He came into the city with ten soldiers.
In urbem vēnit cum decem mīlitibus.
After one night he set out against the enemy.
Post noctem ūnam contrā hostēs profectus est.
In front of the house there is a field.
Ante/Praeter domum ager est.
I cannot go across the sea without ships.
Trāns Marem sine nāvibus īre nōn possum.
He was killed by his brother at a feast, amid all his friends.
Ā frātre suō in cēnā interfectus est, cōram amīcīs suīs.
He spoke to me about your house in your presence.
Dē domū/domō tuā mihi cōram tuō locūtus est.
He went around the city, and saw the walls.
Circum urbem īvit et mūrōs vīdit.
He came towards me, and called out, “Who is in the city?”
Ad mē vēnit et clamāvit “Quis est in urbe?”
The camp is on the side of the river, the army is beyond the city.
Castra iūxtā flūmen est, exercitus suprā urbem est.
On account of the war no one goes outside the gates.
Propter bellum nēmō extrā portās it.
Besides these men we have no army in the city.
Praeter hōs virōs nūllum exercitum in urbe habēmus.
We saw him on the road.
In viā eum vīdīmus.
He was brought by the soldiers into the presence of the king.
Ā mīlitibus cōram rēge adlātus est.
(“into the presence” seems a bit awkward to me, I tried to translate it as such.)
They escaped from prison without my knowledge.
Ē carcere sine scientiā meā exiērunt.
They sailed past the island in a boat.
Prope insulam rate nāvigāvērunt.
We sailed as far as Spain.
Tenus Hispaniā nāvigāvimus.
They live near the island of Corsica.
Prope insulam Corsicae habitant.
(Or should it be “Corsicam insulam”? I’m not sure if the form “the island of X” exists in Latin or not.)
He did this in sight of all.
In conspectū omnium hoc fēcit.
I did this because of my friendship towards you.
Hoc fēcī propter amīcitiam meam tibi.
Were you not going towards the city?
Nōnne ad urbem ībās?
Men who live underground.
Virī quī sub terrā habitant.
He led an army over the mountains against the enemy.
Exercitum super montēs contrā hostēs dūxit.
After the battle they were killed outside the city walls in the presence of their friends.
Post pugnam interfectī sunt extrā mūrōs urbis cōram amīcīs suīs.
Before daybreak they came close to (under) the walls of the town.
Ante primam lūcem sub mūrōs oppidī vēniērunt.
I killed him before these things, not on account of them.
Eum ante hās rēs interfēcī, nōn ob/propter eās.
So, after completing the preliminary exercises, I am now deep into the book. Thanks for all who helped: adrianus, Sceptra Tenens, MatthaeusLatinus, Craig_Thomas, Ulpianus, Gregarius and anyone whom I somehow missed. I appreciate it!
I will occasionally post here questions about things that I don’t quite understand. This one is from exercise 8 (p.11, p.29 in the PDF):
He asked me so often that I gave him the book.
The answer given by the key is:
Toties me > rogavit > ut librum ei dederim.
My question is: why shouldn’t rogavit be rogabat? I understand this as a recurring action, and therefore should be in the imperfect. Am I wrong here?
Hoc propono. Toties me rogabat (tempus actioque imperfecta) ut librum ei donarer.
Toties me rogavit [tempus et actio perfecta] ut deinde librum ei dederim.
I would suggest this: He used to ask [/he asked] for the book so many times that I used to give it to me. [imperfect tense and uncompleted action]
He asked me so many times [perfect tense and completed action]that I gave it to me.
Hoc propono. Toties me rogabat (tempus actioque imperfecta) ut librum ei donarer.
Toties me rogavit [tempus et actio perfecta in toto] ut [deinde] librum ei dederim.
I would suggest this: He used to ask [/he asked] for the book so many times that I used to give it to him. [imperfect tense and uncompleted action]
He asked me so many times [perfect tense and completed action seen as a whole] that I [finally] gave the book to him.
Moreretur is fine, but not mortuus fuerit. But, the perfect subjunctive, mortuus sit, is also fine - Adler would say that it referred to something that recently happened. “He has (just recently) been so hurt that he has died”.
Pardon my typo - “mortuus sit” is the perfect, not “mortuus fit”. I still hesitate before producing the active pluperfect and future perfect tenses, myself.
Hi, I’m here because I’m also working through this book. This thread is great, let’s resurrect it!
How about something like, ab hostibus nōn vincendī sumus (we are not to be conquered…)? Instead of merely asserting an unknowable outcome, the speaker is probably trying to encourage his troops and/or discourage the enemy, which suggests an exhortative tone.
