Adrianus:
As tyro and humble beneficiary, I’d like to say how grateful I am for this thread - also for the English-Latin parallel texts scattered throughout theTextkit cloud written by yourself, thesaurus et al.
Can you please say a lttle more about this project? Where do your English texts come from? Van Nostrand? Your own head? Apart from practising/honing your own Latin, what is the ultimate aim of the project? Will there be an end-product? A New Comenius?
Cheers,
Int
Thanks a lot, Interaxe. Very kind of you. And please forgive me the mistakes which are everywhere! I’m a novice in the same boat.
They’re all extracts from a program I’m writing, called Mundus (copyright Adrian Mallon), which is similar to Comenius’s Orbis Sensualium Pictus, but updated and interactive. Who knows when it will be finished, because it’s part of a larger suite of computer programs eLingua Latina, comprising Verba, Dictio, Quaestiones and Fabula (a videogame set in a 3D immersive environment).
Multas gratias, Interaxe, tibi ago de verbis tuis benignissimis. Et ignoscas, amabò te, vitia quae ubiquè feci! Tirones conjuncti sumus.
Omnia sunt excerpta è programmate quod scribo, Mundus nomine (et jus proprium scriptoris, Adrian Mallon), quod simile est Orbis Sensualium Pictus operis Comenii, sed dierum nostrorum et vi mutuâ. Quis scit quando id perfecturum sit, quià majoris operis programmatum ordinatralium pars est, videlicet eLingua Latina, quod continet quoquè has alias partes: Verba, Dictio, Quaestiones, Fabula (videoludum in circumjecto absorbente trium dimensionum situm).
(Vide Mallon, Adrian, “eLingua Latina: Designing a Classical-language E-learning Resource,” Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 19, Nos. 4 & 5, October 2006: 373-388. et “eLingua Latina and immersive CALL tool design”, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Volume 20, Issue 4 October 2007: 345-363.)
Very nice work!!! And the final project seems very interesting!
Thanks, Salvator. Just please correct any mistakes you see, if you wouldn’t mind. Corrigas autem quaecumque vitia videas, quaeso, si tibi non molestum sit.
Number 21. Numerum viginti unum.
Adverbs and adjectives have three degrees of comparison: positive, comparative, superlative. We compare the characteristics of two or more objects. For example, of solid objects or liquids and gases in containers (or otherwise in one place) we may compare weights, dimensions (such as length, breadth, height, volume or surface area) or any adjective that may apply (relating to colour, smell, taste or anything of that kind),—even very subjectively, by saying this thing is nicer or better or worse that that. An abstract noun, like “life”, can’t be compared to a concrete noun, like “book”, unless to explain how similar or dissimilar they are to each other poetically.
In latin, adjectives are used in the comparative degree in two main ways: (1) with “quàm” after the adjective and before the second noun in the same case as the first; (2) without “quàm” and with the second noun in the ablative (of comparison). A superlative adjective, like any adjective, agrees with its noun in gender, number and case. We usually say, then, "> homo est animal doctissimum> " or "d> octissimus animalium> " rather than "> doctissimum animalium> ", unless "> doctissimum> " here we consider a substantive, “the smartest one”.
Gradus comparationis adjectivis adverbiisque sunt tres: positivus, comparativus, superlativus. Propria duarum vel ampliùs rerum comparamus. Exempli gratiâ, rerum solidarum vel liquorum gasorumque in vasculis (vel secùs in uno loco) comparemus pondos, dimensiones (ut longitudinem, latitudinem, altitudinem, conceptum vel superficiei spatium), vel quodcunque adjectivum aptum sit (ad colorem, odorem, saporem vel ullum alium genus pertinentem),—subjectivissimum proprium quidem, in dicendo hoc gratius vel melius vel peius illi esse. Abstractum nomen, ut “vita”, concreto, ut “liber”, compari non potest, nisi in explicando quàm similes dissimilesve sunt illi suorum sensu poetico.
