That's right, but note that you could also say, perhaps more naturally, "these are Sextus' very words".Haec Sextī ipsa verba sunt.
These are Sextus' words themselves.
Esse would make no sense there. Esse can be omitted, but when it could be used in the first place.Here the tent is going to be set up. The book says esse is often omitted so this could read Hīc tabernāculum stātūrum (esse) est.
"The tent will stand here."How would you translate it, actively?
It isn't. What was passive in your translation was "to be set up".I don't think 'going to be' is passive in English when dealing with the future although it seems it might be.
Ah, I see. I should have said (periphrastic future) "The tent is going to stand here" as opposed to Hīc tabernāculum stābit. The tent will stand here. The periphrastic future is what is being drilled instead of the future indicative.Esse would make no sense there. Esse can be omitted, but when it could be used in the first place.
Forms of esse can sometimes be left implied, so here for instance you could omit est. It's even more common for the infinitive, esse, to be omitted with the future participle, for example in a sentence like hic tabernaculum staturum (esse) dicitur, "The tent is said to be going to stand here", "It is said that the tent will stand here".
"The tent will stand here."
It isn't. What was passive in your translation was "to be set up".
I'm the one who said "the tent will stand here". There isn't a big difference but I guess "the tent is going to stand here" is more precisely accurate. Apologies.Ah, I see. I should have said (periphrastic future) "The tent is going to stand here" as opposed to Hīc tabernāculum stābit. The tent will stand here. The periphrastic future is what is being drilled instead of the future indicative.
That was the problem, including the fact that the future participle of statuo would translate as "going to set up" (active), not "going to be set up" (passive), since the future participle is active.Also, I tried to translate the completely wrong verb; statuō instead of stō.
I don't think 3 or 4 examples in one short chapter is much of an over present. You need enough examples to understand the construction at my stage. In English there is a subtle difference between the two meanings. I appreciate the heads-up regarding using the construction in future. "...going to" is VERY common in English, moreso than "will" or "shall" nowadays and the temptation would be there.u
It should be mentioned that the periphrastic future hardly ever occurs in main clauses, and that your book is probably overrepresenting it. If classical Latin has any chance of choosing the future indicative over the periphrastic form, it will. In other words, you will be more than 99% more likely to read "tabernaculum stabit" than "tabernaculum staturum est".
The periphrastic future is usually used when the future indicative is not possible, for example in infinitive constructions (dicit hic tabernaculum staturum esse) or in indirect questions (quaerit ubi tabernaculum staturum sit) in order to express posteriority.
NP.I'm the one who said "the tent will stand here". There isn't a big difference but I guess "the tent is going to stand here" is more precisely accurate. Apologies.
I think you can use is here if you imagine this sentence in some context (i.e. with some preceding sentence stating who 'he' is).4. He and Sextus are going-to-set-up a tent in the forest near the school.
Et is et Sextus in silvā prope scholam tabernāculum statūtūrī sunt.
4a. He and Sextus are going-to-set-up a tent in a suitable place in the forest near the school.
Et is et Sextus in silvā prope scholam in locō idōneō tabernāculum statūtūrī sunt.
I think this isn't wrong, but it would be more common to say nec quid rather than et nihil.5. They explored the neighbourhood yesterday, and saw nothing dangerous.
Loca propinqua herī explōrāvērunt, et nihil vīdērunt perīculōsī.
Same here (regarding loco)6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable space.
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
Look over this sentence again6a. The tent is going-to-stand in a beautiful open space.
Tabernāculum in locō spatium apertum pulchrum statūrum est.
It would probably be better to say de ea re.7. They are going-to-inform their friends about it, and these will often meet there, either after school hours or in-the-morning. (say "come-together thither")
Dē eō amīcōs doctūrī sunt, et ēos eō saepe convenient, vel post scholae hōrās vel māne.
There is a t too many.8. They have decided to invite us too. Good-bye.
Nōs quoque invītāre statutērunt. Valē.
He refers back to Julius; thank you for confirmation. The construction just looked a little unfamiliar to my inexperienced eye.I think you can use is here if you imagine this sentence in some context (i.e. with some preceding sentence stating who 'he' is).KarlaUK dixit:
4. He and Sextus are going-to-set-up a tent in the forest near the school.
Et is et Sextus in silvā prope scholam tabernāculum statūtūrī sunt.
4a. He and Sextus are going-to-set-up a tent in a suitable place in the forest near the school.
Et is et Sextus in silvā prope scholam in locō idōneō tabernāculum statūtūrī sunt.
loco usually doesn't require the preposition in.
The model answers only showed the positive not the negative. I'm going to start a Goldlist of using stuff; this will go in. Thank you.I think this isn't wrong, but it would be more common to say nec quid rather than et nihil.KarlaUK dixit:
5. They explored the neighbourhood yesterday, and saw nothing dangerous.
Loca propinqua herī explōrāvērunt, et nihil vīdērunt perīculōsī.
