B
Bitmap
Guest
I didn't find any examples of that. Do you know one?
The queen loves the great forest et cetera
- Thread starter KarlaUK
- Start date
Yes, there's a couple of useful websites called musisque deoque and pedecerto that give you all the instances of a word in poetry, among other features.
TERT. adu. Marc. 2, 18 Tam temere scelus illicitum componere uerbis,
TERT. adu. Marc. 2, 161 Quaue manum extendit temere contingere lignum,
VESPA iud. 38 'Sed temere facio si te, coce, conparo nobis,
PS. CYPR. resurr. 60 Immemor ille Dei, temere committere tanta,
Or maybe they were just losing the qualitative aspect of the language and made a mistake, no idea.
B
Bitmap
Guest
The source I cited above, Seneca's Phaedra, was written about 1850 years before Hale's textbook. It's not like I was quoting the most recent sources
I'd venture to say that scholars of the Anglosphere simply got that length wrong in the 19th century, and no one ever cared to question it or check it out himself.
It's not like textbooks have got any better since then, though. Your book is not bad just because it is 100 years old. The lengths in modern German textbooks still make me cry sometimes.
temerarie is the adverb of temerarius. In this case, the long e is correct.
Indeed. More people knew Latin back then, and knew it better, on average. I'd go so far as to say that I'd tend to trust a century-old textbook more, on the face of it, though of course there can still be good new textbooks and bad old ones.
B
Bitmap
Guest
Oh ... good to know. That hint should go in the language resources forum.
Ah, I see ... those sources are all rather late. The dictionaries I usually use don't have those late sources. I suppose it must have become acceptable in the late Antiquity at some point, then.
I think it must have changed for a reason like that ... or maybe just a wrong analogy with the adverbial -e for 1st/2nd declension adverbs.
I'd still use a short e in a textbook given that they usually focus on the classical and the silver period.
But am I standing on the hose? It should be sui, shouldn't it?
No, it shouldn't. Marcus isn't the subject; it's only part of the subject. The allies belong to Marcus, not to Marcus and his allies. The standard thing to use in that situation is the genitive of a demonstrative pronoun.
That had already been mentioned. I'm afraid I can't critique the Latin of any of 'yoos' I just type what was written as an exercise.
B
Bitmap
Guest
Oh, I see ... I somehow thought Latin didn't have the potential ambiguity English can have there.
You can find a few examples of the construction at the following links. Not all hits are relevant, naturally, but you'll see those that are.
I think forms of suus are possible here, but less regular, and normally reserved for a special kind of emphasis; I guess you could have said Marcus et sui socii if you meant something like "Marcus and his own dear allies".
PHI Latin Texts - Word Search
latin.packhum.org
PHI Latin Texts - Word Search
latin.packhum.org
I think forms of suus are possible here, but less regular, and normally reserved for a special kind of emphasis; I guess you could have said Marcus et sui socii if you meant something like "Marcus and his own dear allies".
B
Bitmap
Guest
I think I had the wrong page open in my mind. (I was in the "Markus told his son about his duties" category)
By the way, I don't know that expression, and Google doesn't help. Is it a German idiom?
B
Bitmap
Guest
B
Bitmap
Guest
To be stumped ... or not to understand.
lease will anyone help check my translations into 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 232
1. (A friend goes to get Sextus) Hasn't Mark invited you to our dinner?
Nōnne Mārcus nōn tē cenae nōstrae invītavit?
2. (Sextus) Yes. He has invited me.
Vērō. Mē invītāvit.
3. (First speaker) Why, having been invited by him, have you nevertheless not come?
Cūr, ab eō invītātus, tamen nōn vēnistī.
4. (Ans,) I have not come having been warned about the forest this morning by a certain farmer.
Ab quādam agricolā dē silvā hodiē māne monitus nōn vēnī.
5. (First speaker) What was the farmer saying to you?
Quid agricola tibi dicēbat?
6. (Sextus) "These boys are rash," said he. "The forest is dangerous."
"Hiī puerī temerāriī sunt", inquit. " Silva perīculōsa est."
7.(First speaker) Are these his words? (Sextus) These are his very words.
Haec euis verba sunt? Haec euis ipsa verba sunt.
8. (First speaker) Have you yourself ever seen anything (of) dangerous in this forest? I have seen nothing.
Ipse tū quidquam perīculōsī in silvā umquam vīdistī. Ego nūllam vīdī.
9. That farmer has certainly fooled you.
Ille agricola certē tibi verba dedit.
10. Come now to our supper.
Nunc ēnae nōstrae vēnī.
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 232
1. (A friend goes to get Sextus) Hasn't Mark invited you to our dinner?
Nōnne Mārcus nōn tē cenae nōstrae invītavit?
2. (Sextus) Yes. He has invited me.
Vērō. Mē invītāvit.
3. (First speaker) Why, having been invited by him, have you nevertheless not come?
Cūr, ab eō invītātus, tamen nōn vēnistī.
4. (Ans,) I have not come having been warned about the forest this morning by a certain farmer.
Ab quādam agricolā dē silvā hodiē māne monitus nōn vēnī.
5. (First speaker) What was the farmer saying to you?
Quid agricola tibi dicēbat?
6. (Sextus) "These boys are rash," said he. "The forest is dangerous."
"Hiī puerī temerāriī sunt", inquit. " Silva perīculōsa est."
7.(First speaker) Are these his words? (Sextus) These are his very words.
Haec euis verba sunt? Haec euis ipsa verba sunt.
8. (First speaker) Have you yourself ever seen anything (of) dangerous in this forest? I have seen nothing.
Ipse tū quidquam perīculōsī in silvā umquam vīdistī. Ego nūllam vīdī.
9. That farmer has certainly fooled you.
Ille agricola certē tibi verba dedit.
10. Come now to our supper.
Nunc ēnae nōstrae vēnī.
B
Bitmap
Guest
There's a non missing.
invitare is constructed aliquem ad aliquid invitare.
Good!
agricola is masculine.
Typo: hii
It's spelt eius.
nullam is wrong ... although I suppose you could say nullam rem. But there is a better word for "nothing".
Very good!
You probably mean cena?! I would construct venire as venire ad aliquid ... the dative may be found in poetry, but it's nothing regular.
In the imperative of venire, the e is short.
You mean there's one too many non.
Also, ab q... sounds unusual. A would be better.