Thanks for your corrections and suggestions. These “preliminary exercises” are preliminary in the sense that they are revision of grammar which the authors assume one should already know before starting the main exercises. No instruction is provided and the only hint about what is covered is provided by the titles at the head of each exercise.
This is from the preface " Before beginning this book a boy (sic!!) 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.”
My motivation for working through these exercises was to provide a set of possible solutions which the published key lacks. The fact that since starting this thread on 21 March it has been viewed over 1,400 times might indicate that there is interest in this project.
I regret having opened such a can of worms! But many thanks seneca for researching authorities, esp. Pinkster. What to do? Simplest would be to ignore all the pesky complications and use double acc. throughout, in line with the heading “VERBS GOVERNING TWO ACCUSATIVES.” But the qualms I expressed about 3 and 8 do seem to be valid, so I propose we keep the revised versions of them, perhaps with a note giving the double accusative as a dispreferred alternative.
I spot nothing else needing change apart from very minor upper/lower-case modification in 7 l(inguam) and 9 R(omanos). But I’m the world’s worst proof-reader.
This has really helped me. The Colebourn extract makes 8 clear (to me).
The general asked the consul for the soldiers.
The general is asking for (requesting) soldiers. One object. But he needs to go to the consul and ask that the cōnsul be the source of the soldiers.
So to me it is clear that ā cōnsule is correct, and adds clarity. The main action is requesting soldiers; asking that of the cōnsul is a secondary action.
Number 3. You have often asked me for advice, which I cannot give you.
To me, this one could be analyzed as in number 8. You need advice, you ask for (request) advice, one object. You go to a particular person and ask that person to be the source of the advice.
ā mē seems correct and adds clarity.
But, I feel that cōnsilium and sententia are close in meaning, and each might refer to what is inside the head of the person being asked. I’m asking your opinion; I’m asking your advice. I’m asking you to tell me what is inside your head. Perhaps one could argue that we don’t need the ā by analogy with the sententia case.
This might be overkill but I looked In Bradley’s Arnold Latin Prose Composition:
The footnote on the first page of the extract says " “Sententiam rogāre” is a technical expression: “to ask a senator for his opinion and vote.” The acc. sententiam is preserved in the passive Prīmus sententiam rogātus sum “I was asked my opinion first.” "
Given this I would be inclined to think that cōnsilium and sententia whilst clearly close in meaning are different in kind. I dont think its to do with what is inside someone’s head, its just that “Sententiam rogāre” is a term of art.
I have a master document on my computer and I really should just update that and post only from that source. I have been a bit haphazard in making corrections. Thanks for spotting these errors and for your other contributions.
Thanks Michael for your helpful comments. I think I can offer some competition for the title of world’s worst proof reader!
I was going to make the same point about sententiam rogare. I agree that for the purposes of the exercise we should treat 3 and 8 on a par. I don’t expect N&H were after anything other than double acc., but we should avoid bad Latin if we can.
One last word from me on all this, on 10: hoc is long even in nom.&acc. (reduced from hocce).
Here is the next instalment. I would be grateful for corrections and suggestions.
He, having been made king, did not ask his people for advice.
Is, rēx crēatus est, populō suō cōnsilium nōn rogāvit.
(Is, rēx crēatus est, populum suum cōnsilium nōn rogāvit. Double accusative less idiomatic)
We were asked for the sword, which we had concealed from our father.
Gladium rogātī sumus, quem patrem nostrum cēlāverāmus.
I was asked by Caius for a sword?
Gladium ā Cāiō rogātus sum.
They were thought to be very wise.
Sapientissimōs esse putābantur
I hid from Caius the sword for which you asked me.
Gladium dē Cāiō cēlāvi, quem mē rogāvistī
Were you not taught Greek by your master?
Nōnne linguam Graecam tuō magistrō doctus es?
They became consuls, because they were thought to be wise.
Cōnsulēs factī sunt quia sapientēs putābantur.
Why did you hide this from Caius?
Cūr hoc dē Cāiō cēlāvistī?
You, who did this, were not elected consul by the citizens.
Tū, quī hoc fēcistī, cōnsulem nōn creābāris.
The man, whom you asked for advice, has taught me many things.
Vir, ā quō cōnsilium rogāvistī, mē dē multīs rēbus doctus est
( Vir, quem cōnsilium rogāvistī, mē multōs rēs doctus est double accusative less good see 11.)
In addition to mwh’s cōnsul, I would use the perfect: cōnsul nōn creātus es.
The man, whom you asked for advice, has taught me many things.
Vir, ā quō cōnsilium rogāvistī, mē dē multīs rēbus doctus est
( Vir, quem cōnsilium rogāvistī, mē multōs rēs doctus est double accusative less good see 11.)
Do you mean that the double accusative is less good for both rogō and doceō? It’s perfectly fine for the latter.
I agree, naturally, with everything you say and am grateful that you have corrected my solecisms. Some I can’t believe I actually wrote (Sapientissimōs).
In "19. ( You, who did this, were not elected consul by the citizens.) Tū, quī hoc fēcistī, cōnsul nōn creābāris. "
I wonder, however, about Herodotean’s “cōnsul nōn creātus es” instead of nōn creābāris. Is my imperfect actually wrong?
Compare the imperfect (https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=consul+~+creab) with the perfect (https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=%23consul+~+%23creat). Perhaps we’re reading the English differently: I understood “you were not elected” as “you were not elected (in this particular instance)” not as “you consistently failed to be elected over the course of multiple elections.” I think creabaris suggests the latter sense, but I’m happy to be shown examples I missed that would suggest otherwise.
@Herodotean Thanks for the reply. Without context it’s often difficult to decide this kind of issue. I am happy to use the perfect and settle on the first meaning of “you were elected” which you propose.
