Some points / queries re Cap XXIV LLPSI

Latin Learning Latin
1

I have gone through Orberg’s LLPSI Cap. XXIV and have compiled the following questions / points needing clarification /

confirmation.

  1. Quintus lecto tenetur.

Nonne ‘lecto’ ablativus?


2) Puer aegrotus iterum iterumque super lectum se convetit.

Estne ‘se’ accusativus?


3) …pes denuo dolere incipit

‘denuo’ estne adverbium?


4) Villa queta est: nullus sonus auditur ab ulla parte; etiam aves, tempestate subita territae, in horto silent.

Nescio quid significat ‘tempestate subita territae’ ‘…and the birds frightened by an unexpected storm’?!). Tempestatus

non fit. ???


5) Quintus: Certe surgere conatus sum, at necesse fuit me continuo recumbere…

Si Quintus ‘…at necesse fuit me continuo recubuisse’ dixerit pravene hoc fuerit?


6) Syra iuxta lectum ad latus pueri laevum considit eumque consolatur..

Suntne Utrumque ‘latus’ et ‘laevum’ accusativus neutrum?



7) Immo laetare te non inclusum esse in cubiculo ut fratrem tuum!

‘Laetare’ imperativus deponens est?


8. ‘…certe tergi dolores passus est.’

‘Certainly he endured pains in his behind..’


9) Estne verberatus Marcus

‘verberatus’ participium perfectum est.

Si dicit aliquis ‘Estne Marcus verberatus est’ prave aut recte sit?


10) Omnia ignoro.

‘omnia’ neutrum accusativus pluralis est?


11) Nihil difficile est amanti.

‘amanti’ dativus singularis est? Cur? ‘it is not difficult FOR a lover…’ ?


12) Pater filium suum redeuntem..

Nonne ‘redientem’ quoque recte est.


13) Hoc audito, dominus Marcum severe reprehendit.

Nonne ‘Hoc audito’ ablativi sunt? - ablativus absolutus?


14) neque umquam = numquam ?


15) Syra: “Id non miror, nam canis saepissime te vidit”

‘saepissime’ ablativus est? adverbum?

  1. ‘vidit’ perfectum persona tertia singularis est?

    \
  2. Canis te novit.

Etsi ‘novit’ perfectum est, significat praesens.

‘Ego Marcum bene novi’ - I know (have known) Marcus very well.


18) Got to ask this in english

In 'Multi ei (cani) ossa dedi et saepe cum eo lusi.

‘Saepe’ is an adverb. But it seems that adverbs have an ablative quality about this. There are forms of saepe that are

ablative, yes? Is there a grammatical relationship between ablatives and adverbs…?


19) Bonus discipulus malo: “…” = Bonus discipulus malo discipulo dicit.

2

Correct.

  1. Puer aegrotus iterum iterumque super lectum se convetit.

Estne ‘se’ accusativus?

Correct.


  1. …pes denuo dolere incipit

‘denuo’ estne adverbium?

Correct.


  1. Villa queta est: nullus sonus auditur ab ulla parte; etiam aves, tempestate subita territae, in horto silent.

Nescio quid significat ‘tempestate subita territae’ ‘…and the birds frightened by an unexpected storm’?!). Tempestatus

non fit. ???

“even the birds, frightened by a sudden storm, are quiet in the garden.”
tempestas, tatis = season, weather, storm.


  1. Quintus: Certe surgere conatus sum, at necesse fuit me continuo recumbere…

Si Quintus ‘…at necesse fuit me continuo recubuisse’ dixerit pravene hoc fuerit?

I’m not sure you can use anything but the present infinitive in this case. If you used the perfect infinitive, I imagine it would change the time of the action relative to the main verb.

“at necesse fuit me continuo recumbere” = “but it was necessary that I constantly recline”
“at necesse fuit me continuo recubuisse” = “but it was necessary for me to have constantly reclined” or something like that.


  1. Syra iuxta lectum ad latus pueri laevum considit eumque consolatur..

Suntne Utrumque ‘latus’ et ‘laevum’ accusativus neutrum?

Yes, “latus” is a 3rd declension noun, one of those that appears to be second declension in the nominative form. “latus, lateris, n.” see also “tempus, temporis, n.” Accusative because it’s the object of the preposition “ad.”

