The queen loves the great forest et cetera

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
The iam in the last sentence would better translate to "already". The is isn't really emphatic. Otherwise, pretty good.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
Thanks @Pacifica, that was quick! It's not easy or quick for me but at least I am getting to understand a lot more.
I see about the now versus already. Now tends to change the time-frame to a present which isn't in keeping with the rest of it.

On account of this, we were already tired out when the teacher summoned us to school.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
Hi all
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.

I haven't got high hopes here. A lot of guessing has gone on. I'm very uncomfortable with question forms still.

Section 242 (1st Ed.)

1. (Continuation) Finally the teacher said: "Aren't you well? You are not already tired out, are you?
"Dēnique magister dīxit: "Nōn valēs? Num iam nōn dēfatīgātus es?
"Dēnique magister dīxit: "Nōn valētis? Num iam nōn dēfatīgātī estis?

2. Where were you, Julius, when I called you? " (Julius) I was in the road.
Ubi, Iūlī, erās, cum tē vocāvī?" In viā fuī.

3. (Master) Where had you been before-that? (Ans.) I had walked a-little-while in the woods.
Ubi anteā fuerās? In silvā paulisper ambulāveram.

4. (Master) Had you perhaps gone (= proceeded) far? (Ans.) I had gone too far.
Fortene longē processerās? Forte processerām nimis.

5. A farmer who was cultivating a field beside the wood told me about the way. It was (a) long (one).
Agricola, qui agrum propter silvam colēbat, mihi dē viā docuī. Longa fuit.

6. (Master) Had you walked with others? Why don't you answer?
Cumne aliīs ambulāveram? Cur nōn respondēs?

7. (One of the four) We had all four walked in the woods.
Cunctī quattuor in silvā ambulāverāmus.

8. (Master) I am not going- to-chide you, but this I will say:
Nōn tē monitūrī sum, autem haec dīcam:

9. It pleases me when you walk in the woods; it does not please me, however, when you walk there before the school hour.
Cum in silvā ambulās mihi placet; autem cum scholae horam anteā (mihi) nōn placet.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
1. (Continuation) Finally the teacher said: "Aren't you well? You are not already tired out, are you?
"Dēnique magister dīxit: "Nōn valēs? Num iam nōn dēfatīgātus es?
"Dēnique magister dīxit: "Nōn valētis? Num iam nōn dēfatīgātī estis?
The non in the second sentence doesn't belong. It makes you say the opposite of what's intended.

In the first one, it would be more usual to add -ne to non.
2. Where were you, Julius, when I called you? " (Julius) I was in the road.
Ubi, Iūlī, erās, cum tē vocāvī?" In viā fuī.
Good, though it would perhaps be better, for consistency's sake, to use the same tense in the question and in the answer.
3. (Master) Where had you been before-that? (Ans.) I had walked a-little-while in the woods.
Ubi anteā fuerās? In silvā paulisper ambulāveram.
Good.
4. (Master) Had you perhaps gone (= proceeded) far? (Ans.) I had gone too far.
Fortene longē processerās? Forte processerām nimis.
Fortene sounds odd. I couldn't find any instance of it in actual literature. Num forte does occur. Perhaps that was what you were expected to use.

The forte in the answer doesn't belong.
5. A farmer who was cultivating a field beside the wood told me about the way. It was (a) long (one).
Agricola, qui agrum propter silvam colēbat, mihi dē viā docuī. Longa fuit.
Docui is in the wrong person, and mihi in the wrong case.

I think an ea with via would be nice.
6. (Master) Had you walked with others? Why don't you answer?
Cumne aliīs ambulāveram? Cur nōn respondēs?
-ne should go at the end of aliis. It usually doesn't go at the end of prepositions.

Ambulaveram is in the wrong person.
7. (One of the four) We had all four walked in the woods.
Cunctī quattuor in silvā ambulāverāmus.
Good.
8. (Master) I am not going- to-chide you, but this I will say:
Nōn tē monitūrī sum, autem haec dīcam:
Monituri doesn't agree with the singular subject.

Autem never comes first in its clause, but usually second (sometimes third, e.g. when the first word is a preposition), and it isn't the best word to use here anyway. Sed or tamen would be better.

