You’re welcome.
No, no… Welcome to you, you are the new. I hope that you find this forum useful and, also, enjoyable
I have another question (about syntax):
Virtus s?la vēram dat volupt?tem.
[Only the virtue gives true pleasure]
By means of what I am studing on prose composition, I would have written the sentence as follows: S?la virtus dat vēram volupt?tem.
My question deals about the limits on Latin syntax. These sentences are very simple but I need to know how is this. My solution is that -at the moment- I can compose in Latin as far as the text is able to be understood without grammatical faults, without incoherences. For instance, it would not be correct if I said: S?la vēram virtus dat volupt?tis (genitive of voluptas).
Not?
<?xml version="1.0"?>
Ok, I understand what you are saying. I read this morning something similar on my composition book (Albert Harkness´ Latin Composition) and I read about that at Ciceronis De Oratore (which I read many years ago but I remember and go back to it when I need for it). I forgot it. In De Oratore 149-164 Cicero exposes about the rythm and the symmetry of the words location in the speech (164-167).
Ah! When I typed Sola veram virtus dat voluptatis I wanted to mean that the adjective veram (accusative) would not be (grammatically) correctly placed in that sentence because there was not another accusative.
By the way, are you North American? Congratulations, today is 4th July. 
Thank you very much for your response. I mess the difference you report.
Ah! When I typed Sola veram virtus dat voluptatis I wanted to mean that the adjective veram (accusative) would not be (grammatically) correctly placed in that sentence because there was not another accusative.
adjectives, if placed alone, ie, not modifying anything, can work like nouns. If it be neutrum, tthis always happens: petrus verum dicit : peter speaketh the truth (thing); if it be feminine or masculine, it depends upon the meaning and the context, eg, ferus fera ferum (wild, feral) would clearly means the wild animal if used alone, but celer celere would not be clear if it be a animal or a man.
thje sentence you gave was incorrect because it makes no sense in itself: the only virtue of pleasure gives the true (what?), besides the clunsy subject, it lacks a direct object. the problem is not so much the lack of noun, rather it is the lack of a omitted, or a indicated noun. sola virtus dat verum is correct; as it is magistro petrus pravem sententiam dat, marcus autem bonam.
By the way, are you North American?
no im not 
Well, thank you for telling me that about the adjective use as a noun. I know it in Spanish, Italian, French, …, and Ancient Greek (using an article before an adjective) but I did not know that related to Latin.
no im not >
I´m sorry, I thought that.
Tertius Robertus, how do you write the “v”, v.gr., in ign?via,ae (cowardice)? I used to write it like ign?uia,ae but my doubt is about the pronunciation. I pronunce the “v” like in the italian quegli (this is to say, like the “u” in Spanish language). I have decided to follow the Classical or Ciceronis pronunti?tio and I also pronunce de “c” of, ex.gr., celer,is,e(swift) like the “k” in, for instance, key.
Might you say me if I am undermistaken?
the consonatal u’s i write with a v. the c is allways hard, but like c in casa not like k key, which has aspiration, and, which would be the pronunciation of the digraph ch. the v sounds like w, i believe. (there are numerous threads on account of this subject, which i think you should take a look)
Yes. like in casa. The problem is that I thought the k in key was unaspirated.
I have already read the threads on aspiration but I think I´m going to continue reading them.
Thanks
This is one of the things that makes the Classical pronunciation of Greek so difficult for us English speakers: All of our initial stops are aspirated.
They can be voiced (and unaspirated) like β, γ, & δ: bore, gore, door.
They can be unvoiced (and aspirated) like φ, χ, & θ: pore, core, tore.
But if they are unvoiced and unaspirated (like π, κ, & τ) they have to have an s in front of them: spore, score, store.
We have to mentally put an s in there without actually pronouncing it: quite a feat!
Of course, in Latin you have the same thing: p, k, and t are always unaspirated, I believe. To indicate the aspirated Greek stops they were forced to write ph, ch, and th.
Hi, Arvid.
Thank you for your kindful response.
A friend of mine said me this morning non diligens fuisti (et laetus ego sum) because of trying “to learn” Latin pronunciation. The meaning of his words was that as I am Spainyard, I must not to learn any pronunciation, but only check it out.
By the way, I was studing a part of the Aelius Antonius Nebrissensis´ Latin grammar (edition of 1804) this morning and in the CCCXLIII page I found that the pronunciation, ex.gr., of the diphthong “ae” was as a long “eh”… but, for instance, in order to say lÄ«tterae (letters, learning, epistle) I pronounce ae like the first syllable in isle (as a closed e). Is it correct according to the classical pronunciation?
Si vales bene est.
I have just found a very useful resource.
http://www.classicsnet.plus.com/readitright/saylatin.html
Wow, Gonzalo, that is a very useful resource! Thanks!
In answer to your early query, I’ve always been told that “ae” and “oe” in Latin were pronounced as “ai” and “oi” (“ay” and “oy” in Spanish.)
Did you like my little chart? I’ve seen many books that tried to give all nine sounds with an English word as an example, but there was always one odd man out. I spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I finally came up with “ore” as an ending. I think the mental block was that “door” is spelled differently. Anyway, anybody who wants to write a Greek textbook is welcome to use it!
Thank goodness we’re not working on Sanskrit, where you’d have voiced AND aspirated stops: bh, kh, & dh (not to mention jh!)