatically challenged - hence my need for so much explaination… Latin is teaching me more about grammer than any English teacher over the years could ever dream possible.
Spiphany has said it all. I just want to expand a wee bit for what it’s worth using some illustrative examples I found in Lingua Latina when I opened my copy purely by chance at page 154 (chapter entitled PARENTES, where the grammatical theme is really Future Tense).
As the Spiff points out, the passive is particularly suitable for sentences where the subject is not an issue. As in:
Mulier quae alienum infantem alit nutrix vocatur. (A woman who (breast-)feeds a baby belonging-to-another IS CALLED a (wet-)nurse)
Pueri parvuli qui nondum fari possunt infantes dicuntur. (Little boys who cannot yet speak ARE CALLED infants).
In these cases, we don’t care WHO calls the woman ‘nutrix’ or WHO calls the baby boys infants. People in general do so. So, no a/ab. Just as ‘geniuses are born, not bred’ – by whom is not the issue.
However, when the doer of the action IS of interest and is therefore included in the passive sentence, it becomes the ‘agent’ (BY WHOM something is/was/etc done), as opposed to the ‘subject’ (WHO does/did/etc something) in active sentences).
Neither ‘a’ nor ‘ab’ is in itself ‘passive’. They are not part of the (passive) verb at all but just happen to be used in some types of passive ‘constructions’ (verb + prep + agent). They introduce the agent when necessary. As per the following general rule:
a. When the agent is a person, use a/ab. As in:
Si mater infantem suum ipsa alere non potest sive non vult, infans ab alia muliere alitur. (If the mother herself cannot feed her baby or doesn’t want to, the infant is (breast-)fed by another woman).
Multi infantes Romani non a matribus suis, sed a nutricibus aluntur. (Many Roman babies are fed not BY THEIR MOTHERS but BY NURSES).
Anno post pater et mater ab infante suo appellabuntur. (Next year, they will be called ‘mater’ and ‘pater’ by their child). [See context]
b. When the agent is a thing (instrument), don’t use a/ab.
Initio pater eum sustinebit ac manu ducet, mox vero infans solus ambulare incipiet neque a parentibus sustinebitur neque manu ducetur. (In the beginning, the father will support him or lead him by the hand, soon however the child will start to walk on his own and will neither be supported by his parents nor be led by hand).
You might compare this case of ‘the missing preposition’ with other ablative expressions, eg nocte (by night), die (by day), magna voce (with a loud voice) as in:
Infans multas horas dormit non solum nocte, sed etiam die. (Baby sleeps many hours not only at night, but in the day-time too).
Infans qui cibo caret magna voce vagit. (The infant who lacks food bawls with a loud voice).
Verily, for a brain brought up on a plethora of prepositions, learning to live by endings alone is one of the harder tasks of the Latin vocation.
Some verbs in Latin have a passive form but an active meaning. Grammar reserves the dreaded name ‘Deponents’ for these. Loquor, loqui, locutus sum (=say, talk, tell) is a classic example.
Pueri parvuli qui nondum fari [for, fari, fatus sum] possunt infantes dicuntur. (Tiny tots who can’t SPEAK yet are called infants).
Simul infans plura verba discet et mox recte loqui sciet. (At the same time the child will learn many words and soon will know [how] to speak correctly).
Iulius adhuc in peristylo cum uxore colloquitur. (Julius IS still CHATTING with his wife in the colonnaded courtyard).
Maritus et uxor iam non de tempore praeterito colloquuntur, sed de tempore futuro. (Husband and wife ARE no longer CHATTING about past time, but about future time).
As a matter of interest, your example from Ferdinandus Taurus also seems to be a deponent verb:
In the Index Verborum at the back of the book ‘angor, angi’ (=feel distress, worry) is given in the passive form (i.e. just like a deponent). I find only the active form of the verb, ango, angere = choke, strangle, distress, tease, trouble, in my dictionary. So Ferdinand’s mum felt distress, worried (or was distressed, worried, etc).
Regarding the “reinforcement” of compound verbs with prepositions:
…atque ibi in proximis villis ita bipartito fuerunt, ut Tiberis inter eos et pons interesset (In Catilinam Oratio III.5).