Regarding te, I wonder if the teacher isn't addressing all four friends now.
9. It pleases me when you walk in the woods; it does not please me, however, when you walk there before the school hour.
Cum in silvā ambulās mihi placet; autem cum scholae horam anteā (mihi) nōn placet.
Autem works here, but see what I said above concerning its placement.

The kind of "before" you need here is the preposition ante (= "before something, some noun or pronoun"), not the adverb antea (= just "before" = "previously")*. Ante would normally precede scholae horam.

*Well, antea is technically the preposition ante + ea, thus meaning literally "before those things", but it pretty much became an adverb, written as one word.

Mihi indeed is better omitted the second time.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
Thank you so much @Pacifica.
I understand most of those. Antea was out of position because of a stress that did not paste.

I wish I could be more consistent with person. It seems, even when I check things twice or more, I still get sidetracked especially with longer verb forms. Perhaps I would be better starting synopses for all the verbs i have covered so far with their translations. That may make things more obvious to me and prevent the bad habit from being ingrained.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
1. (Continuation) Finally the teacher said: "Aren't you well? You are not already tired out, are you?​
"Dēnique magister dīxit: "Nōn valēs? Num iam nōn dēfatīgātus es?​
"Dēnique magister dīxit: "Nōn valētis? Num iam nōn dēfatīgātī estis?​


The non in the second sentence doesn't belong. It makes you say the opposite of what's intended.

In the first one, it would be more usual to add -ne to non.
1/ I see (again <sigh>) that I should use a positive sentence with num to imply the English question form.
2/ Model answer in book did not suggest that see Section 241 above. I will note that that construction is more unusual and endeavour to use ne mostly in future in these circumstances. Does the fact that is reported/indirect speech have a bearing?

"Dēnique magister dīxit: "Nōnne valēs? Num iam dēfatīgātus es?
"Dēnique magister dīxit: "Nōnne valētis? Num iam dēfatīgātī estis?

2. Where were you, Julius, when I called you? " (Julius) I was in the road.​
Ubi, Iūlī, erās, cum tē vocāvī?" In viā fuī.​
Good, though it would perhaps be better, for consistency's sake, to use the same tense in the question and in the answer.
Noted: It hadn't crossed my mind to think about a need to match tenses. When I try it out tense options in English, it makes complete sense. I have corrected to use the Perfect as it is obvious it is most likely a completed action from the first sentence and confirmed in the second.
Ubi, Iūlī, fuistī, cum tē vocāvī?" In viā fuī.
3. (Master) Where had you been before-that? (Ans.) I had walked a-little-while in the woods.​
Ubi anteā fuerās? In silvā paulisper ambulāveram.​
Good.
I want a Snoopy happy dance emoji :), please...
4. (Master) Had you perhaps gone (= proceeded) far? (Ans.) I had gone too far.​
Fortene longē processerās? Forte processerām nimis.​
Fortene sounds odd. I couldn't find any instance of it in actual literature. Num forte does occur. Perhaps that was what you were expected to use.

The forte in the answer doesn't belong.
Could nōnne also be used? I think the expected answer is "(yes,) I had gone too far."
Should I have added longē to the second sentence? I mistook forte for longē
Num forte longē processerās? Longē processerām nimis.
5. A farmer who was cultivating a field beside the wood told me about the way. It was (a) long (one).​
Agricola, qui agrum propter silvam colēbat, mihi dē viā docuī. Longa fuit.​
Docui is in the wrong person, and mihi in the wrong case.

I think an ea with via would be nice.
1/ Careless of me.
2/ I muddled up the verb doceō with dīcō.
3/ Is that to imply 'this particular' way?
Agricola, qui agrum propter silvam colēbat, mē dē eā viā docuit.
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/goto/post?id=543026
6. (Master) Had you walked with others? Why don't you answer?​
Cumne aliīs ambulāveram? Cur nōn respondēs?​
-ne should go at the end of aliis. It usually doesn't go at the end of prepositions.​
Ambulaveram is in the wrong person.​
1/ Noted:
2/ Careless of me, again.
Cum aliīsne ambulāverās.
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/goto/post?id=543026
8. (Master) I am not going- to-chide you, but this I will say:​
Nōn tē monitūrī sum, autem haec dīcam:​
Monituri doesn't agree with the singular subject.

