The queen loves the great forest et cetera

KarlaUK

Active Member
@Pacifica and @Bitmap
You completely correct. I think I have gone word-blind lately.

Locus ipse ubi tabernāculum est stātūrum pulcher est.
The place itself where the tent is going to stand is beautiful.

Loca propinqau herī explōrāvimus.
We explored places (areas) near here, yesterday.

Haec Sextī ipsa verba sunt.
These are Sextus' words themselves.

Nihil vīdimus perīculōsī.
We have seen nothing dangerous.

Hīc tabernāculum stātūrum est.
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.
How would you translate it, actively? @Bitmap. I don't think 'going to be' is passive in English when dealing with the future although it seems it might be.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Haec Sextī ipsa verba sunt.
These are Sextus' words themselves.
That's right, but note that you could also say, perhaps more naturally, "these are Sextus' very words".
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.
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".
How would you translate it, actively?
"The tent will stand here."
I don't think 'going to be' is passive in English when dealing with the future although it seems it might be.
It isn't. What was passive in your translation was "to be set up".
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
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".
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.
Also, I tried to translate the completely wrong verb; statuō instead of stō.
Thank you.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
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.
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.
Also, I tried to translate the completely wrong verb; statuō instead of stō.
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.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
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.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Yeah, good point. The textbook's usage did sound a little odd, but I didn't stop to think about it much.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
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.
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.
Just to say, a chapter for Hale covers only 1 to 3 pages of A6 and 1 page of the exercises. He's very concise. He deals with the future participle in one page.
Page size edited.
 
Last edited:

KarlaUK

Active Member
Please will anyone help check my translations in to basic Latin to assist my self-learning.
Exercises are from W Gardner Hale's First Latin Book. I have underlined those words where I am unsure on the appropriate word order. A comment on these whether wrong or right would be much appreciated as would highlighting any macron errors.

Section 248 (2nd Ed.)

1. Julius is thought to be intending-to-announce some news.
Iūlius aliquid novī nūntiātūrus (esse) putātur.

2. He is said to be going-to-set-up a tent in the woods.
In silvā tabernāculum statūtūrus (esse) dīcitur.

3. Julius has just-now announced some news to me.
Iūlius mihi aliquid novī modo nūntiāvit.

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.

5. They explored the neighbourhood yesterday, and saw nothing dangerous.
Loca propinqua herī explōrāvērunt, et nihil vīdērunt perīculōsī.

6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable space. place. EDITED
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.

6a. The tent is going-to-stand in a beautiful open space.
Tabernāculum in locō spatium apertum pulchrum statūrum est.

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.

8. They have decided to invite us too. Good-bye.
Nōs quoque invītāre statutērunt. Valē.

9. ( The hearer ) Many will come without invitation. (say "not invited")
Multī nōn invītātī venient.
 
Last edited:

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
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 you can use is here if you imagine this sentence in some context (i.e. with some preceding sentence stating who 'he' is).

loco usually doesn't require the preposition in.

5. They explored the neighbourhood yesterday, and saw nothing dangerous.
Loca propinqua herī explōrāvērunt, et nihil vīdērunt perīculōsī.
I think this isn't wrong, but it would be more common to say nec quid rather than et nihil.

6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable space.
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
Same here (regarding loco)

Does the book say place or space?

6a. The tent is going-to-stand in a beautiful open space.
Tabernāculum in locō spatium apertum pulchrum statūrum est.
Look over this sentence again :)

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.
It would probably be better to say de ea re.

8. They have decided to invite us too. Good-bye.
Nōs quoque invītāre statutērunt. Valē.
There is a t too many.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
@Bitmap, thank you once again.
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.
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).

loco usually doesn't require the preposition in.
He refers back to Julius; thank you for confirmation. The construction just looked a little unfamiliar to my inexperienced eye.
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.
KarlaUK dixit:
5. They explored the neighbourhood yesterday, and saw nothing dangerous.
Loca propinqua herī explōrāvērunt, et nihil vīdērunt perīculōsī.
I think this isn't wrong, but it would be more common to say nec quid rather than et nihil.
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.
Loca propinqua herī explōrāvērunt, nec quid vīdērunt perīculōsī.

KarlaUK dixit:
6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable space.
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
Same here (regarding loco)

Does the book say place or space?
Locō - Noted see above.
6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable place (corrected)
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
KarlaUK dixit:
6a. The tent is going-to-stand in a beautiful open space.
Tabernāculum in locō spatium apertum pulchrum statūrum est.
Look over this sentence again :)
Yes, I agree. That translation was a bit of a dog's breakfast.
Tabernāculum in spatiō apertō pulchrō statūrum est.

