Adit ad urbem ne patrem suum videret
Should be adiit or adivit, and suum not eius, and really there’s no need for suum in all likelihood
Nos redivimus domum ut nostros amicos videremus
I would think ad visendos amicos would be better, or ut nostros amicos viseremus; viso has more of a meaning of “visit”. And from the context it seems “gone home” means “going to the area where I grew up”, not “going to my house”. In republican Latin, at least, purpose with a verb of motion is more often expressed with ad + gerundive, or even the supine
Currebamus celeriter ne nos raptati essemus.
I’d leave out the “nos”, and rapti from rapio would be better than raptati from rapto, which is mostly a poetical word
Da ei gladium ne conficiatur.
Necetur or interficatur would be better, I think; I see conficio way more often in the sense of “destroy” or “wear out” than kill
Really though only two actual grammatical errors in there, everything else I said, I might well be wrong on, it’s one thing to read Latin, another thing to write it or to recognize good usage from bad. I will say that your word-order is often a little too close to English.
videamus probably better than videremus. “We have gone” indicates a primary tense, unlike “we went” in 2, so here we’re in primary sequence.
Cancel both nos and nostri, unless you want to say “We’ve gone home to see our friends” (e.g. unlike you, who haven’t gone home to see yours). Likewise cancel nos in 6 (and eius in 2, unless it’s someone else’s father), as horus92.
ne caperemur.
fessus sim (or fiam), see on 3.
Word order. Objects and adverbial phrases normally precede the verb. E.g. 1 ad urbem eo, and so on with all the rest. You do this in the subordinate clauses: you should do it in the main clauses too (as you do in 7).
Thanks to all of you for your helpful corrections and advice! The two main errors I sensed in my first exercise were the following: (1) Not distinguishing primary sequence and secondary sequence uses of the perfect tense and (2) writing my main clauses in more or less English word order. The funny thing is that I do not usually do (2) when writing in Latin, yet with these purpose clauses it just felt weird to me-- for whatever reason-- to write my sentences the usual way.
I will definitely be posting the next exercise sometime soon and you all will help me again!
Sequence of tenses good. Word order good, except
5 Iter cum Caesare facit better not to split iter facit (so Cum Caes. it. fac.), and
10 Hoc non facere debemus better Hoc facere non debemus. It’s debemus that should be negatived, not facere. “We oughtn’t do this” vs. “We ought to not do this” (to refrain from doing this).
Thanks again, mwh and all, for your helpful corrections and critique. Keep it coming!
Exercise 4**1. I was sent to ask for peace.
2. I shall do this in order to help my friends.
3. They have gone away lest they should be seen.
4. They had gone away that they might not be seen.
5. We will leave the sick that we may not be hindered.
6. To help our friends we are willing to suffer pain.
7. To help us they had marched very quickly.
8. He did this in order to become consul.
9. They retreated that they might not be killed.
10. Let us go to the top of the hill to see the plain.
Mwh, glad to hear I am improving . Here is the next exercise. Again, thanks for your help.
Exercise 6[A]:
The soldiers are so brave that they always conquer the enemy.
He has done this in such a way that we do not praise him.
The enemy were so many that all our men were afraid.
He escaped so quickly that no one could catch him.
The battle was fought so fiercely that all the soldiers were killed.
The danger is so great that no ships can be saved.
So deep is the river that no one can cross it.
They have conquered the enemy so often that now they despise them.
Their fear was so great that they did not dare to cross the river.
So great a storm had arisen that all the sailors were terrified.
My Latin:
Milites tam breves sunt ut semper hostes vincant.
Ita hoc fecit ut non eum laudemus.
Hostes tot fuerunt ut omnes nostri timerent.
Tam celeriter effugit ut nemo capere eum posset.
Tam ferociter pugnatum est ut omnes milites interfacti sint.
Tantum est periculum ut nullae naves servari possunt.
Tam altum flumen est ut nemo id transire possit.
Toties hostes vicerunt ut nunc eos despiciant.
Tantum eorum metum ut non flumen transire auderent.
Tanta tempestas accidereat ut omnes nautae timerent.
Grammar clarification: the authors mention that one difference between result clauses and purpose clauses is that in result clauses sometimes if historical sequence is used, a perfect rather than an imperfect is used, in order to express a completed rather than an ongoing action. Did I rightly interpret that? And is it reflected in the above? Thanks.
Corrections:
Milites tam fortes sunt ut semper hostes vincant.
Tam ferociter pugnatum est ut omnes milites interfect sint.
Tantus eorum metus ut non flumen transire auderent.
Tanta tempestas acciderat ut omnes nautae timerent.
Bedwere, I do not see my mistake in 5 (if you are supposing that I messed up the sequence of tenses). Though I used a different word than N&H-- and perhaps that’s the problem you’re referring to-- I have the same sequence of tenses as they do. Moreover, they made a note in the section that in result clauses which have a secondary (historical) sequence in the main clause, (unlike purpose clauses) nevertheless may still have a perfect subjunctive in the result clause in the case that the result is “momentary” rather than continuous (vid. footnote on pg. .