The Romans were in danger....Rome had great citizens

[Gregorius Textor]

Translation exercises from William G. Most, Latin by the Natural Method, First Year (3rd ed., 1964), which I am using for review. Although these are elementary and I hope I've got them all right, I would be glad for someone to check them, because of past over-confidence.

Lectio Decima, p. 20

1. The Romans were in danger.
Romani in periculo fuerunt.

2. Marcus was able to come to the city.
Marcus potuerunt venire in urbem.

3. Marcus said that Columbus was good.
Marcus dixit quod Columbus fuit bonus.

Lectio Undecima, p. 23

1. Columbus knew a great truth.
Columbus scivit veritatem magnam.

2. Isabella had much money.
Isabella multam pecuniam habuit.

3. Rome had great citizens.
Roma cives habuit magnos.

 

[Matthaeus]

Check the subject-verb agreement for the first #2.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Marcus potuit venire in urbem.

 

[Dumnorix]

Would the first #3 not be expressed with accusative and infinitive in indirect statement?

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Would the first #3 not be expressed with accusative and infinitive in indirect statement?

In classical Latin I think that would be the case, or at least more frequent. But in this book he is teaching ecclesiastical Latin, and quod with indicative is the form he uses, at least in the early parts. So I'm trying to follow that, for now.

 

[Dumnorix]

Ahh! Apologies -- I was not familiar with that textbook.

 

[Matthaeus]

Yes, an indirect statement with quod may also be used as an alternative to the AcI construction.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Ahh! Apologies -- I was not familiar with that textbook.

There is nothing to apologize about. It's not like it's a famous textbook.

In fact, I'm glad you mentioned this, and I would like to try it the way you suggested too:

10.3. Marcus said that Columbus was good.
Marcus dixit quod Columbus fuit bonus.
OR
Marcus dixit Columbum esse bonum.

 

[Dumnorix]

Ita!

 

[Gregorius Textor]

By the way, welcome to the forums, New Member Dumnorix!

 

[Dumnorix]

Thank you very kindly, Gregorius. I think I lurked here briefly a few years ago and realized I could not really take in much of what was said. I'm still quite in awe of people who post here, but I am grateful for the chance to learn from those who know more than I do!

 

[Gregorius Textor]

I am in awe of many of them also!

 

[Pacifica]

There is nothing to apologize about. It's not like it's a famous textbook.

In fact, I'm glad you mentioned this, and I would like to try it the way you suggested too:

10.3. Marcus said that Columbus was good.
Marcus dixit quod Columbus fuit bonus.
OR
Marcus dixit Columbum esse bonum.

The versions don't match.

If you mean that Marcus made that statement at the time when Columbus was (according to Marcus) good, it should be erat rather than fuit in the first version.

If you mean that Marcus said more recently that Columbus was good a longer time ago, then it's the second version that needs changing: fuisse instead of esse.

1. Columbus knew a great truth.
Columbus scivit veritatem magnam.

Here the imperfect is more likely by default, but there could be some contexts where the perfect would work.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

10.3b Marcus dixit Columbum fuisse bonum.

11.1 Columbus sciebat veritatem magnam.

This book hasn't yet explicitly covered the imperfect tense (it's used occasionally, but without explanation), so that's why I used the perfect in 11.1.

 

[EstQuodFulmineIungo]

In classical Latin I think that would be the case, or at least more frequent. But in this book he is teaching ecclesiastical Latin, and quod with indicative is the form he uses, at least in the early parts. So I'm trying to follow that, for now.

Card. Petrus Bembus praecepit quondam: "ne legatis vulgata, ut ne corrumpetis latinitatem vestram".