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.
It would probably be better to say de ea re.
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.
KarlaUK dixit:
8. They have decided to invite us too. Good-bye.
Nōs quoque invītāre statutērunt. Valē.
There is a t too many.
Oopsie.
Nōs quoque invītāre statuērunt. Valē.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
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.
Using in isn't wrong. But most classical texts you will read will use loco without preposition.

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.
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.

Locō - Noted see above.
6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable place (corrected)
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
Good ... just mind the spelling: idoneo.

Yes, I agree. That translation was a bit of a dog's breakfast.
Tabernāculum in spatiō apertō pulchrō statūrum est.
I think that works.

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.
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.

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.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
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.
Using in isn't wrong. But most classical texts you will read will use loco without preposition.

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.
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:
Locō - Noted see above.
6. The tent is going-to-stand in a suitable place (corrected)
Tabernāculum in indōneō locō statūrum est.
Good ... just mind the spelling: idoneo.

KarlaUK dixit:
Yes, I agree. That translation was a bit of a dog's breakfast.
Tabernāculum in spatiō apertō pulchrō statūrum est.
I think that works.

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.
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.

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.
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!
It's hard - having a poor memory, having to deal with learning English grammar as well as Latin grammar and working outside a class. Thank goodness for generous souls like you and Pacifica. I feel like I am making some progress but even basic sentences seem beyond me 'in the wild'. I am trying to read a little Latin every day even if it is from 1st year Latin readers to prompt my endings recognition, vocabulary and word order establishment but when I look at even GCSE (UK) exams, I am lost :) This book is keeping me interested and I'll see how it is going by the time I reach the end. Indirect speech is coming up. Boy, that takes me back to my schooldays - English classes.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
Don't worry, even the Romans didn't manage to build Rome in a day.



I'd be interested to see one.

I think there might be a breach of copyright if I post the material itself, but here are a couple of links to two of the main examining boards regarding Latin. A short rummage will get you to past papers and exemplars.
Note: current exams at 16 in Latin in UK do not include English to Latin translation requirements.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I think this isn't wrong, but it would be more common to say nec quid rather than et nihil.
Rather nec quidquam. (Nec quid is probably possible, but unusual.)
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.
The first et is unnecessary. Using two ets is like saying "both he and Sextus" in English.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
Another exercise but this time Latin to English.
Please will anyone help check my translations from basic textbook Latin into English to assist my self-learning.
Exercises are from W Gardner Hale's First Latin Book. A short comment on these whether wrong or right would be much appreciated.
A lot of work with the internet to reacquaint myself with the meaning of the 'little' words' - I guess some may stick eventually.

Section 241 (1st Ed.)

(An Adventure of the Small Boys)

(Julius's father asks) Non valētis, fīliī meī? Aut forte nimis impigrē hodiē in scholā studuistis? Quid est? Mihi respondēte. (Julius) Herī tabernāculum, quod tū nōbīs dederās, in idōneō locō in silvā prope scholam statuimus. Eō hodiē bene māne ante scholae hōram vēnimus. Quattuor condiscipulī, ā nōbīs invītātī, ad eundem locum vēnerant. Nōn diū mānsūrī erāmus.

(Julius's father) Aren't you well, my sons? Or perhaps you have studied too energetically today in school. What is the matter? Answer me. (Julius) Yesterday, we set up the tent, that you had given to us, in a suitable place in the woods near the school. We came to that place (thither), today, (well) early in the morning before (the hour) (of) school. Four schoolmates, invited by us, had come to the same place. We weren't going to stay for a long time.

Mox autem ūnus ex discipulīs, " Quid," inquit, " sī paulisper in silvā ambulābimus, eamque explōrābimus? Alius "id laudō" inquit. Cūncti probāvimus. At mox longē prōcesserāmus. Eum locum ubi tum erāmus numquam anteā vīderāmus. Magnopere timēbāmus. Dēnique agricolam vidimus, qui tum forte agrum propter silvam colēbat. Is nōs dē viā docuit. At haec longa fuit. Propter hoc iam dēfatīgātī eramus, cum magister nōs in scholam vocāvit.

Soon however one of the pupils said "What if we walk in the woods for a little while, and explore it?" (future) Another said "(I praise it) What a good idea". We all approved. But soon we had advanced far. The place where we were then we had never seen before. We were exceedingly afraid. Finally, we saw a farmer, who by chance was cultivating a field next to the woods at the time. He told us about a road. But it was long. On account of this, we were now tired out when the teacher summoned us to school.
 
Top