URGENT homework help

Textbooks Wheelock's Latin
1

I am doing sooo poorly in latin 101 it’s not even funny. I have this assignment due and I’m having such a hard time. We always do latin to english translations in class and for homework, and this one if the other way around so I’m struggling. I suck a lot at english to latin translations. Can someone please tell me how much of this is wrong (probably all of it).

  1. Friends, do not offer good things to bad people too freely.

my translation: amici, non offerui bonae rei liberius maus populus.

  1. Although they love their wives very dearly, they will prefer exile instead of servitude. (Here he wants “although” as both a subordinate clause and as a participial phrase)

my translations: Cum amant uxorum carrime, malent exsilium pro servito.
OR Amant uxorum carrime, quamquam, malent exsilium pro servito.

  1. They asked where those seven had gained such great wisdom.

my translation: Rogent ei qua (or should it be ‘ubi’?) illud septem acquisiverant magnam sapientam.

  1. Let us always seek the truth in order that we not be greatly diminished in our souls.

my translation: Peteamus veritas semper ut non monebimur magnopere in nostrum animus.

Thanks in advance.

2

Salve, sorry I can’t help more, but I have to be in class in about 3 minutes ago :slight_smile: but here it goes.


  1. Friends, do not offer good things to bad people too freely.

my translation: amici, non offerui bonae rei liberius maus populus.

well, the vocative plural of amicus is right. And you use the right polarity ( :smiley: positive, negative… get it?) of offerere. but i believe the plural imperative of ferre is ferte, and so the pl.imp. of offerre is offerte, but I could be wrong, as I am just to the point in magnificent Wheelock’s where ferre is taught, and I’m still trying to logicalize all of it in my head. (wish I had a teacher other than dearie old mee).
de verbis ‘bonae rei’, I think you wanted the accusative case, not the nominative.. and ‘good things’ can be simply translated into the neuter accusative of bonus. …
don’t adverbs normally go near the verb? Really it doesn’t matter, i guess… (radically nonconforming, and all that).
ma[l]us populus should be in the dative, puto. haha, that would offend some people :laughing:

good luck with your class!

3

Mr./Ms. Stoopib,
Hoc conare:

  1. Amici, nolite offere populo malo liberius bona.
    or Amici, non offerte populo malo liberius bona.

  2. Cum [viri] amantes carissime uxores, praeter servitutem exilium malent.

  3. Rogaverunt/rogarunt ubi [illi] septem tantam sapientiam recepissent.

  4. Semper veritatem quaeramus ne magnopere nostris in animis minuamus.

Id serva verum.

4
  1. Amici, nolite offere populo malo liberius bona.
    or Amici, non offerte populo malo liberius bona.

how embarassing.. isn’t the combination ‘non’ + ‘imperative’ considered bad grammar? use nolite. as elduce first points out.

5

I agree el duce except non offerte…If u disagree nolite, at least we use ne + perfect subjontif al second pers sg. Correct me if i am wrong!
Vale!

6

And stoopib, please, from my bottom of my heart i say this, please, learn Latin!

7

did you miss the class on the day that they taught all the material?

8

was that completely necessary, fierywrath?

9

thanks jerkass. like i’m not having a hard enough time with this crap, i need assholes like you making fun of me online.

10

haha, at least it got an amusing reply.

hey fierywrath, how old are you? All of your posts that I see are comments like that, which would suggest that you are young, however they never really come across as adolescent. Just curious.
(You made a similar abrupt insult in one of my threads, though not as good as this one).

11

So I have another homework assignment due. Anyone wanna make fun of me again? Please PM me if you’re willing to help.

12

stoopib, ignore fierywrath’s puerile gestures. fierywrath still confuses sarcasm with wit, a mistake a few of us have made of late.

Post your questions here and I’m sure someone will help :slight_smile:

13

this time the assignment is latin to english translation. i’m okay with translating things word for word, and getting things in the right tense, etc., i just get messed up when i have to actually put the translated words into some discernable order in english. so here goes. i don’t know how to make sense of this:
Qui inter haec aluntur non magis sapere possunt quam bene olere qui in culina vivunt!
to me it looks like: Those who/among/this/they were nourished/no/more/have good sense/they are able/whom/well/to smell of/those who/in the kitchen/they live!

kill me now.

14

You’ve got the words, now match them up!

"Those who/among/this/they were nourished/no/more/have good sense/they are able/whom/well/to smell of/those who/in the kitchen/they live! "

“Those who” - is there a verb that matches ‘those who’? they are likely to be doing something since it is in the nominative.

“among” - among what?

“They were nourished” - who are ‘they’? Is there a word (either a name or a pronoun) that you could substitute for ‘they’?


and so on…

15

thanks but that doesn’t help me at all. i just don’t get how to make sense of this word jumble.

does the “those who” go with the “they were nourished”? were they nourished in the kitchen or nourished by someone who smelled like a kitchen, and what does it have to do with “they live!”? i just don’t get it.