Autem never comes first in its clause, but usually second (sometimes third, e.g. when the first word is a preposition), and it isn't the best word to use here anyway. Sed or tamen would be better.

Regarding te, I wonder if the teacher isn't addressing all four friends now.
1/ Again, my lack of care, sorry.
2/ I guessed on the type of 'but' needed, and missed the post-positive aspect of it. Thank you.
Nōn tē monitūrus sum, sed haec dīcam:
Nōn tē monitūrus sum, haec tamen dīcam:


http://latindiscussion.com/forum/goto/post?id=543026
9. It pleases me when you walk in the woods; it does not please me, however, when you walk there before the school hour.​
Cum in silvā ambulās mihi placet; autem cum scholae horam anteā (mihi) nōn placet.​
Autem works here, but see what I said above concerning its placement.

The kind of "before" you need here is the preposition ante (= "before something, some noun or pronoun"), not the adverb antea (= just "before" = "previously")*. Ante would normally precede scholae horam.

*Well, antea is technically the preposition ante + ea, thus meaning literally "before those things", but it pretty much became an adverb, written as one word.

Mihi indeed is better omitted the second time.
1/ I've put autem second, now, as it is a conjunction here not a preposition.
Cum in silvā ambulās mihi placet; cum autem ante scholae horam (mihi) nōn placet
Thank you, again
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Does the fact that is reported/indirect speech have a bearing?
It is direct speech, not reported speech.

I want a Snoopy happy dance emoji :), please...
"Good." is Pacifica's equivalent to a dance emoji, and it's amongst the highest forms of praise she will give out.

Anyway, here you are:
:banana:

Could nōnne also be used? I think the expected answer is "(yes,) I had gone too far."
Should I have added longē to the second sentence? I mistook forte for longē
Num forte longē processerās? Longē processerām nimis.
nonne wouldn't make so much sense here.
You can add longe, but then it should be modified by nimis, i.e. come after nimis (nimis longe processeram) ... but since procedere already sort of conveys the idea of going far, I don't think you need it. Another option would be to leave out nimis and put longe in the comparative (longius processeram).
The a in processeram is not long.

3/ Is that to imply 'this particular' way?
Agricola, qui agrum propter silvam colēbat, mē dē eā viā docuit.
Yes. Technically, you wouldn't need it if via is supposed to generally mean "the right way" (though it might be more idiomatic to say mihi viam monstravit for that).

1/ I've put autem second, now, as it is a conjunction here not a preposition.
Cum in silvā ambulās mihi placet; cum autem ante scholae horam (mihi) nōn placet
Thank you, again
I would translate the "there" as well and repeat the verb: cum autem ante scholae horam ibi ambulas, mihi non placet.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
@Bitmap
Thank you. They make sense.
"It pleases me when you walk in the woods; it does not please me, however, when you walk there before the school hour. "
In this one, I think you are correct. I left too much out.
Cum in silvā ambulās mihi placet; cum autem ante scholae horam ibi ambulas, mihi non placet.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
3/ Is that to imply 'this particular' way?
Agricola, qui agrum propter silvam colēbat, mē dē eā viā docuit.
Yes. Technically, you wouldn't need it if via is supposed to generally mean "the right way" (though it might be more idiomatic to say mihi viam monstravit for that).
Sorry, I don't know why I wrote what I wrote. What I really meant was an ea before longa: ... me de via docuit. Ea longa fuit.
In this one, I think you are correct. I left too much out.
I don't think you went further in your ellipsis than what Cicero might have occasionally done. It seemed OK to me.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
Sorry, I don't know why I wrote what I wrote. What I really meant was an ea before longa: ... me de via docuit. Ea longa fuit.

I don't think you went further in your ellipsis than what Cicero might have occasionally done. It seemed OK to me.
Thanks for the clarifications.
I think Cicero probably made a conscious decision to leave the words out.
I think I may have made an unconscious error forgetting to complete the translation as I intended. Serendipity. I'd rather be lucky than pretty!
 