Adjectivi latinè cum grado comparativo duobus modis principalibus utuntur: (primum) per “quàm” post adjectivum positum et ante secundum nomen quod eodem casu est ut est primum; (secundum) sinè “quàm” et per alterum nomen ablativo casu (comparationis). Adjectivum superlativi gradûs, sicut omnia adjectiva, cum nomine ad quod adicitur per genum numerumque atque casum convenit. Dicamus ideò “homo est animal doctissimum” vel “doctissimus animalium” sed non “doctissimum animalium”, nisi “doctissimum” hîc substantivi modo habeamus.
I don’t mind at all. Time is my major problem, after all… 
You are much more skillful than me in Latin. But 
I think weight is “pondus-ponderis” , not “pondus-i”.
Labor mihi non est. Inopiae temporis me valde miseret; quam ob rem tristiculum me arbitror.
Sed conloquamini de sermonibus tuis. Peritiorem sane ad loquendum Latine te esse puto quam me ipsum. Censeo tamen “pondera” figuram rectam esse pro “pondos”. 
Etiam te corrigere volo ad haec:
genus pertinentem => genus pertinens ?
subjectivissimum proprium=> subjectivissime (adverb) ?
in dicendo => dicendo ?
maius, peius illi => illo (ablat.) ?
similes dissimilesve … illi => similia dissimiliave … illa (nomina) ?
utuntur = “they use”, not “they are used” (verbum deponens!). Nescio tamen quid pro eo verbo proponam…
per “quam” => cum “quam” ?
per alterum nomen => cum altero nomine ?
convenio + dativus ??? fortasse rectius quam “cum+abl.” ???
Utinam utilis sim…
"Pondus -eris", “illo”, et “utuntur”!! Rectè dicis. Gratias, Salvator.
“subjectivissimum proprium quidem” = “even the most subjective quality”
“in dicendo” minùs ambiguum est quàm “dicendo” (both are said but to use “in” removes any ambiguities)
“cum” or “per”, but “per” = “using” “by means on” “with” often used by the grammarians/saepè apud grammaticos
“convenio” + acc + dative + “cum” + “ad” + “in” (vide OLD & L&S.
Number 22. Numerum viginiti duo.
Before satellites were used to indicate position, sailors navigated by the sun, stars, moon and planets, magnetic compass, dead-reckoning and sea-charts. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. At noon, it reaches its highest point in the sky which, while overhead at the equator, points north in the southern hemisphere and south in the northern. The Pole Star points to the North Pole. A compass’s needle points to magnetic north near the Arctic pole, and its rose indicates south, east and west. Dead reckoning involves plotting a course from a vessel’s speed, direction, drift in current or tide, and time travelling from landmarks.
Ante satellitium usum ad designandum situum, nautae sole, stellis, lunâ planetisque, indice magnetico, numeratione sitûs cum circino, chartis marinis navigabant. Sol in orientale exoritur, in occidente occidit. Meridie, locum editissimum sui est in caelo pertingit, quod in circulo aequinoctialis est adeò suprá, in hemisphaerio septentrionali ad austres dirigit, in australi ad septentriones. Polaris Stella ad Polum Articum dirigit. Index nauticus ad polum magneticum propè Arcticum dirigit, et indicat rosa pyxidis ad austres et orientem occidentemque. Numeratio sitûs cum circino involvat cursum navis delineare è navis velocitate, directione, natando in aquis profluentibus aestuve, atque duratione ab locis in lingulâ vectandi.
Yes, you are right about all. I answered by memory only (not so strong though… as it seems)
Again, not sure 100%, but I thought “per”+acc. is used with persons only… (Another answer made out of my memory 
)
What about “genus pertinens”? Isn’t it the correct one?
I will try to read and check your new post at evening (after 22.00 greece time).
Crede mihi, “per” sic adhibitum esse, ut “aqua per q”, vidi (me paenitet, locos memoriâ non teneo)
Et etiam verùm dicis: “pertinens” nec “pertinentem” quià verbum cui adicitur casu accusativo quidem sed neutrius autem generis est.