16

Is there a word (either a name or a pronoun) that you could substitute for ‘they’?

of course my dear! qui at the beginning of the sentence or after a major sign - like : ; . ? ! can be translated no more relative but demonstrative this, these ones, instead of who…

17

here’s the whole thing:

A Crisis in Roman Education
“Ego discipulos in scholis stultissimos fieri puto, quod nihil, ex his
quae in usu habemus, aut audiunt aut vident, sed homines plenos timoris
petentes a piratis ne se in catenas iniciant, sed tyrannos edicta
scribentes quibus imperent filiis ut capita patrum suorum praecidant,
sed reges oraculis monitos ut virgines tres immolent ne pestilentia
gravior fiat. Qui inter haec aluntur non magis sapere possunt quam bene
olere qui in culina vivunt! Levibus enim atque turpibus declamationibus
magistri effecerunt ut corpus orationis enervaretur et caderet. Certe
neque Plato neque Demosthenes ad hoc genus exercitationis accessit!”

Non est passus Agamemnon me diutius orare: “Ego magistros fateor in his exercitationibus peccare, sed debemus eis ignoscere. Nam nisi dixerint ea quae adulescentibus placent, ut ait Cicero, ‘soli in scholis relinquentur.’ Parentes culpa digni sunt, qui nolunt liberos suos severa lege discere. Nunc, ut puero, in scholis ludunt; ut iuvenes, ridentus in foro.”

-adapted from Petronius, Satryicon 1-4


my crappy translation:

I reckon students experience the most foolish things in schools, because they never hear or see nothing we use, but instead become men full of fear of pirates for not to fall into their chains, but they become tyrrants who writing their decrees command children to cut off the heads of their parents, but they become kings respecting oracles and sacrificing 3 virgins so a more serious plague may not happen. The ones who grow up in the kitchen have good sense and even smell better (THIS CONFUSES ME TO NO END!). Truly, the teachers brought it about, by setting shameful themes for their speeches, that the bodies are weakened and fall. Certainly this is not the type of speech that neither Plato nor Demonthesis preached!
Agamemnon suffered for a long time to reply: “I confess that teachers make mistakes in the exercises, but we ought to forgive them. For if they did not say to their pupils what they wanted to hear, like Cicero said: ‘they would become accusted to being left behind in school’. Parents are worthy of blame because they refuse to impose strict force on their children to learn. Now, as young boys in school to play; As young men, they are laughed at in the forum.”

THANKS FOR THE HELP

18

Hello, stoopib. I don’t have time to analyze it all, but I’ll try to point out a few things you’ve missed.


"Ego discipulos in scholis stultissimos fieri puto, quod nihil, ex his
quae in usu habemus, aut audiunt aut vident, sed homines plenos timoris
petentes a piratis ne se in catenas iniciant, sed tyrannos edicta
scribentes quibus imperent filiis ut capita patrum suorum praecidant,
sed reges oraculis monitos ut virgines tres immolent ne pestilentia
gravior fiat…

I reckon students experience the most foolish things in schools, because they never hear or see nothing we use, but instead become men full of fear of pirates for not to fall into their chains, but they become tyrrants who writing their decrees command children to cut off the heads of their parents, but they become kings respecting oracles and sacrificing 3 virgins so a more serious plague may not happen…"

Careful attention to adjective agreement will fix your translation here. discipulos and stultissimos agree. I don’t see a verb that could mean “experience,” but fieri means “become.” Try putting those together. Notice also that homines plenos, tyrannos, etc are in accusative case. They are to be contrasted with nihil, which the sed indicates. (I think you might have imported fieri from the first clause. So try: “they never hear [about] anything. . . but [or except] men. . .”

Qui inter haec aluntur non magis sapere possunt quam bene
olere qui in culina vivunt!

The ones who grow up in the kitchen have good sense and even smell better (THIS CONFUSES ME TO NO END!).

It’s a bit tricky, I admit. You haven’t included “inter haec aluntur” in your translation, though. Let me clarify it.

[Ei] (=qui inter haec aluntur) non magis sapere possunt quam [ei] (=qui in culina vivunt) bene olere [possunt].

Think of qui inter haec aluntur as the subject of the sentence, with an implied “the ones” (as you know). “Non magis sapere possunt” might be rendered “are no more able to have good sense [than…].”

Just a few comments on the rest.

Levibus enim atque turpibus declamationibus
magistri effecerunt ut corpus orationis enervaretur et caderet. Certe
neque Plato neque Demosthenes ad hoc genus exercitationis accessit!"

Non est passus Agamemnon me diutius orare> : “Ego magistros fateor in his exercitationibus peccare, sed debemus eis ignoscere. Nam nisi dixerint ea quae adulescentibus placent, ut ait Cicero, ‘> soli in scholis relinquentur> .’ Parentes culpa digni sunt, qui nolunt liberos suos severa lege discere. Nunc, ut puero, in scholis ludunt; ut iuvenes, ridentus in foro.”

“Agamemnon suffered for a long time to reply”
-passus est normally means suffered, but does this fit in the context? Another meaning is “allowed.” Also, what do you do with the me orare? Note that patior, like sino (to allow), can take an accusative infinitive construction. Thus: “Agamemnon did not allow me…”

“‘they would become accusted to being left behind in school’”
-it’s soli, not, as I’m guessing you thoght, soliti. Try: “they will be abandoned alone…”

19

The ones who grow up in such an enviroment can become philosohos as much as the ones who live in a kitchen can smell(the food)

20

too late now. i handed it in this morning. thanks anyway.