Some more questions from LLPSI Cap XL

[Propertius]

What’s wrong with rejoicingly? I just looked it up and it is a word. Sure, it may be a British word, but nonetheless, it’s still a real word. By the way, you didn’t answer my question. Would you agree with me that translating the present participle is kind of hard?

By the way Barry, I’ll just go ahead and reply to your other post here instead of having to make another post and causing more confusion on this thread. Just simply acknowledging that I read your post and I appreciate your response.

Yes, translating the participle can be “kind of hard” at times, and a literal translation of it can be awkward, so one looks for equivalent constructions in English that capture the sense (and I’ve just described what translation in general should be). However, a previous poster is right – understanding the Latin in terms of Latin, without translating, should be the primary focus. That’s one of the great strengths of Ørberg, is that he uses as little English as possible for learning the language.

“I don’t speak English, I talk American.” American English, at least as I’ve learned it, avoids -ly forms for adverbs, preferring other expressions. Thinking back to my time in the UK, and the various episodes of East Enders, Downton Abbey, and Dr. Who that I’ve seen, I don’t recall hearing an adverbial participle in -ly, but that’s still limited exposure…

Thanks Barry.

[Propertius]

That makes sense to translate haec as_she_. And I am in complete agreement with both you and mwh: I hate adaptions of the originals and it truly is a sin to have to read them and I would much rather prefer to just dwelve straight into the original text. Which is why I have been slacking off from reading Orberg’s book. I sometimes get the feeling that it won’t make me such a fluent reader and writer after I’m done with it. Do you or mwh have any other better suggestion as to how to learn Latin? I believe I already asked him this but he seems to have not noticed it. What would the long route be to learning Latin that you took? Would it happen to be reading through A&G’s grammar by any chance? You seem to be able to reference that book at the spur of the moment.

Ørberg actually does a reasonably good job of building up to reading actual ancient authors, but is no substitute for reading those authors once you get to that point. There is nothing like seeing how people who habitually thought in the language as their birth language handle it. Here is a hint: primers are nearly always based on Caesar, Cicero and Vergil, and Caesar in particular was usually the intended author to be read at the intermediate level, so these should be your “go to” authors. Nepos is another good “introductory” author, a bit idiosyncratic in his Latin at times, but well within classical norms. Eutropius? Good if you like nourishment without a lot of taste. Then move on to poetry. I prefer Ovid as the introduction to poetry, mostly because you have fun stories like Pyramus and Thisbe or Baucis and Philemon, but also I have found him a bit more accessible in his use of the language. Recently there has been a mini-revival for the Ilias Latina, sort of the Eutropius of poetry… . After these, you can pretty much read any author you like, there’s really no wrong choice, as long as it’s ancient.

Use grammars for reference rather than reading, or if you are going to read through one, do so after reading a fair amount of Latin, so you can better read the actual examples that the grammar provides.

Barry, I was going to ask you since your familiar with Orberg’s books and mwh isn’t, how well would I do with beginning Caesar’s the Gallic War now that I’ve come this far with Orberg (ch. XL)? I’ve obviously gone through part I of Lingua Latina, not just with the reader, but also the grammar Companion (are you familiar with it). But all that aside, as I mentioned to mwh, would I run into many syntatic obscurities in the Gallic War? What new syntax in Caesar’s work could I expect that hasn’t been covered by Ch. XL of Orberg’s books?

[Barry_Hofstetter]

Barry, I was going to ask you since your familiar with Orberg’s books and mwh isn’t, how well would I do with beginning Caesar’s the Gallic War now that I’ve come this far with Orberg (ch. XL)? I’ve obviously gone through part I of Lingua Latina, not just with the reader, but also the grammar Companion (are you familiar with it). But all that aside, as I mentioned to mwh, would I run into many syntatic obscurities in the Gallic War? What new syntax in Caesar’s work could I expect that hasn’t been covered by Ch. XL of Orberg’s books?

I’m still relatively new to Ørberg, but reviewed it extensively before starting to use it. The short answer is that there is no way to quantify this. However, even if you finish all of Ørberg, you will still meet constructions which will strike you as unfamiliar, because no beginning text can match the creativity and originality of a native speaker to concatenate sentences. You will have seen all the basic grammar and constructions, but you will be seeing it in new ways when you start Caesar. The best way to deal with this is dive and swim. I have occasionally seen comments from people (some on this list) who suggest reading easy Latin stories to get lots and lots of Latin under their belt. Okay, but you also want to be reading Latin that challenges you and upgrades your ability as you go along.