Locō - Noted see above.Same here (regarding loco)KarlaUK dixit:
6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable space.
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
Does the book say place or space?
Yes, I agree. That translation was a bit of a dog's breakfast.KarlaUK dixit:
Look over this sentence again6a. The tent is going-to-stand in a beautiful open space.
Tabernāculum in locō spatium apertum pulchrum statūrum est.
Re has not been covered yet, but I guess here it means 'thing'. Can you explain the construction, please?It would probably be better to say de ea re.KarlaUK dixit:
7. They are going-to-inform their friends about it, and these will often meet there, either after school hours or in-the-morning. (say "come-together thither")
Dē eō amīcōs doctūrī sunt, et ēos eō saepe convenient, vel post scholae hōrās vel māne.
Oopsie.There is a t too many.KarlaUK dixit:
8. They have decided to invite us too. Good-bye.
Nōs quoque invītāre statutērunt. Valē.
Using in isn't wrong. But most classical texts you will read will use loco without preposition.I used the model construction, albeit in a different word order. The model uses in indōneō locō. I note that I may do without going forward.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with et nihil per se ... I just think you're more likely to find nec quid. Maybe I shouldn't have corrected or pointed out those things in the first place.The model answers only showed the positive not the negative. I'm going to start a Goldlist of using stuff; this will go in. Thank you.
Good ... just mind the spelling: idoneo.Locō - Noted see above.
6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable place (corrected)
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
I think that works.Yes, I agree. That translation was a bit of a dog's breakfast.
Tabernāculum in spatiō apertō pulchrō statūrum est.
There is another inaccuracy I hadn't noticed initially ... eos convenient means "they will meet them", but the sentence to be translated says "these will meet", so I guess the expected answer is ei/hi convenient.Re has not been covered yet, but I guess here it means 'thing'. Can you explain the construction, please?
Dē ea re amīcōs doctūrī sunt, et ēos eō saepe convenient, vel post scholae hōrās vel māne.
Brilliant help as usual, @Bitmap. Thank you. I was a bit stuck on the "these will often meet there". Well out of my experience and comfort zone. I need to review your answer a bit more to understand it. Pronouns, arrrgh!Using in isn't wrong. But most classical texts you will read will use loco without preposition.KarlaUK dixit:
I used the model construction, albeit in a different word order. The model uses in indōneō locō. I note that I may do without going forward.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with et nihil per se ... I just think you're more likely to find nec quid. Maybe I shouldn't have corrected or pointed out those things in the first place.KarlaUK dixit:
The model answers only showed the positive not the negative. I'm going to start a Goldlist of using stuff; this will go in. Thank you.
Good ... just mind the spelling: idoneo.KarlaUK dixit:
Locō - Noted see above.
6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable place (corrected)
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
I think that works.KarlaUK dixit:
Yes, I agree. That translation was a bit of a dog's breakfast.
Tabernāculum in spatiō apertō pulchrō statūrum est.
There is another inaccuracy I hadn't noticed initially ... eos convenient means "they will meet them", but the sentence to be translated says "these will meet", so I guess the expected answer is ei/hi convenient.KarlaUK dixit:
Re has not been covered yet, but I guess here it means 'thing'. Can you explain the construction, please?
Dē ea re amīcōs doctūrī sunt, et ēos eō saepe convenient, vel post scholae hōrās vel māne.
Regarding ea re: From what I understand, you wanted to put id in the ablative, which is the right thought and which isn't even wrong per se. However, the problem with de eo, especially in stand-alone sentences like this, is that it could mean both "about him" and "about this", and when in doubt, the Romans usually assumed the masculine over the neuter. In order to prevent this kind of confusion, they usually said "about this thing" (de ea re) to make things clear.
Don't worry, even the Romans didn't manage to build Rome in a day.I feel like I am making some progress but even basic sentences seem beyond me 'in the wild'.
I'd be interested to see one.but when I look at even GCSE (UK) exams, I am lost
Don't worry, even the Romans didn't manage to build Rome in a day.
I'd be interested to see one.
Rather nec quidquam. (Nec quid is probably possible, but unusual.)I think this isn't wrong, but it would be more common to say nec quid rather than et nihil.
The first et is unnecessary. Using two ets is like saying "both he and Sextus" in English.4. He and Sextus are going-to-set-up a tent in the forest near the school.
Et is et Sextus in silvā prope scholam tabernāculum statūtūrī sunt.
4a. He and Sextus are going-to-set-up a tent in a suitable place in the forest near the school.
Et is et Sextus in silvā prope scholam in locō idōneō tabernāculum statūtūrī sunt.