  1. Immo laetare te non inclusum esse in cubiculo ut fratrem tuum!

‘Laetare’ imperativus deponens est?

Ita! Imperative deponent verbs look like non-deponent infinitives.


  1. ‘…certe tergi dolores passus est.’

‘Certainly he endured pains in his behind..’

“tergum” means the “back” more generally, rather than the butt, but you have the idea right.

  1. Estne verberatus Marcus

‘verberatus’ participium perfectum est.

Si dicit aliquis ‘Estne Marcus verberatus est’ prave aut recte sit?

Prave. Add “ne” to the end of the first word to make a question, rather than using “estne” altogether. You only need one verb to combine with the participle to make the perfect passive verb.


  1. Omnia ignoro.

‘omnia’ neutrum accusativus pluralis est?

Ita. “All [things].”


  1. Nihil difficile est amanti.

‘amanti’ dativus singularis est? Cur? ‘it is not difficult FOR a lover…’ ?

“Nothing is difficult for a lover.” Dative=to/for, often in the sense of “in respect to.” Remember that “nihil” is a noun.


  1. Pater filium suum redeuntem..

Nonne ‘redientem’ quoque recte est.

I believe either would work, although “redeuntem” seems more standard. The participle of “eo” and it’s compounds is “eundum.”


  1. Hoc audito, dominus Marcum severe reprehendit.

Nonne ‘Hoc audito’ ablativi sunt? - ablativus absolutus?

Correct. “With this having been heard,” or less literally, “Having heard this.”


  1. neque umquam = numquam ?

Correct. “And not ever.”


  1. Syra: “Id non miror, nam canis saepissime te vidit”

‘saepissime’ ablativus est? adverbum?

Adverb. The “e” ending frequently turns an adjective into an adverb (“laetus”–> “laete”). This is the superlative form of the adverb “saepe.”

  1. ‘vidit’ perfectum persona tertia singularis est?

Ita.

  1. Canis te novit.

Etsi ‘novit’ perfectum est, significat praesens.

‘Ego Marcum bene novi’ - I know (have known) Marcus very well.

Yes. In terms of knowing things, the perfect is used with present meaning (because you have learned/know them and still know them).


  1. Got to ask this in english

In 'Multi ei (cani) ossa dedi et saepe cum eo lusi.

‘Saepe’ is an adverb. But it seems that adverbs have an ablative quality about this. There are forms of saepe that are

ablative, yes? Is there a grammatical relationship between ablatives and adverbs…?

Lacking insight into the development of the language, I can’t comment on the connection between ablatives and adverbs. However, note that adverbs cannot be declined–they are only one form. Some of these may look like ablatives (“saepe”), while others will appear otherwise (“penitus”=“thoroughly”, “admodum”=completley). As noted above, the “e” ending is a regular way to form adverbs from adjectives (I think of any declension).

  1. Bonus discipulus malo: “…” = Bonus discipulus malo discipulo dicit.

Correct, it’s short hand.

3

Your verbs aren’t agreeing in mood here… you have “dīcit” in the indicative and “sit” in the subjunctive. I think the “dīcit” should be “dīcat”.

I also wonder if it should be “prāvum” and “rēctum”, since they’re being used with a form of “esse”, though you do use the adverbial forms with e.g. “dīcere” and “respondēre”, and when it’s an interjection. But then, I know it’s not impossible to use adverbs with “esse” (such as “esse bene”, to be well).

4

@Thesauras, many, many thanks…your guidance is invaluable.

@furrykef. Thanks.. I haven’t used subjunctive before and was just experimenting! But why do the two verbs have to agree in mood.

Si dicit aliquis ‘Estne Marcus verberatus est’ prave aut recte sit?

If someone says (indicative) “Has Marcus been been beaten” would [sit = subjunctive / sitne?] this be correct or incorrect? Surely ‘Si’ conveys the right level of uncertainty…? In English they don’t need to agree,. Do they need to agree in Latin?

How about: Si dicit aliquis ‘Estne Marcus verberatus est’ sitne hic prave aut recte?

regards

5

We have the same thing in English sometimes. You cannot say, “If I had done that, I am rich.” It must be, “If I had done that, I would be rich.” In English, the two verbs aren’t in the same mood, but you still have to match the subjunctive “had done” with the conditional “would be”. In Latin, it just happens that the two verbs will virtually always take the same mood.