Number 23. Numerum viginti tres.
The ancient Romans counted years from the founding of the city of Rome (in 753 BC). March was the first month in their calendar. Dates in the Julian calendar were reckoned backwards from these three points in the month: the Calendae (the first day), the Nonae (the seventh of March, May, July and October, but the fifth of other months), and the Idus or Ides (the fifteenth of March, May, July and October but the thirteenth of other months). Note that when the Romans counted backwards, they included the number they counted from. We say six is two numbers before eight, but the Romans say that it is three numbers before eight because they include the eight.
With our calendar, we say “Today is the eighteenth of January, AD two thousand and nine (or ‘of the Common Era’).”
By the Roman calendar, we say “Today is the fifteenth day before the Kalends of March in the two thousand seven hundred and sixty second year from, or of, the founding of the city.”
Romani antiqui annos ab urbe Româ conditâ (anno septingentensimo quinquagensimo tertio ante aevum communem) numerabant. Martius primus mensis in calendario eis erat. Dies mensis Juliano calendario sciantur in dinumerando contrariè ab his tribus diebus: calendis (die primo), nonis (septimo martii, maii, julii octobrisque sed quinto aliorum), et idibus (quinto decimo martii, maii, julii octobrisque sed tertio decimo aliorum mensuum). Nota, Romani, dinumerando ante vel post aliquod numerum, initium annumerabant. Dicimus sex numerum secundum antè octo sed dicebant Romani tertium, quià numerum octo annumerabant.
Calendario nostro, dicimus “hodie est duodevicensimus dies mensis Januarii anno Aevi Communis (vel Anno Domini) bis millesimo nono.”
Calendario Romanorum, dicimus “hodie est dies quintus decimus ante Kalendas Februarias anno bis millesimo septingentensimo sexagensimo secundo ab urbe conditâ, vel anno urbis conditae.”
Adrian, I have a question that I hope will not be found too amiss, because I think your effort is a worthwhile one. (Note: I skimmed the second cited article, but was for some curious reason unable to access the first one – perhaps this line of thought is addressed therein.)
I read many of your posts, but I very rarely make corrections to your Latin, chiefly because my time is limited. Furthermore, as I said, I admire the effort, and making correction after correction comes off as invidious. Nevertheless, as I’ve mentally agreed with you in the past when you’ve criticized others’ efforts at professing to be Latin teachers when they are in fact rank amateurs (as specimen examples of their Latinity prove), I will ask you the same sort of question: since you are a novice, how do you propose to teach others? A game that is intended for beginners, no less than a textbook, must be as error-free as humanly possible.
In recent posts of yours any number of errors, large and small, can be cited: quo in the thread in question has nothing to do with what you’ve provided, faci is not the passive of facere (cf. too your post here); indeed, in your very signature ostendo should be subjunctive (exprimere and non instead of nec would be more idiomatic). This list can be expanded ad libitum, but the point is sufficiently made. It is inevitable that similar errors will creep into the game that you’re designing, which would fundamentally vitiate its very praiseworthy purpose. How do you plan to deal with this issue? (Forgive me if this is discussed in your first paper; as I said, I could not access it.)
I leave aside much else about the Latin itself, but it should perhaps be considered that much of the Latin you write, even when not “wrong,” is of such strange Latinity that no Roman would ever have written it. Since students by and large learn Latin to read what the Romans wrote, there is the strongest argument for basing what we teach on that model. Re-reading, this all seems a bit harsh, but I can assure you that it is not my intention to be overly critical.
Number 24. Numerum viginti quattuor.
To weigh something, put it onto the dish of a scales. If it’s a liquid, put it first in a container and afterwards subtract the container’s weight from the total weight. Units for measuring weight are kilograms and pounds. There are one thousand grams in a kilogram, and a thousand kilograms in a tonne. There are sixteen ounces in a pound and, today, two thousand two hundred and forty pounds in a ton. A ton of feathers has the same weight as a ton of bricks. If dropped, they should fall at the same rate. If the box with the feathers bursts when falling, however, air resistance on the feathers would slow down their rate of fall.