I dont think this works. Firstly the exercise from which you have drawn your example is designed to draw out the difference between the use of the active and passive voices. In the passive voice of course the agent is in the ablative.
You are trying to use the gerundive which is not introduced until exercises 99- 103 (along with gerunds).
That aside Woodcock says that the agent with the passive gerundive is normally expressed by the dative. Using the model pax nobis petenda est (peace is to be sought by us) Victoria nobis petenda est (victory is to be sought by us) would seem to work if you are intent on using the gerundive.
But the English sentence seems to be best expressed using the passive voice as in the original answer.
Thanks a lot for your inputs, and especially for these examples with the dative. I just assumed the gerundive looking like a passive voice would take the ablative as usual. I still have work to do finessing the distinction between ablative and dative agents.
Only as far as preliminary exercise E. I wasn’t sure exactly how much “preliminary” knowledge was required for the main content.
How about you? What do you assess your level to be?
I think that there are some fundamental differences between the passive voice and gerundives (which are essentially verbal adjectives and have a passive meaning). If what you are trying to express is something in the passive voice it’s best to use the passive voice of a finite verb rather than a gerundive. You may be able to construct something using the gerundive (in a passive periphrastic) but it would carry some indication of necessity which is not implicit in this example.
(Edited)
The preface of N&H tells you what you should know before tackling this book. "Before beginning this book a boy should be able to translate simple sentences (including easy questions and commands) into Latin, and should understand the rules of agreement, the use of the Passive Voice, the simplest uses of Pronouns and Prepositions, and the easiest Case constructions. (Ablative of Instrument, Agent, Cause; Dative of Indirect Object and Possessor; Accusative after Factitive Verbs, etc.) But for the occasional revision of this elementary work the “Preliminary
Exercises " (A to K) are prefixed.”
So the exercises you are working on are essentially the preliminary work necessary before the prose composition work begins. The main work starts with sequence of tenses, then final and consecutive clauses. page 2 etc
You rightly ask about my level. About 20 years ago I completed a classics degree and then started work on research on Senecan tragedy which I did not complete. I am trying to revive my active knowledge by answering questions here and teaching Latin. So my Latin is nowhere near the standard it once was.
So I am very happy for people to correct me as I make mistakes.
In the past I have only used N&H intermittently to revise various topics. It’s not a book I would advise anyone using to learn Latin grammar. If you have already done a course in latin why don’t you just use it for revising specific topics?
I took classes for a few years, but these were rather unidirectional, focusing mainly on the translation of classical texts, so my active knowledge is severely limited. Even my passive knowledge is far from thorough and has surely faded through the ages. So I need more than just a little refresher.
I was looking for a systematic explanation-plus-exercise textbook in the style of Advanced Grammar in Use, by Cambridge UP, which I found to be a prodigious resource for my self-study of English, and I thought N&H comes pretty close. Do you have a better suggestion?
Thanks again for answering my question. I hope participating here helps you recover your mastery.
I’m confused as to why the second accusative should turn into nominative in the following sentences. Why specifically here (with creatus and habitus) and not elsewhere (besides with factus, a copulative verb, in which case I understand)?
BTW: to me, 4 sounds like, the general was thought good by all, or, possibly even, the good general was accepted by all.
So in 1. we have the active voice Populus Pompeium consulem creāvērunt.
in 2 “quī saepe consul creātus est,” we have the passive voice “who was elected consul” and consul is the subject of the verb the agent of the verb is unstated, it is not stated by whom he was elected.
So in the active voice "the people (subject) elected Pompey consul (two objects ) [The exercise is entitled ..“verbs governing two accusatives”. ]
In the passive "Marius (subject), who (subject) was elected consul (subject ) [by (unstated)] was a great general
When you turn an active verb into a passive verb what was the object becomes the subject and what was the subject becomes the agent in the ablative case.
I hope that also clears up the confusion in the other sentences you quote.
“BTW: to me, 4 sounds like, the general was thought good by all, or, possibly even, the good general was accepted by all.”
“Imperātor bonus” means a good general. “the general was thought good by all” means the everybody thought he was “good”, but in fact everybody thought he was a “good general”. We dont know whether they thought he was good in other respects.
Unless I have misunderstood you I dont think you quite understand how passive sentences work. In a passive sentence you would not expect to see a noun in the accusative, because the action of the verb is being received by the subject and is being caused by the agent (in the ablative).
I will post some suggestions for texts tomorrow. (its late here and I havent checked this post.)
.