Here is a quick rundown of Latin conditionals. (More resources can be found by googling “Latin conditionals”.)

6

OK so the link says:

‘Contrary to fact structures are in the subjunctive mood, whatever the tense. Notice that in these examples the second tense is the same as the first tense: two present verbs, two imperfect verbs, or two past perfect (pluperfect) verbs.’

Yes but is this saying that the 2nd tense MUST be the same as the first in all cases (apart from ‘these examples’)?

What I’m saying is closer to:

If I did that (indicative), I would be rich. (subjunctive)

I have the subjunctive on the 2nd clause.

I seem to recall Orberg has used the construction ‘Si…’ in a conditional sense but without subjuntive…

‘Si mater infantem suum ipsa alere non potest sive non vult, infans ab alia muliere alitur, quae ei in loco matris est.’

  • is that conditional?

In English you can say ‘If the mother does not wish or is unable to look after the infant then another woman MIGHT look after it…’ But you are saying that:

‘Si mater infantem suum ipsa alere non potest sive non vult, infans ab alia muliere alatur’

is not allowed unless ‘potest’ and ‘vult’ are in subjuntive too, right?

So it should be:

Si mater infantem suum ipsa alere non possit sive non velit, infans ab alia muliere alatur.

Is that it?

7

The two verbs need not agree in tense (time), although they very often will, just in mood (indicative versus subjunctive).

If I did that (indicative), I would be rich. (subjunctive)

How is that different from “If I had done that, I would be rich”? I don’t think it really has a different meaning.

Yes, that’s a conditional sentence.

Yes, I think so.

By the way, I have to admit I’m not always clear on when to use the subjunctive versus the indicative when it comes to the present or future. I just know that, whichever you choose to use, you should use it on both sides.

8

Thanks furrykef..

9

@thesaurus

  1. Villa queta est: nullus sonus auditur ab ulla parte; etiam aves, tempestate subita territae, in horto silent.

Nescio quid significat ‘tempestate subita territae’ ‘…and the birds frightened by an unexpected storm’?!). Tempestatus

non fit. ???

“even the birds, frightened by a sudden storm, are quiet in the garden.”
tempestas, tatis = season, weather, storm.

There are some strange things about: ‘tempestate subita territae’ from the point of view of the logic and flow of the narrative.

They are:

  1. There is no storm mentioned either before or after this time;

  2. He tells us ‘Villa queta est: nullus sonus auditur…’ so where is this storm?

  3. Why would the birds be silent because there is a storm?

  4. If they were - how would we know - given that there’s a storm?

  5. So are we to believe that not a sound can be heard and that even the birds are silent because there’s a storm???!!!

It makes no sense on multiple levels…from the point of view of the narrative..

10

I agree, I don’t entirely understand what Orberg has in mind here. Perhaps he intended something more abstract than “storm,” like a change in the weather or the season… sometimes animals in nature will fall silent for reasons that aren’t apparent to humans, perhaps because of an approaching storm or disturbance.

Nevertheless, I wouldn’t get hung up on the intricacies of the story–you’re here to learn Latin!

Tibi adsentio, nescio ego quid hic Orberg significare optet, fortasse non “tempestatem” per se, sed aliquem motum caeli vel temporis… nonnumquam animalia rationum suarm causa, quae nobis non patent, sicut tempestatis vel tumultus adpropinquando silent.

Atquin res ipsae fabulae tibi interesse non debent–te solum oportet linguam latinam disces!

11

Orberg is referring to the storm that we saw in Capitulum XVI: Tempestas. If you read carefully, you will realize that it is the same storm mentioned in Capitulum XX: Parentes, Capitulum XXI: Pugna Discipulorum and Cap. XXII: Cave Canem. IN XXIV: l. 55, you will see that Syra says, “Medus heri domo fugit…”, so basically, the narrative represented all the way from Cap. VI to XXIV has happened over the course of just two days in the life of our Roman Family!

12

Thanks. Yes…something like this did occur to me…

13

Thanks. Yes…something like this did occur to me…