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.
I augmented Hale with some YouTube videos to deal with the more complicated pronoun constructions.

Section 261 (2nd Ed.) Infinitive in Indirect Discourse

1. Audioō Mārcum cēnam in silvā dedisse. Tū herī dīcēbās eum mē invītātūrum (esse). Sed mē non invītāvit. Putābam eum amicum mihi esse.
I hear Marcus has given a dinner in the forest. (Yesterday, you were saying that he would invite me.) Yesterday, you were saying he would invite me. But he didn't invite me. (I was thinking him to be a friend to me). I thought (was thinking/used to think) that he was my friend.

2. (Ans.) Ipse mihi dixit sē tē invitātūrum (esse). Putābam eum id iam fēcisse.
He, (himself,) has said to me that he would invite you. I thought (was thinking) he had already done it. Not sure why ipse is used.

3. (A third) Sciō eum iterum cēnam in silvā datūrum. Putō eum tē certē invitātūrum. Nam cūncti sciunt tē amīcum eī esse.
I know he is going to give a dinner again in the forest. I think he is certainly going to invite you. For everyone knows (all know) you are a friend to him.

4. Ubi dabitur cēna? (Ans.) In aperto spatio dabitur in silvā prope scholam.
Where is the dinner to be given? It will be given in an open space in the forest near the school.
 
Last edited:

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
1. Audio Mārcum cēnam in silvā dedisse. Tū herī dīcēbās eum mē invītātūrum (esse). Sed mē non invītāvit. Putābam eum amicum mihi esse.
I hear Marcus has given a dinner in the forest. (Yesterday, you were saying that he would invite me.) Yesterday, you were saying he would invite me. But he didn't invite me. (I was thinking him to be a friend to me). I thought (was thinking/used to think) that he was my friend.
Very good!

2. (Ans.) Ipse mihi dixit sē tē invitātūrum (esse). Putābam eum id iam fēcisse.
He, (himself,) has said to me that he would invite you. I thought (was thinking) he had already done it. Not sure why ipse is used.
Good!
Ipse – well, the point of the sentrence is: "I didn't just hear it from somebody or blindly assumed that he would invite – Marcus himself came to me and told me so personally."

3. (A third) Sciō eum iterum cēnam in silvā datūrum. Putō eum tē certē invitātūrum. Nam cūncti sciunt tē amīcum eī esse.
I know he is going to give a dinner again in the forest. I think he is certainly going to invite you. For everyone knows (all know) you are a friend to him.
Very good.

4. Ubi dabitur cēna? (Ans.) In aperto spatio dabitur in silvā prope scholam.
Where is the dinner to be given? It will be given in an open space in the forest near the school.
That's also right!
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
Thanks @Bitmap.
It took a while :) to get the translation of the construction clear in my mind.
Thanks for the help on ipse as well.
The 'to be' construction I find harder to translate to in English, as opposed to the 'that'. I think it is because nowadays, the 'to be' construction, to me at least, to be a personal emphatic one. E.g. 'I know him to be a clever man' = 'I know, myself, that he is a clever man'.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
The 'to be' construction I find harder to translate to in English, as opposed to the 'that'. I think it is because nowadays, the 'to be' construction, to me at least, to be a personal emphatic one. E.g. 'I know him to be a clever man' = 'I know, myself, that he is a clever man'.
It is fine to translate into an English that you find more idiomatic. Literal translations like "I know him to be a clever man" are usually chosen to reflect the structure of the source language as closely as possible in order to demonstrate how the grammar works there. But it would be fine to translate a sentence like "scio eum virum prudentem esse" as "I know that he is a clever man."
Pacifica is a natural-born translator. She will be able to tell you more.
 

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 262 (2nd Ed.)

1. I hear that Mark will again give a dinner in the woods.
Audiō Mārcum iterum cēnam in silvā datūrum (esse).

2. (They) say that there is no danger in the woods.
Dīcunt nihil perīculōsī in silvā esse.

3. But I do not think that Sextus will come.
Sed nōn putō Sextum ventūrum (esse).

4. You know that he did not come yesterday.
Scit eum herī nōn vēnisse.

5. (Second speaker) Why did he not come?
Cur nōn vēnit?

