I wonder where they went; having keyboard issues lately.Sentence 5 is right, now. You still need to correct 1+2.
I wonder where they went; having keyboard issues lately.Sentence 5 is right, now. You still need to correct 1+2.
It could be the forum's fault. I've had some of what I type mysteriously vanish every once in a while, too.I wonder where they went; having keyboard issues lately.
That's right.2. The big boys, blamed by everybody (say all) will desist.
Puerī magnī, ā cūnctīs culpātī, dēsistent.
It is correct if you make paratus agree with the subject (and swapping it with defendere would be better in terms of word order)Puerī parvī, ā Mārcō monitī, nunc sē parātūs dēfendere sunt.
I don't see how the PPP would be used here. @Bitmap. The book says nothing.
Puerī parvī, ā Mārcō monitī, nunc sē parātūs dēfendere sunt.It is correct if you make paratus agree with the subject (and swapping it with defendere would be better in terms of word order)
The adjective (originally past participle) is first/second declension.That was using the adjective parātus in the plural nom parātūs (4th dec.)
Paratus is the PPP (perfect passive participle) and defendere is the infinitive dependent on the PPP.But I don't see how that is PPP + infinitive
There are no adjectives that decline along the 4th declension. They either fall in the 1st/2nd (-us, -a, -um) or in the third declension.Puerī parvī, ā Mārcō monitī, nunc sē parātūs dēfendere sunt.
That was using the adjective parātus in the plural nom parātūs (4th dec.)
paratus is the PPP of parare. paratus est literally means "he is made ready". Some of those PPPs are (like in English) rather close to adjectives (cf. a phrase like 'an intoxicated man', 'a failed state', 'a given situation' etc.). paratus is an example of that. paratus est means "he is ready", and the thing someone is ready to do can be expressed with an infinitive construction or with ad + accusative.Puerī parvī, ā Mārcō monitī, nunc sē dēfendere parātī sunt.
But I don't see how that is PPP + infinitive unless that is the way it is normally described.
OKThe adjective (originally past participle) is first/second declension.
There are no fourth-declension adjectives or participles. You were looking at the wrong word, the noun meaning "preparation".OK
Paratus is the PPP (perfect passive participle) and defendere is the infinitive dependent on the PPP.
Sorry, that may have been my fault. I wasn't clear there.OK
and I know that bit but it needs another part to it - esse. That's where I got lost.
That's not quite true, or at least it's not how I would choose to see things. I would rather see things like this: "are" is not always translated as a separate word. For example, "they are being readied" = parantur. The single word parantur contains the whole idea of the four English words "they are being readied", including "are". So it is translated, in a way. Parati, on the other hand, only contains the idea of "(having been made) ready (masc. pl. nom.)". No "are" idea in there, so you need to add it (except in cases of ellipsis, but I guess you'll see that a bit later).it is mostly not translated
That re-framing helps tremendously. I wonder how people learn English when there are all these compound tenses and filler words.That's not quite true, or at least it's not how I would choose to see things. I would rather see things like this: "are" is not always translated as a separate word. For example, "they are being readied" = parantur. The single word parantur contains the whole idea of the four English words "they are being readied", including "are". So it is translated, in a way. Parati, on the other hand, only contains the idea of "(having been made) ready (masc. pl. nom.)". No "are" idea in there, so you need to add it (except in cases of ellipsis, but I guess you'll see that a bit later).
That's right ... I don't know how crazy your book is about the future aspect, though, which would require some rephrasing. Like "They say Marcus will give etc."Marcus is said to be giving dinner in the forest again.
You forgot to translate heri (in which case you would probably also have chosen the past tense in English).We have explored places (areas) near here. We have seen nothing of danger.
Very good!Friends, invited by us, will meet, often in (to) this place, in the morning or after school (hours).
haec Sexti ipsa verba sunt is missing."You", he said, "we have decided to invite". I am blessed.
Loca propinqua herī explōrāvimus.
Heri = yesterday.We have explored places (areas) near here.
Nihil vīdimus perīculōsī.
Literally "nothing of dangerous", but in real English "nothing dangerous".We have seen nothing of danger.
ubi tabernāculum est
This sentences says "where the tent is (or stands if you will)", in the present tense, which is odd since the speaker has just said that the tent is to be pitched in the future. Did you mistranscribe the Latin, forgetting a future participle before est?where the tent will stand
Good.1. Mārcus cēnam in silvā iterum datūrus esse dīcitur. Putātur nōs invītātūrus esse.
Marcus is said to be giving dinner in the forest again. He is thought to be going to invite us.
Same problems as above regarding heri and periculosi.2. Aliquid novī tibi nūntiātūrus sum. Ego et Iūlius in idōneō locō tabernāculum statūtūrī sumus. Est in silvā prope scholam parvum spatium apertum. Hīc tabernāculum stātūrum est. Loca propinqau herī explōrāvimus. Nihil vīdimus perīculōsī. Locus ipse pulcher est.
I am going to tell you some news. Julius and I are going to set up a tent in a suitable place. A small open space is in the forest near the school. OR There is a small open space in the forest near the school. Here the tent is going to be set up. We have explored places (areas) near here. We have seen nothing of danger. The place itself is lovely.
Well, yeah, it would require some rephrasing to be more literally future. The present progressive regularly does convey a future meaning in English, though, and the meaning is preserved here.I don't know how crazy your book is about the future aspect, though, which would require some rephrasing.
I feel like I'm losing my mind.This sentences says "where the tent is (or stands if you will)", in the present tense, which is odd since the speaker has just said that the tent is to be pitched in the future. Did you mistranscribe the Latin, forgetting a future participle before est?
I wanted to correct that bit as well, then looked at the post and couldn't find it anymore. It looks like I skipped some lines when going over it.Why?