(…And there, among the nearest houses, they were separated in such a way that the Tiber and the bridge were between them.)
This is an example of this syntactic feature at work in classical Latin. Interesset is singular, by the way, because it’s agreeing with the nearest of the two subjects–pons, though Tiberis is also between them.
I’ve been reading all the posts in this Forum on the topic of Classical or Medieval? A topic which has been quite amusing. I won’t weigh in here since my question is around why is it that (in my view) there are inconsistencies in pronunciation of vowels in the “Classical” pronunciation of Latin words?
I happen to have purchased the Audio CD from Focus Publishing for Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana which includes every single chapter of the book - it’s absolutely wonderful! As I mentioned earlier in this Topic, I have also supplemented my Lingua Latina study with the Cambridge Latin Course. And likewise, I have purchased the audio for all four volumes of that series.
Listening to someone read (LL) or act out (CLC) in the Latin lanuage really helps me with the auditory aspects of learning Latin. And it’s really cool to start to understand conversations. However, for me, much more difficult! I have to listen over and over again as my mind slowly is able to distingish words when spoken at “natural” or “colloquial” speed. It’s quite encouraging to see progress for a “middle-aged” dog like me…
Finally, back to my main reason for posting… I have noticed inconsistencies or what at least appear to be inconsistencies in pronunciation of the letter “u” or “V” capitalized.
Quick side-note #1: Why is the letter “u” changed to a “V” when capitalized?
Why is it that sometimes an un-marked (no macron) “u” is pronounced like “ooze” or “Zeus” and other times pronounced like “oh” or “most”?
There seems to be 3 distinct sounds that the letter “u” can have:
(1) uh like “duh” or “gutter”
(2) oh like “most” or “toast”
(3) ew like “dew” or “zoo”
The last one can be further divided by adding the french “u” which I can hear and say because of some french I took in high school and college. But for a native english speaker like myself, the French “u” seems to be a more “impassioned”, and of “shorter” duration, than the english form.
Anyway, I digress a bit - forgive me.
If the correct pronounciation of “Quintus” is Quin-tews why isn’t there a macron over the “u” - isn’t this a long “u”??? Also, why is the word “numerus” pronounced num-er-ohs instead of num-er-ews?
Another example is “reprehendimur”. I would exspect to pronounce this as re-pre-hen-di-mewr instead of re-pre-hen-di-more. Also, “tuus” correctly pronounced two-ohs, according to the LL audio.
My last example is less specific in terms of specific words… But I have noticed that many words which have the 1st person plural ending:-imus or -amus are pronounced ee-mohs or ah-mohs, respectively, while others are pronounced as I would expect: ee-mews or ah-mews. [I added this last paragraph after being reminded while listening to one of my Cambridge audio CDs during my evening commute home from work this evening.]
Quick side-note #2: Does anyone known whether Hans H. Orberg, himself is the person reading on the audio?
I triple-checked these on the audio files to make sure I was correctly reprepresenting these pronunciations on the LL Audio. I noticed similar pronunciations on the Cambridge Audio as well - although, I noticed some other inconsisencies between the LL and CLC audio on some words shared in common.
There are other examples as well, but I can’t think of them off the top of my head.
Let me end here by saying that I understand there are inconsistencies in pronunciation in all languages. It just seems to me that if macrons are used to mark long vowels so that “we” can properly pronounce classical Latin then why aren’t they used consistently. Also, are there other general rules of pronunciation that are not in the text books… that might apply in the cases above or others to provide a bit more predicability? I’m chuckling to myself here, as I know I asking some loaded questions.
Thank you all in advance as I always get great advice and explainations here from all you fine Latinists!
Warmest Regards,
Mark
PS: Is there a nice Latin version of “Warm Regards” that’s not just a litteral translation - something a Roman would have had actually said at the end of a letter to convey a “heart-felt” regard or respect for the person or people he was addressing?
Salve, Amice (adressing one person)… but the verb form requires the plural here, wouldn’t you agree?
