Mars quoque bellum gerit.

[pasquinus]

The sentence is from a DuoLingo exercise. They accept the following translations (but not "Also Mars wages war."). What do you think? Are they correct?

• Mars as well [makes / wages] [a / the] war.
• Mars as well [makes / wages] war.
• Mars [makes / wages] [a / the] war as well.
• Mars [makes / wages] war as well.
• Mars [also / too] [makes / wages] [a / the] war.
• Mars [also / too] [makes / wages] war.
• Mars [makes / wages] [a / the] war too.
• Mars [makes / wages] war too.
• Mars [makes / wages] [a / the] war also.
• Mars [makes / wages] war also.
• Mars is as well waging war.
• Mars is waging [a / the] war as well.
• Mars is waging war as well.
• Mars is [also / too] waging war.
• Mars is waging [a / the] war too.
• Mars is waging war too.
• Mars is waging [a / the] war also.
• Mars is waging war also.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes.

 

[pasquinus]

Yes.

Thanks. But, what about the meaning? The English sentences can mean either “Mars among others…” or “…wages war, among other activities”. Are both meanings available in the original Latin sentence?

 

[Matthaeus]

For the second meaning, that would have to be Mars bellum quoque gerit, because I think quoque modifies the word preceding it.

 

[Pacifica]

I think quoque modifies the word preceding it.

It does.

 

[pasquinus]

For the second meaning, that would have to be Mars bellum quoque gerit, because I think quoque modifies the word preceding it.

It does.

Thanks.

Here are some other examples from their lessons.
Correct me if I am mistaken, the first one seems plain wrong. As to the others, while technically correct, I am afraid they do not make clear the actual usage of “quoque” (to modify the word preceding it).

"Pater quoque et mater in urbe sunt."
Translation:
Father and also mother are in the city.

"Uxor quoque est severa."
Translation:
The wife is also strict.

"Noctu Marcus quoque psittacum interficit."
Translation:
At night Marcus also kills the parrot.

"Paterfamilias quoque iuvenem servat."
Translation:
The head of the house also saves the young man.

 

[kmp]

I wouldn't expect too much from the DuoLingo Latin Course. It is what it is. It's far from the professional standard of other DuoLingo courses, quite amateurish by comparison. It's short. It gives no grammar help. It's obsessed with treacherous drunken parrots, cunning weasels that don't cook mice, owls that fly into the forum, and thieves who hide gems under togas. And I'm completely baffled why it thinks the only acceptable translation of capere is "to try to grab at".

I use it for five minutes every day in the hope that the constant repetition of simple sentences will help reinforce my feel for the language - but it's not really much good for anything else.

 

[pasquinus]

Here is a couple of other sentences from that course that make me wonder...
1. “Ad villam noctu advenio.”
Shouldn’t it be “Villam” with no “ad”?
2. “Venti per villam perflant.”
Is that “per” really necessary? The variant without it is not accepted, though.
What do you experts say?
However, i think those are details. I would recommend the DuoLingo course for beginners anyway. I quite enjoyed it.

 

[Pacifica]

1. “Ad villam noctu advenio.”
Shouldn’t it be “Villam” with no “ad”?

No. Advenio doesn't take a direct object.

2. “Venti per villam perflant.”
Is that “per” really necessary?

No, it isn't.

 

[pasquinus]

No. Advenio doesn't take a direct object.

No, it isn't.

Thanks. About the first sentence: I was thinking of “domum”, which does not require “ad”, but of course “ad villam” is not the same.

 

[Pacifica]

I was thinking of “domum”

I thought at first that that was what had gotten you confused. Then I changed my guess because your second question was about prepositional phrase vs. direct object. Ah, well.

 

[pasquinus]

One more from the green Owl.

"Ambulare saepe volo." was rejected as a translation of "Often I want to walk." (official correct answer: "Saepe ambulare volo.".)

Is there something wrong with "Ambulare saepe volo."?
Otherewise, it is possibly a case of an alternative translation not yet added to the database, but it might be accepted in the future.

 

[Pacifica]

Is there something wrong with "Ambulare saepe volo."?

Not per se, but the emphasis of "often" in first position is best rendered by putting saepe in first position too.

 

[cinefactus]

Just scrolling through PHI, there seem to be examples of saepe in both positions, depending on which verb they want to emphasise.
eg
De Inventione
plurimum aliis praestare saepe accepissent
De Oratore
quia pugnare inter se saepe videntur

I would have thought both translations should be acceptable, as I would have taken the English to mean that I often want to walk, rather than that I want to walk often.