[Callisper]

To the general question of how to learn to read Latin without depending on adulterated & banalized versions of ancient texts, I’ll make a recommendation I don’t see too often - read a lot of (well-written) Neo-Latin. It’s generally easier than Classical Latin and there’s so much that you can immerse yourself in a way that really gets you up to speed.

For example, before you read the real Virgil, I’d recommend plowing through a couple of Neo-Latin epics. Before you read Cicero, read a book or two of orations from the 16th to 18th centuries. This could give you the start you need to really experience the classical authors to their fullest your first time through, as the language itself will be hardly a barrier at all and your mind will be attuned to the poetics/rhetoric of the author (at least insofar as the humanists were able to imitate - which I wouldn’t underestimate).

[Propertius]

Barry, I was going to ask you since your familiar with Orberg’s books and mwh isn’t, how well would I do with beginning Caesar’s the Gallic War now that I’ve come this far with Orberg (ch. XL)? I’ve obviously gone through part I of Lingua Latina, not just with the reader, but also the grammar Companion (are you familiar with it). But all that aside, as I mentioned to mwh, would I run into many syntatic obscurities in the Gallic War? What new syntax in Caesar’s work could I expect that hasn’t been covered by Ch. XL of Orberg’s books?

I’m still relatively new to Ørberg, but reviewed it extensively before starting to use it. The short answer is that there is no way to quantify this. However, even if you finish all of Ørberg, you will still meet constructions which will strike you as unfamiliar, because no beginning text can match the creativity and originality of a native speaker to concatenate sentences. You will have seen all the basic grammar and constructions, but you will be seeing it in new ways when you start Caesar. The best way to deal with this is dive and swim. I have occasionally seen comments from people (some on this list) who suggest reading easy Latin stories to get lots and lots of Latin under their belt. Okay, but you also want to be reading Latin that challenges you and upgrades your ability as you go along.

That makes so much sense. Don’t know why I didn’t think of that. As if Orberg would have covered everything! By the way, a change of plans.m: I’m going to start with Apocalypsis Ioannis.

And another thing, could you help me out with what I had asked mwh. He seems to have gone MIA. I asked him why haec was used in that line of Vergil. Here it is again:

189 Haec tum multiplici populos sermone replebat
190 gaudens, et pariter facta atque infecta canebat

Wouldn’t it have been more approriate if illa was used since Fama had just been mentioned. Unless Fama was already present there at that moment, which not much in those lines seems to indicate such.

[Barry_Hofstetter]

That makes so much sense. Don’t know why I didn’t think of that. As if Orberg would have covered everything! By the way, a change of plans.m: I’m going to start with Apocalypsis Ioannis.

Why? Caesar would be much better.

And another thing, could you help me out with what I had asked mwh. He seems to have gone MIA. I asked him why > haec > was used in that line of Vergil. Here it is again:

189 Haec tum multiplici populos sermone replebat
190 gaudens, et pariter facta atque infecta canebat

Wouldn’t it have been more approriate if > illa > was used since > Fama > had just been mentioned. Unless > Fama > was already present there at that moment, which not much in those lines seems to indicate such.

4 (indicating something that has just been mentioned or alluded to) This.

…

b concerned with what has just been mentioned.


Glare, P. G. W. (Ed.). (2012). Oxford Latin Dictionary (Second Edition, Vol. I & II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[Propertius]

That makes so much sense. Don’t know why I didn’t think of that. As if Orberg would have covered everything! By the way, a change of plans.m: I’m going to start with Apocalypsis Ioannis.

Why? Caesar would be much better.

And another thing, could you help me out with what I had asked mwh. He seems to have gone MIA. I asked him why > haec > was used in that line of Vergil. Here it is again:

189 Haec tum multiplici populos sermone replebat
190 gaudens, et pariter facta atque infecta canebat

Wouldn’t it have been more approriate if > illa > was used since > Fama > had just been mentioned. Unless > Fama > was already present there at that moment, which not much in those lines seems to indicate such.

4 (indicating something that has just been mentioned or alluded to) This.

…

b concerned with what has just been mentioned.