Ad pensandum alicuius, id in lancem librae pone. Si liquor est, eum pone priùs in vasculum, et posteà vasculi ponderem ab summâ ponderis subtrahe. Unitas ponderum mensurandorum est chilogramma et libra. Sunt mille grammata in chilogrammate. Sunt mille chilogrammata in tonnâ. Sunt mille miligrammata in chilogrammate. Sunt sedecim unciae in librâ. Sunt hodie duae milia ducentae quadraginta librae in tonnâ. Pennarum tonna idem ponderem atquè laterum tonna habet. Si arca autem pennas continens in cadendo disrumpatur, obstantiâ aeris contrà pennas, velocitas earum descendentium diminuatur.
Hi Didymus
I’m very glad that you asked me that. What you say is eminently fair and reasonable. It is not at all over critical.
Note that I have only ever been harsh in this forum with one person; with others it has generally been a matter of exercises in debate.
I am an expert in educational software design in English, but I am NOT an expert in Latin, although I am now more expert than many other developers and that was my goal. I chose to tackle Latin because it throws up some very interesting issues, I believe. Some of those issues concern the gaps in understanding that arise when content experts communicate with software developers. Most products are compromises, but ineffective products can also arise. Etc., etc.
In itself, this TextKit forum is a window onto an experiment in self-learning. One can ask, how do learners learn from each other, and other questions. My self-learning here is transparent, as is my progress or lack of it. I’m not trying to teach but to learn, by expressing what I think and listening to responses.
I can’t publish work as commercial products until they go through “real” content experts. But I can’t afford to pay real content experts. And in the writing and design stages, real content experts I’ve spoken to are very impressed by the software, but lack an understanding of the languages of design and development processes so they have limited creative input. What I can do, though, is to examine and describe the problem. And this, I think, is useful research. My software, then, is a testbed for issues involved in the design of computer-based language-learning in certain areas. In becoming a learner myself, it forces me to rethink how I design in English, even. [By the way, my first paper and other talks at conferences did appeal for help from content experts. I still appeal,—but my pockets are empty.]
I love your last point
I leave aside much else about the Latin itself, but it should perhaps be considered that much of the Latin you write, even when not “wrong,” is of such strange Latinity that no Roman would ever have written it. Since students by and large learn Latin to read what the Romans wrote, there is the strongest argument for basing what we teach on that model.
I use resources from many periods, especially many schoolbooks from the 15th to 17th centuries students. I’m not making excuses. Of course, I crave an understanding of departures from classical forms, where I use a form from another period, and where I talk unintelligible rubbish. Even content experts can’t always say about everything, though, until they go back and consult sources. I showed a computer card game in Latin at a conference and no one could commit to saying whether or not the vocabulary was accurate without a period of study in the library,—the Romans, after all, didn’t play cards. By the way, they all liked the game and wanted it.
Anyway, you can see how silly I am. Writing software that I can’t publish for an audience that doesn’t exist, because it’s not about the Romans. Only a fool would do what I’m doing for the sake of an experiment.
P.S. Please, tell Junya the answer to his question about “quo”.
Salve Didyme
Quod tu id me rogas felicissimum esse me facit. Rectissimum aequissimum quod dicis, et minimè modo intemperato mordente.
Cum uno solùm in foro nimis criticus eram; quae res cum aliis accederunt, exercitiones plerumquè controversiarum erant.
Designationis evolutionisque programmatum eruditionum in linguam anglicam gnarus sum; non sum latiné, etsi nunc peritior quàm multi alii designatores. Et sic erat consilium meam. Latinum discere optavi, quià multa et tenentia sunt eventus quae oriuntur, credo. Nonnullos illorum ad interstitia communicandi inter scriptores eorum quae continentur et desigatores. Pars major commodorum causâ compromittendi adveniunt. Adveniunt etiam commoda quae inutilia sunt. Et caetera, et caetera.