6. (Ans.) You know him to-be-afraid-of (= to fear) the woods.
Scis eum silvam timēre.

7. A farmer said to him yesterday that they were dangerous.
Agricola herī dixit eam perīculōsam esse.

8. He himself told me that the farmer had said this to him.
Ipse mihi docuit agricolam eī id docuisse.

9. But I thought that he would come.
At scīvī eum ventūrum (esse).
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
4. You know that he did not come yesterday.
Scit eum herī nōn vēnisse.
2nd person.

7. A farmer said to him yesterday that they were dangerous.
Agricola herī dixit eam perīculōsam esse.
If you want to be exact, you should translate "to him" as well.

8. He himself told me that the farmer had said this to him.
Ipse mihi docuit agricolam eī id docuisse.
That's either the wrong verb or the wrong case. I would suggest sticking with dicere for "to say, to tell" ... docere is more like "to teach". Those words can semantically overlap slightly, but I doubt that those brief comments were accompanied by a very instructive lesson or presentation.

Also: If "He himself" and "him" are the same person, then it should be sibi rather than ei.

9. But I thought that he would come.
At scīvī eum ventūrum (esse).
Wrong verb for "to think".

The rest is right, though. This is very good overall.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
@Bitmap - thank you!
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/goto/post?id=544072
KarlaUK dixit:
4. You know that he did not come yesterday.
Scit eum herī nōn vēnisse.
2nd person.
Oh! Again! Damn! :brickwall:
Scīs eum herī nōn vēnisse.
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/goto/post?id=544072
KarlaUK dixit:
7. A farmer said to him yesterday that they were dangerous.
Agricola herī dixit eam perīculōsam esse.
If you want to be exact, you should translate "to him" as well.
Missing bits! :brickwall:
Agricola herī eī dixit eam perīculōsam esse.
So I got the esse bit correct? Where the 'that' clause is in the same time frame as the speaker. After posting, I was thinking it may need to be
Agricola herī eī dixit eam perīculōsam fuisse.
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/goto/post?id=544072
KarlaUK dixit:
8. He himself told me that the farmer had said this to him.
Ipse mihi docuit agricolam eī id docuisse.
That's either the wrong verb or the wrong case. I would suggest sticking with dicere for "to say, to tell" ... docere is more like "to teach". Those words can semantically overlap slightly, but I doubt that those brief comments were accompanied by a very instructive lesson or presentation.

Also: If "He himself" and "him" are the same person, then it should be sibi rather than ei.
a/ Noted. Overlapping meanings with translations is tough. I did have dīxit then changed it. Thanks for the pointer. I remember having a long discussion at Uni with a Greek girl (who had mainly be brought up in Germany) about meanings and usage of the English word 'coach'. She was taking English Literature and her imagery for words most often came from Thomas Hardy!
b/ Noted. I'm still woolly on pronouns. and was focusing on whether id was correct :)
Ipse mihi dīxit agricolam sibi id dīxisse.

http://latindiscussion.com/forum/goto/post?id=544072
KarlaUK dixit:
9. But I thought that he would come.
At scīvī eum ventūrum (esse).
Wrong verb for "to think".
Basic vocab! :brickwall:
At putāvī eum ventūrum (esse)
I wasn't sure if I could use at here as it is a conjunction; tamen seemed awkward to place as it is post-positive and sed didn't seem to express all of the sentiment.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
Missing bits! :brickwall:
Agricola herī eī dixit eam perīculōsam esse.
So I got the esse bit correct? Where the 'that' clause is in the same time frame as the speaker. After posting, I was thinking it may need to be
Agricola herī eī dixit eam perīculōsam fuisse.
No, esse was right, which was part of the reason why I said "very good!". You were right to think that it is a question of the speaker's time frame and the relation to it. A lot of English speakers (unlike you) seem to find this hard, possibly because they are confused by their own language.
The infinitive simply implies the relationship of what is reported to when the speaker speaks or spoke: The past infinitive would mean that the things reported happened before the speaker speaks or spoke; the present infinitive would mean that they happen(ed) at the same time as the speaker speaks or spoke; and the future infinitive indicates that they happen after the speaker speaks or spoke.