Glare, P. G. W. (Ed.). (2012). Oxford Latin Dictionary (Second Edition, Vol. I & II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

You’re right. I think I’ll start with Caesar. Why not begin with the Classics, right? And the Apocalypsis seems a bit hard. My reading through it was going a bit slow.
And I could have sworn that someone here at textkit told me the opposite: that ille/illa/illud is used for something just mentioned. I guess I got it mixed up. Ille/illa/illud is used for something not yet mentioned, correct? If that’s true, then why is it used here in Orberg? (I woud use a better example, preferrably something not paraphrased from the original, but this is the best I’ve got for now):

ea sola in domo vacua maeret lectoque Aeneae relicto incumbit: illum absentem et audit et videt.

Wasn’t Aeneas just mentioned? So why was illum used?

[Aetos]

Barry or mwh can probably give you better tips, but for now here is Allen&Greenough:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D297

This explains the various uses of hic ,ille, and is. I keep them straight by thinking of hic as “here”, i.e. this, close, recent, first person So if hic is here, then ille must be “there”, i.e., that, remote, third person, former. This has been explained before, I think, on this board.

ea sola in domo vacua maeret lectoque Aeneae relicto incumbit: illum absentem et audit et videt.

Wasn’t Aeneas just mentioned? So why was illum used?

At this point in the poem, Aeneas has left the palace to rejoin his people and prepare the fleet for departure to Italy. Illum, then is appropriate to the situation and helps emphasize the fact that Aeneas is well and truly gone from her life.

[Propertius]

Barry or mwh can probably give you better tips, but for now here is Allen&Greenough:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D297

This explains the various uses of hic ,ille, and is. I keep them straight by thinking of hic as “here”, i.e. this, close, recent, first person So if hic is here, then ille must be “there”, i.e., that, remote, third person, former. This has been explained before, I think, on this board.

ea sola in domo vacua maeret lectoque Aeneae relicto incumbit: illum absentem et audit et videt.

Wasn’t Aeneas just mentioned? So why was illum used?

At this point in the poem, Aeneas has left the palace to rejoin his people and prepare the fleet for departure to Italy. Illum, then is appropriate to the situation and helps emphasize the fact that Aeneas is well and truly gone from her life.

Thanks Aetos. You’re like a handy A&G encyclopedia. I’m truly indebted to your quick referencing of that book.

[Aetos]

You’re welcome, Propertie! At some point you’ll want to learn how to use a grammar. To find this answer for you (which really didn’t take very much time), I went to my hard copy of the A&G, looked up demonstrative pronouns (Para. 297), reread it for my own edification, then went to Perseus to find the link to Section 297. The process is a little cumbersome, trying to find a subject area in the online version. By default, it likes to open to the long list of 642 chapters, with no indication of what is in each chapter. To find out, you have to have “re-chunk” it to display by part or section. So rather than sitting there twiddling my thumbs (or more usually going for another cup of coffee) waiting for the page to reload, I look things up in my hard copy, note the chapter number and then go to Perseus, if I want to reference it in a post.

Glad to see you’re taking mwh’s and Barry’s advice and reading Caesar. I would recommend a student edition, so that you have grammar, notes and vocabulary at your fingertips. As to which one is best, perhaps mwh or Barry could suggest something. I used Jenney & Scudder, which is really intended for high school students. You’re probably ready for something a little more advanced, say a college edition. I don’t think I’d go for an OCT (Oxford Classical Text) just yet!

[Propertius]

You’re welcome, Propertie! At some point you’ll want to learn how to use a grammar. To find this answer for you (which really didn’t take very much time), I went to my hard copy of the A&G, looked up demonstrative pronouns (Para. 297), reread it for my own edification, then went to Perseus to find the link to Section 297. The process is a little cumbersome, trying to find a subject area in the online version. By default, it likes to open to the long list of 642 chapters, with no indication of what is in each chapter. To find out, you have to have “re-chunk” it to display by part or section. So rather than sitting there twiddling my thumbs (or more usually going for another cup of coffee) waiting for the page to reload, I look things up in my hard copy, note the chapter number and then go to Perseus, if I want to reference it in a post.

Glad to see you’re taking mwh’s and Barry’s advice and reading Caesar. I would recommend a student edition, so that you have grammar, notes and vocabulary at your fingertips. As to which one is best, perhaps mwh or Barry could suggest something. I used Jenney & Scudder, which is really intended for high school students. You’re probably ready for something a little more advanced, say a college edition. I don’t think I’d go for an OCT (Oxford Classical Text) just yet!