In ipso, hoc TextKit forum fenestra est quae tentamentum in discendo proprio aperit. Potes rogare quomodò hîc tyrones inter se discant, et alias quaestiones ponare. Scientias mea hîc clarè videtur; etiam utrum progrediar an caespitem. Non hîc doceo sed discere quaeso, qui quod puto dicam et responsa audiam.
Non possum commoda emittere antequàm à gnaris veris corriguntur. At res mihi non suppetit ad mercedes eorum. Et illi gnari quibus per gradus evolutionis locutus sum benè amant quod facio, sed processus designationis evolutionisque ignorant et contribuere plus effectivè in fingendo non possunt. Ecce autem quod facere possum, difficultatem describere et inquirere. Haec investigatio utilis est, ut credo. Programmata mea, ergo, habeo ut viae etiam rerum scrutandarum et approbandarum ad designationem instrumentorum pro linguarum discendo. Ego tyronem quidem in fiendo, id me nunc cogitare facit quomodò anglicè designem. [Primo capitulo meo et in aliis colloquiis, auxilium gnatorum quaesivi. Continuò quaero,—sinè crumenis, addo.]
Proxima rem quod scribis me valdè tenet. Fontibus ex multis aevis utor, praesertim grammatistas saeculorum ab quinto decimo ad septimum decimum. Vitia mea non excuso. Intellegere aveo ubi ab viâ classicâ deviem, ubi formâ aevi serioris utar, ubi nugas dicam. Et gnarus non semper responsum habet, nisi diu in libris venetur. Ludum chartularum computatralem in colloquio monstravi, ubi nemo dicere potuerunt utrum vocabularium bonum fuerit an non, sinè spatio studii in bibliothecâ. Romani, re verâ, chartulis non ludebant. Ludum amavere, obiter, et eum voluere.
Utiquè, quàm stultus sum, vides. Programmata scribo quae divulgare non possum, lectoribus qui carent quià quod scribo ad Romanos non pertinet. Solùm asinus faciat quod facio causâ tentamenti.
Post scriptum.
Das responsum ad quaestionem de “quo” quam posuit Junya
Ad aliquid pensandum, id in lance librae pone (accusative with gerundivum is needed)
better “in+abl.”=> in lance, in vasculo
eum pone => fortasse rectius “id pone”, quia “is” pronomen “aliquid” plus refert quam “liquor” ?
ponderem=>pondus, twice (again 
)
fortasse melius “ratiocinor” pro “mensuro” ?
Si disrumpatur…diminuatur => melius fortasse “si disrumperetur…diminueretur”
Unitas…est => ? Non recte dictum esse id mihi videtur. Sed haud scio an quod alliud rectius sit.
Mille gratias tibi ago, Salvator
Ad aliquid pensandum, id in lance librae pone (accusative with gerundivum is needed)
Hoc est gerundium (non adjectivum gerundivum) cum ‘ad’ (cum genitivo, et numquam accusativo) quod etiam designationem exprimit. Nonnè licet?
better “in+abl.”=> in lance, in vasculo /// eum pone => fortasse rectius “id pone”, quia “is” pronomen “aliquid” plus refert quam “liquor” ? ///ponderem=>pondus, twice (again )/// fortasse melius “ratiocinor” pro “mensuro” ?
quater rectè dicis, ut opinor!
Si disrumpatur…diminuatur => melius fortasse “si disrumperetur…diminueretur”
Nonnè hoc ad futurum pertinet, et sensu vivido? Nonnè meliùs sit futurum tempus activum modum habere?
Unitas…est => ? Non recte dictum esse id mihi videtur. Sed haud scio an quod alliud rectius sit.