So
agricola heri ei dixit eam periculosam esse
would mean "The farmer told him yesterday that they (the woods) were dangerous" and
agricola heri ei dixit eam periculosam fuisse
would mean "The farmer told him yesterday that they had been dangerous (a year earlier ... or something like that)."

a/ Noted. Overlapping meanings with translations is tough. I did have dīxit then changed it. Thanks for the pointer. I remember having a long discussion at Uni with a Greek girl (who had mainly be brought up in Germany) about meanings and usage of the English word 'coach'. She was taking English Literature and her imagery for words most often came from Thomas Hardy!
Germans!
At least she had a good taste regarding authors.

b/ Noted. I'm still woolly on pronouns.
That ei vs sibi thing is actually quite advanced and something only classical Latin pursued with a certain kind mathmatical precision. Later authors increasingly cared less about this distinction. I just pointed this out, but I wouldn't focus on it much until it appears as the topic of some chapter.

I wasn't sure if I could use at here as it is a conjunction; tamen seemed awkward to place as it is post-positive and sed didn't seem to express all of the sentiment.
tamen doesn't necessarily have to be post-positive (it may just be more common in that position), but it would be more like saying "still, I thought he would come". at and sed both seem fine to me. at is a slightly stronger contrast than sed, but that seems irrelevant in this sentence.

I wonder why your textbook has people give dinners in the woods. It's not like Romans were particularly fond of picnics ... and it's not like there are no other nouns from the a-declension. Stupid Mark could just have invited people to his villa near the school.
 

KarlaUK

Active Member
No, esse was right, which was part of the reason why I said "very good!". You were right to think that it is a question of the speaker's time frame and the relation to it. A lot of English speakers (unlike you) seem to find this hard, possibly because they are confused by their own language.
The infinitive simply implies the relationship of what is reported to when the speaker speaks or spoke: The past infinitive would mean that the things reported happened before the speaker speaks or spoke; the present infinitive would mean that they happen(ed) at the same time as the speaker speaks or spoke; and the future infinitive indicates that they happen after the speaker speaks or spoke.

So
agricola heri ei dixit eam periculosam esse
would mean "The farmer told him yesterday that they (the woods) were dangerous" and
agricola heri ei dixit eam periculosam fuisse
would mean "The farmer told him yesterday that they had been dangerous (a year earlier ... or something like that)."
Thank you. At least this was covered adequately!

Germans!
At least she had a good taste regarding authors.
Ha ha! I lost my ability to chat with my friends during that year. My other roommates were French, Kurdish and Scouse. I was a thesaurus and dictionary combined! The locals spoke 'Broad Yorkshire' or 'Tyke'; Think Alan Bennett or David Hockney.

That ei vs sibi thing is actually quite advanced and something only classical Latin pursued with a certain kind mathmatical precision. Later authors increasingly cared less about this distinction. I just pointed this out, but I wouldn't focus on it much until it appears as the topic of some chapter.
Reflexive pronouns have been covered. Pronouns are where I stalled previously learning Latin. Now, I am much improved but still wobbly.
tamen doesn't necessarily have to be post-positive (it may just be more common in that position), but it would be more like saying "still, I thought he would come". at and sed both seem fine to me. at is a slightly stronger contrast than sed, but that seems irrelevant in this sentence.
Thanks
I wonder why your textbook has people give dinners in the woods. It's not like Romans were particularly fond of picnics ... and it's not like there are no other nouns from the a-declension. Stupid Mark could just have invited people to his villa near the school.
Yes, but there would (pardon the puns) less opportunity to drill the usage of dāre and re-enforce the concept of partitive genitive etc. ; where else could you bring up a tent other than on a war campaign? Remember, also, he was trying to distinguish his textbook from those that dealt only with Roman home life and war in disconnected sentences.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
It is fine to translate into an English that you find more idiomatic. Literal translations like "I know him to be a clever man" are usually chosen to reflect the structure of the source language as closely as possible in order to demonstrate how the grammar works there. But it would be fine to translate a sentence like "scio eum virum prudentem esse" as "I know that he is a clever man."
Pacifica is a natural-born translator. She will be able to tell you more.
I think you've said it all.
 
Top