I’ve been reading all the posts in this Forum on the topic of > Classical or Medieval? > A topic which has been quite amusing. I won’t weigh in here since my question is around why is it that (in my view) there are inconsistencies in pronunciation of vowels in the “Classical” pronunciation of Latin words?
Mainly: the native languages of those speakers. So someone from England who won’t (or can’t) adhere to a Classical pronunciation in an accurate manner will sound different than someone from Germany in the same situation, simply because each will use the sounds from his own native language.
English speakers are notorious for doing one of the things you describe below: reduction/neutralization of unstressed vowels.
I happen to have purchased the Audio CD from Focus Publishing for Lingua Latina Pars I - Familia Romana which includes every single chapter of the book - it’s absolutely wonderful! As I mentioned earlier in this Topic, I have also supplemented my Lingua Latina study with the Cambridge Latin Course. And likewise, I have purchased the audio for all four volumes of that series.
Listening to someone read (LL) or act out (CLC) in the Latin lanuage really helps me with the auditory aspects of learning Latin. And it’s really cool to start to understand conversations. However, for me, much more difficult! I have to listen over and over again as my mind slowly is able to distingish words when spoken at “natural” or “colloquial” speed. It’s quite encouraging to see progress for a “middle-aged” dog like me… >
Finally, back to my main reason for posting… I have noticed inconsistencies or what at least appear to be inconsistencies in pronunciation of the letter “u” or “V” capitalized.
Quick side-note #1: Why is the letter “u” changed to a “V” when capitalized?
I’ll leave that for Lucus to answer, but it has to do with the way the letters “u/v” looked like in ancient times.
Why is it that sometimes an un-marked (no macron) “u” is pronounced like “ooze” or “Zeus” and other times pronounced like “oh” or “most”?
Mmhh.. it should sound like /u/ in Spanish or Italian; that is, somewhat like “oo” in English “ooze”. A macron tells you that that vowel is long, and so is pronounced like its short counterpart, but held about twice as long. But the quality of it should be the same.
And “oh” as in "most? Goodness.. what are you listening to again?
There seems to be 3 distinct sounds that the letter “u” can have:
(1) > uh > like “duh” or “gutter”
(2) > oh > like “most” or “toast”
(3) > ew > like “dew” or “zoo”
Excuse me? Like I said, think of it this way: long Latin “u” (marked with macron in your text) is pronounced somewhat like “oo” in English “boo”; short Latin “u” (no macron) is pronounced the same way, but held about half as much as the long one.
This concept applies to the other vowels as well.
The last one can be further divided by adding the french “u” which I can hear and say because of some french I took in high school and college. But for a native english speaker like myself, the French “u” seems to be a more “impassioned”, and of “shorter” duration, than the english form.
The sound of French “u” is that used for “y” in Latin.
Anyway, I digress a bit - forgive me.
If the correct pronounciation of "> Quintus> " is Quin-tews why isn’t there a macron over the “u” - isn’t this a long “u”???
Don’t confuse quality, with quantity. Quantity here refers to the length of vowel: whether it is short or long. Quality refers to how it’s pronounced.
“Quintus” is pronounced something like /kwintoos/.
Also, why is the word "> numerus> " pronounced num-er-ohs instead of num-er-ews?
It’s pronounced roughly /noo-meh-roos/.
Another example is "> reprehendimur> ". I would exspect to pronounce this as re-pre-hen-di-mewr instead of re-pre-hen-di-more. Also, "> tuus> " correctly pronounced two-ohs, according to the LL audio.
Roughly /reh-preh-hen-dee-moor/.
Again, don’t reduce unstressed vowels to a schwa, pronounce them as full vowels.
My last example is less specific in terms of specific words… But I have noticed that many words which have the > 1st person plural ending: > > -imus > or > -amus > are pronounced ee-mohs or ah-mohs, respectively, while others are pronounced as I would expect: ee-mews or ah-mews.
They’re pronounced (again, roughly): /ee-moos/, /ah-moos/, never /ee-mus/ or /ee-mos/ or /ee-mohs/.
[I added this last paragraph after being reminded while listening to one of my Cambridge audio CDs during my evening commute home from work this evening.]
Quick side-note #2: Does anyone known whether Hans H. Orberg, himself is the person reading on the audio?