Dicit Ainsworth (1808) “An unit, or unity [in arithmetick] * Unitas”
I’m sure “se ostendere” is classical and not obscure, Didyme, because I’ve read it so and see it explained so in L&S. Indeed, “et non” is nicer than “nec” there. But not the subjunctive, I don’t think. Subjunctive in a causal clause when the reason is given on the authority of another, but indicative with “quod” when on the authority of the speaker, which makes good sense to me. I know you’re right about other mistakes. Maybe I misunderstand A&G on this.
Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, et non quod confidenter me ostendo.
Anglicè verbatim “I’m writing in Latin so that I may be corrected and not because I express myself confidently [in Latin]”
Esne certus, Didyme, de usu verbi modo subjunctivo? Aliter dicunt Allen & Greenough §540, sed fortassè locum malè intellego.
For my brevity I apologize: after yesterday’s holiday it’s back to the real world today. A selective reply (omissions imply neither agreement nor disagreement), hysteron proteron, more Homerico:
(1) Subjunctive: cf. AG 540 n. 3, non quod etc. when introducing a denied reason take the subjunctive.
(2) ostendere: what you have is not incomprehensible, especially knowing in advance what it’s supposed to be, but me exprimere is the better idiom. I don’t think I see what you see in the dictionaries, and I can’t think of an exact parallel to your usage. Since you like later Latin, for my usage cf. Politian’s famous quote: “‘non exprimis,’ inquit aliquis, ‘Ciceronem.’ quid tum? non enim sum Cicero; me tamen, ut opinor, exprimo.” Other Renaissance writers on style, like Muret and Lipsius, will turn up similar examples.
(3) “Content experts” for Latin must be hard to find. There are only a very limited number of people with the language skills to edit this sort of thing, and I’d imagine they are often more concerned with other pursuits. I suppose sufficient money could prove a workable inducement though.
(4) I’m not sure that you’re silly. Crazy, yes, but in a most eminently admirable way, and certainly no crazier than I who spend hours writing Greek and Latin verse. You surely would have a larger audience if your game were modeled closely on the Roman world in language and theme, because I imagine such a thing, if done well, would prove enormously popular at the middle school/high school level.
(5) It seems a shame that there is no way to yoke the research and experimental aspects of the work with expert language review. In the best case scenario there will be a great duplication of effort as revisions start being made.
(6) I think the whole thing is a wonderful pursuit. We’re all perhaps crazy for devoting so much time and energy to dead languages, but that’s part of the unique charm and attraction of it all. I wish you the very best of luck.
Thanks for the help and kind words, Didymus
De verbis benignis auxilioque gratias tibi ago, Didyme.
I understand now. Nunc intellego.
Doesn’t that apply to what we’re talking about? [I don’t deny “exprimere”, of course!Nonné ad quod investigamus id pertinet? “Exprimere” non nego, certé!
Number 25. Numerum vinginti quinque.
Dice is a game of chance.
Usually, a die is a cube. It has six faces numbered from one to six. The numbers are shown by spots.
With dice, the numbers are called a one-spot, two-spot, three-spot, four-spot, five-spot and six-spot.
The dice-player puts a die in the dice-cup. He shakes the cup and turns it upside down. A bigger number on the die beats a smaller number.
Aleâ ludere ludus fortis est.
Solet ut alea cubus est. Sex facies habet quae de uno à sex numeratae sunt. Numeri notis demonstrantur. Cum aleâ, numeri his nominibus appellantur: monas, dyas, ternio, quaternio, pentas, senio.
Aleator aleam in fritillum ponit. Fritillum jacit et invertit. Numerus aliae superior inferiorem vincit.
Number 26. Numerum viginti sex.
The game ‘heads or tails’ is a game of chance played with a coin. It is also called ‘even or odd’ (‘even’ referring to the side of the coin with the head).
To play the game, one person tosses a coin and another guesses what face will land uppermost.
Ludus ‘caput aut navis’ ludus fortis est, nummo lusus. Etiam ‘par vel impar’ appellatur (‘par’ faciem capite significans).
Qui ludum ludant [?..vel Ad ludendum ludum], alter nummum jacit et alter faciem quae summa cadet conjecit.