Indeed because without Ars grammatica we could not read Latin or use the language. If you would ask most English about English grammar terms I wonder how many know the terms they use every day. A former friend of mine said he could read Latin without an indepth knowledge of Latin. He is from Brasil.
Per grammaticam habetur via ad linguae intellectionem.
Tacitus, Annales I.1: Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere
- Thread starter Decimvs
- Start date
E
Etaoin Shrdlu
Guest
Former friends of mine have a similar view of their accomplishments.
Your goal, as far as anyone can make out, is to get someone to do your homework for you.
Very few, surely. But there is a difference between knowing the technical terms and knowing the grammar itself. Even the most ignorant of speakers knows grammar to an extent, if only on an instinctive level: they may have no clue what an adverb or a preposition is, but they know how to form sentences to make them comprehensible, and they know the patterns to understand what others are saying. When it comes to one's native language, it's often that way: wholly instinctive. When learning a foreign language, though, it's a little different. That doesn't mean you have to know all the terms — though that can be useful — but you do have to learn, one way or another, how the language works, the grammar. There's no way around it. Unless you're an absolute genius (of a very, very rare type) you aren't going to just look at Latin texts and come to understand them by yourself without first studying grammar in some kind of systematic way.
Wait let me get this straight. Does that mean that you don't consider them friends anymore because of their poor knowledge of grammar rules?
No, of course not. The person that I was refering to is not a friend anymore because of other reasons than Ars grammatica.Wait let me get this straight. Does that mean that you don't consider them friends anymore because of their poor knowledge of grammar rules?
Exactly my point. I am a bit perplexed why here on this Forum Rothbard and some others think that I do not know Latin grammar. The goal for my learning is that I am able to read and make interpretations of the Latin texts during translation.
I'm sorry, I'm going to sound harsh but from your posts you indeed do not seem to have grasped much of Latin grammar. It is true that the author you're trying to read at the moment, Tacitus, isn't the easiest and can be hard even for someone with a good grasp of the basics — but the mistakes you make give the impression that you don't have a solid enough knowledge of those yet.
Is that obvious from the translations of Tacitus discussed lately with EstQuodFulminelungo? Those are the parts that have caused difficulty for me. Otherwise I would not ask. I translate myself first and discuss then. Tacitus is not the easiest but much easier than Vergilius.
You said it yourself you're not good in Latin and that you haven't memorized Latin grammar:
I wonder what your prof Anneli would say if we'd message her.
I mean that I have some issues with grammar. Do you know all existing grammar? Are there nothing you still learn? Why am I the only one here that need to be perfect with grammar? I do translations myself first. Why is it wrong to discuss weak points? Others do also discuss Latin texts.
I'm tempted to write to your prof (yes, I know her mail) and to the department of history of the University of Helsinki because your incessant attempts of gaining credits at the expanse of the benevolent people here just won't stop. I believe that you have dishonestly gained points due to the benevolence of the kind-hearted people here who have been solving your homework for years. You have obviously learned nothing from their assistance, and your further attempts of (ab)using them will be treated accordingly.
Last edited:
If you have access to "Wheelock's Latin", why not have a look at chapters 23 and 24 where you will find an explanation of the Ablative Absolute, written in plain English.