In general, yes, but not in VI:22.
Oratio obliqua
- Thread starter Symposion
- Start date
It is a difficult sentence but I guess I grasp the point of it. What I do not understand is what I do wrong according to you?
So what is the point?
You've been asking about these "advanced" Latin courses from somewhere in 2012, while you admitted you started taking Latin at University in 2011. You always ask the same kind of questions, and always complain of them making you go crazy/berserk expecting someone will solve them for you. Also, you always seem to be offended if we move your threads to the Latin beginners...even if you admit you're crappy at Latin and don't understand these assignments. Is your prof fine with posting this assignment here? Or will we have to delete it again.
Btw, you already asked about Oratio obliqua in 2016: THREAD: oratio-obliqua
Last edited:
Did I start taking Latin in 2011? I have a feeling that it was in 2013 but interesting to know. At that moment I was at the Basic studies. Later I moved over to Intermediate level of Latin. I think most of my questions have been at this level regarding my studies. Tacitus is the last course on this level. Others get a BA degree in Latin on my level that I am on now. I might go over to study at advanced level after this course so on MA level.
My questions about Gildas and Saxo grammaticus and other sources regarding the Middle ages are because of work.
What kind of questions do I ask all the time?
I do not know why but I think that I have never really got a good hand on Latin. I do not know why. What do you think I should do?
I think I have devoted time to learn Latin. I am not the only one that have problems with these parts. That is why we are working on them. Oratio obliqua and oratio recta have quickly been mentioned earlier from the beginners level but focus has been on other aspects of Latin. This is why we look at Oratio obliqua now.
When it comes to verbs all the cases were introduced at the same time. That is why I think I did never really grasp them to begin with. I think that is sad.
When it comes to verbs all the cases were introduced at the same time. That is why I think I did never really grasp them to begin with. I think that is sad.
Maybe these links can help somewhat.
Start with this one, which explains the basics of oratio obliqua: THREAD: indirect-statement It is necessary that you understand these fully first.
Then, go on to this one, which explains more advanced oratio obliqua stuff: THREAD: indirect-statement-part-2
Start with this one, which explains the basics of oratio obliqua: THREAD: indirect-statement It is necessary that you understand these fully first.
Then, go on to this one, which explains more advanced oratio obliqua stuff: THREAD: indirect-statement-part-2
If you ever had any luck with foreign languages learning a foreign language, probably you more or less know what to do. Latin is just yet another language. It isn't a formal calculus.
I'm firmly convinced that the only way for us, humans, to deal with foreign languages is through understanding. For instance, if you do a translation, you don't just mechanically match words and grammatical structures of two languages. You read the text in language A and understand what it means, then you render the meaning in language B. Likewise, when one converts indirect to direct speech, the point is not to mechanically substitute word endings, but to understand the meaning of the passage and to rephrase it. That's why I've been trying to make sure you understand the text and frankly, you haven't convinced me. Anyway, I believe a clear understanding of the passage is the starting point. That's why I see no point in checking your output. First things first.
Actually, the idea of a formal/formulaic/mechanical approach to the language is not new and it isn't obviously flawed. Actually, early research on artificial intelligence assumed that it was possible to teach natural language to a computer as a rule-based formal calculus. This approach had some success, e. g. the first ever chat bot Eliza was quite impressive at its time. Still, it failed in the end. It turns out that only a small part of the natural language can be analyzed by means of rules. Modern NLP uses other techniques.
When I have studied foreign languages or rather other languages than my first language I have read, listened and talked that then new language. In other words to use for example English as much as possible. I can only read Latin. I think that I have learnt Latin over the years so that I can read somewhat Latin but there are of course still structures that are unfamiliar to me in Latin. The problem with this language is that I cannot use it in the same way as modern language.
Now it is too late to alter my changes from indirect speech to direct speech. I did hand it in to the teacher already. I hope that the teacher can explain the homework and how to proparly do it next time. To become a Latinist I have understood that it is essential to mechanically understand Latin. That is what Latinists do. Right? They look at home the text is constructed. I have not come past that because in my brain Latin is a dead language that I cannot use for anything else than to read sources for history and analyze the text as an historian so what the written text tells us.
Now it is too late to alter my changes from indirect speech to direct speech. I did hand it in to the teacher already. I hope that the teacher can explain the homework and how to proparly do it next time. To become a Latinist I have understood that it is essential to mechanically understand Latin. That is what Latinists do. Right? They look at home the text is constructed. I have not come past that because in my brain Latin is a dead language that I cannot use for anything else than to read sources for history and analyze the text as an historian so what the written text tells us.
There are a lot of podcasts now to listen to. You can go to courses where you speak Latin. You can also try writing.