I actually ordered a copy of A&G and Gildersleeve’s grammar this week. I should be getting them some time next week. They weren’t that expensive so I got them both.
And I’m actually reading Caesar on thelatinlibrary(.)com. It’s the best I can do for now. But some times I feel like doing a review of everything I have learned so far. I was thinking of doing D’Ooge’s Latin for beginners. It seems to explain the grammar better than Lingua Latina or its Companion ever did. I’m finding things that weren’t even in Orberg’s books in D’Ooge’s book! And thus far, I would even recommend it over Orberg. It reminds me of A&G or Gildersleeve’s grammar but divided into lessons and with exercises to go along with it. What would you say to this?
There’s a free copy of D’Ooge’s book here on textkit if you’re not familiar with it and want to take a look through it.

[Aetos]

I took a quick peek at D’Ooge’s book and see that it has gotten some good reviews. I don’t think you really need to start from the beginning, considering you’ve completed Familia Romana and I’m assuming the first part of Roma Aeterna. I would try the reviews in Appendix III of D’Ooge and see how you do. On the other hand, I also read the description of Roma Aeterna and after Virgil, quite a bit of the material appears to be unadapted. “The unadapted selections, which make up the majority of the text, are taken from Aulus Gellius, Ovid, Nepos, Sallust, and Horace.” It would appear that you wouldn’t have to go much further to get into unadapted selections. The Livy section they say “is gently adapted”. The points I would make for carrying on with LLPSI, is that you know your current level of progress and that you are not too far away as it is from reading unadapted Latin. By the same token, perhaps doing the reviews in D’Ooge will pleasantly surprise you. In a nutshell what you need to start reading Caesar is a knowledge of:

1. Forms:All declensions and conjugations of nouns, adjectives, pronouns & verbs, regular & irregular in all moods and voices
2. Syntax: A. Uses of the dative, accusative and ablative
   B. Complementary Infinitive; Use of the Infinitive in Indirect Discourse
   C. Formation and Use of Participles, Ablative Absolute, and Gerunds
   D. Irregular Comparison of Adjectives
   E. Subjunctive Mood
3. Volitive Subjunctive
4. Purpose Clauses
5. Result Clauses
6. Cum Circumstantial Clauses
   I would call this a “bare bones” checklist. I think the major syntactical challenge in Caesar is the frequent use of indirect discourse, so I would get very comfortable with this construction. You’ll run across other constructions as you read, but if you’re reading an edition with good notes, you should be able to find an explanation. And of course, there’s Textkit!

[Propertius]

I took a quick peek at D’Ooge’s book and see that it has gotten some good reviews. I don’t think you really need to start from the beginning, considering you’ve completed Familia Romana and I’m assuming the first part of Roma Aeterna. I would try the reviews in Appendix III of D’Ooge and see how you do. On the other hand, I also read the description of Roma Aeterna and after Virgil, quite a bit of the material appears to be unadapted. “The unadapted selections, which make up the majority of the text, are taken from Aulus Gellius, Ovid, Nepos, Sallust, and Horace.” It would appear that you wouldn’t have to go much further to get into unadapted selections. The Livy section they say “is gently adapted”. The points I would make for carrying on with LLPSI, is that you know your current level of progress and that you are not too far away as it is from reading unadapted Latin. By the same token, perhaps doing the reviews in D’Ooge will pleasantly surprise you. In a nutshell what you need to start reading Caesar is a knowledge of:

1. Forms:All declensions and conjugations of nouns, adjectives, pronouns & verbs, regular & irregular in all moods and voices
2. Syntax: A. Uses of the dative, accusative and ablative
   B. Complementary Infinitive; Use of the Infinitive in Indirect Discourse
   C. Formation and Use of Participles, Ablative Absolute, and Gerunds
   D. Irregular Comparison of Adjectives
   E. Subjunctive Mood
3. Volitive Subjunctive
4. Purpose Clauses
5. Result Clauses
6. Cum Circumstantial Clauses
   I would call this a “bare bones” checklist. I think the major syntactical challenge in Caesar is the frequent use of indirect discourse, so I would get very comfortable with this construction. You’ll run across other constructions as you read, but if you’re reading an edition with good notes, you should be able to find an explanation. And of course, there’s Textkit!

Thanks Aetos. I’ve been so busy with school that I hardly have any time to read some Latin during the week. I’ll post anything if I run into trouble with Caesar.