Luce, ubi es?
I triple-checked these on the audio files to make sure I was correctly reprepresenting these pronunciations on the LL Audio. I noticed similar pronunciations on the Cambridge Audio as well - although, I noticed some other inconsisencies between the LL and CLC audio on some words shared in common.
There are other examples as well, but I can’t think of them off the top of my head.
Let me end here by saying that I understand there are inconsistencies in pronunciation in all languages. It just seems to me that if macrons are used to mark long vowels so that “we” can properly pronounce classical Latin then why aren’t they used consistently. Also, are there other general rules of pronunciation that are not in the text books… that might apply in the cases above or others to provide a bit more predicability? I’m chuckling to myself here, as I know I asking some loaded questions.
Thank you all in advance as I always get great advice and explainations here from all you fine Latinists!
Warmest Regards,
Mark
And what you describe here regarding pronunciation is something English generally go through. Some don’t care and just keep pronouncing it like that, with scwhas, aspirated consonants and retroflex R’s (there are plenty of examples online).
If you’ve ever studied Spanish or Italian, keep those languages in mind.
And if you’re still having trouble, I’m sure I or other people on the boards can make a few recordings of the examples for you.
The V/u convention is merely aesthetic rather than historical. Essentially, there exsisted no letter ‘v’ (as in “very”) in Latin, but only letter ‘u’. Therefore eliminating even its suggestion is highly recommendable. Moreover, Roman “cursive” handwriting (which is often paired with our lowercase letters) would have this letter not simply in the form of a “V” but more frequently as “U” or “u,” with a little tail like ours, since it was easier to flow that way into the next letter.
However, we see in majuscule a universal use of “V” even into mediæval times, such as in monumental inscriptions. This is a strong, beautiful form. And I for one think it is worth præserving. Therefore, I write “Vbi” when it begins a sentence, as well as “Vranus,” but “uero” when it’s lowercase, et cetera.
Mark, I’m very confused by your problems with pronunciation. I’ll be happy to help, by means of Skype; feel free to email me or PM me and we can set a time to talk.
I commend you for your pursuit of Italian! I am indeed writing such a book for Italian based on Lingua Latina; we’ll see if it turns out well. Be wary of your Sicilian assistents; Sicilian is a completely different language than Italian, and the Sicilian accent is regarded as extremely low-class, unfortunately. Most modern Sicilians speak perfect standard Italian like everyone else, however, with a minimum of accent, but there is definitely a potential danger.
Salve Luce amice mi,
You have spent too much time with the “toscanacci”, I am sure you drink HoHa Hola instead of Coca Cola
I woulnd’t say that Sicilian accent is regarded extremely low-class, it could be also funny or aristocratic, it depends. Personally I like it, probably thanks to Camilleri’s Inspector Montalbano (did you try to read it?). I am also curious to know which Italian regional accents you prefer.
Anyway, it is true that most expats and not only from Sicily, especially those that left in the 50’60’ weren’t much educated and they could speak only in dialect (I should say: regional language"), so they might not be the best teachers you can find, but I don’t think it’s the case and you, mfranks, will be exposed to a native speaker, that is a big advantage.in learning any language.
Regards
Misopogon
Personally I like it, probably thanks to Camilleri’s Inspector Montalbano (did you try to read it?). I am also curious to know which Italian regional accents you prefer.
Putroppo non ho letto, no. Mi piacciono in genere tutti gli accenti, sia in inglese sia in italiano. A causa della mia origine abruzzese (infatti, guardiese), ho preso una carissima affinità per l’accento e il dialetto intorno alla Majella. Altrimenti, mi piace il romano, il veneto (il tuo, m’aspetterei), il fiorentino, il napolitano, e, senz’altro, il toscanaccio.
Anyway, it is true that most expats and not only from Sicily, especially those that left in the 50’60’ weren’t much educated and they could speak only in dialect (I should say: regional language"), so they might not be the best teachers you can find, but I don’t think it’s the case and you, mfranks, will be exposed to a native speaker, that is a big advantage.in learning any language.
Altrimenti adopro un accento più “normale,” diciamo.