No, you're describing a pseudo-Latinist. I have explained that mechanical approach doesn't work with natural languages. It isn't a speculation, it's what the history of AI teaches us. A Latinist reads Latin as a foreign language. A language. It's not a puzzle nor an exercise in decoding, it's a text in a language.
It seems to me that as far as learning languages is concerned, there's no single method suitable for everyone. Unfortunately, in the case of Latin there is no great variety of teaching materials. So it may be the case that Latin is just not for you. It's not a big deal. There are people struggling to learn English, to no avail.
I don't understand the issue with listening, though. There are lots of texts around. What stops you from recording them to yourself?
I did try writing Latin once and that is what Bestiola did refer to with my Professor did not like that I posted here. Then the texts would have been spoiled because we only had a few texts in Finnish that we should translate into Latin. I have listened to Latin for example Tridentine Latin Masses. I do not know what use I have of speaking Latin. I do not have anyone to speak Latin with. That is not my main goal either. I have read Latin texts loud several times. It is important. I have also done that on international congresses.
I need Latin for work. I have mentioned that several times. I think also that I can read Latin but of course there are sentences like the above ones that I would have liked help with. I have asked help in the past with sentences that I have struggled with. I have got help here on this Forum. That is better help than my teachers. I appreciate those times.
I wonder how many credits would you have gotten if it weren't for Pacifica's help (and the help of others who have helped you here).
Latin is your fourth language if my calculus is right. If you managed to grasp two languages (apart from your native tongue), one of which is a highly complicated agglutinative language, you can at least put some effort into Latin. Expecting people here to do your assignments since you think Latin is a dead language and not worthy of your time won't cut you slack.
Otherwise, you're leeching off the forum members.
If you know enough Latin for your work, good for you. No big deal if you can't read Tacitus. I know a lot of people who know enough English for their jobs but would have a hard time reading Dickens.
As for the "help", I'd say you are not especially collaborative. In order to ensure a foundation for further discussion, I invited you more than once to discuss the original passages. You were reluctant to do so. If by "help" you mean that someone would transform one of your (presumably) thoughtless outputs into correct direct speech, then I assure you it's no real help, because you wouldn't learn anything from that. Why it happens that I'm able to do this assignment and you are not? Not because I'm smarter in applying formal rules to strings of characters, but first of all, because I understand the Latin and you probably don't. So the help would be to ensure that you understand it, too. Tacitus is not the simplest author. I had to read the chapter from the beginning to get enough context. Of course, this requires an effort from your part. But if you can't get an understanding of this passage, then this assignment is just above your level (and maybe above the level you intend for yourself).
As for the "help", I'd say you are not especially collaborative. In order to ensure a foundation for further discussion, I invited you more than once to discuss the original passages. You were reluctant to do so. If by "help" you mean that someone would transform one of your (presumably) thoughtless outputs into correct direct speech, then I assure you it's no real help, because you wouldn't learn anything from that. Why it happens that I'm able to do this assignment and you are not? Not because I'm smarter in applying formal rules to strings of characters, but first of all, because I understand the Latin and you probably don't. So the help would be to ensure that you understand it, too. Tacitus is not the simplest author. I had to read the chapter from the beginning to get enough context. Of course, this requires an effort from your part. But if you can't get an understanding of this passage, then this assignment is just above your level (and maybe above the level you intend for yourself).
Hi @Symposion, Tacitus is among the most difficult ancient authors. Even after working their way through a textbook, most people need lots of practice before they can read his works. In your case, it seems that you are trying to read Tacitus without even knowing the basics. For example, you write:
What is the sentence above supposed to mean? As Quasus wrote, it's gibberish. If you need to understand Tacitus to do your homework, then you need to familiarise yourself with basic grammar concepts first. Pick a textbook that works for you, e.g. Wheelock's Latin, go through it chapter by chapter, doing all the exercises, try reading Caesar, and then Tacitus.
Beginner here:
Wouldn't mechanically moving from indirect speech to direct speech be difficult because some of the infinitives would stay infinitives, and some of the accusatives would stay accusatives, and only by understanding what the sentence means, including their context, would allow you to accomplish the task?
(Indeed, I think I have seen a number of posts on this board by newbies like me confused by the ambiguities of indirect speech)
Such an exercise would.....be a clever way....for a teacher to test genuine comprehension.
Wouldn't mechanically moving from indirect speech to direct speech be difficult because some of the infinitives would stay infinitives, and some of the accusatives would stay accusatives, and only by understanding what the sentence means, including their context, would allow you to accomplish the task?
(Indeed, I think I have seen a number of posts on this board by newbies like me confused by the ambiguities of indirect speech)
Such an exercise would.....be a clever way....for a teacher to test genuine comprehension.