The non in the second sentence doesn't belong. It makes you say the opposite of what's intended.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?
Good, though it would perhaps be better, for consistency's sake, to use the same tense in the question and in the answer.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.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.
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.4. (Master) Had you perhaps gone (= proceeded) far? (Ans.) I had gone too far.
Fortene longē processerās? Forte processerām nimis.
Docui is in the wrong person, and mihi in the wrong case.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.
-ne should go at the end of aliis. It usually doesn't go at the end of prepositions.6. (Master) Had you walked with others? Why don't you answer?
Cumne aliīs ambulāveram? Cur nōn respondēs?
Good.7. (One of the four) We had all four walked in the woods.
Cunctī quattuor in silvā ambulāverāmus.
Monituri doesn't agree with the singular subject.8. (Master) I am not going- to-chide you, but this I will say:
Nōn tē monitūrī sum, autem haec dīcam:
Autem works here, but see what I said above concerning its placement.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.
1/ I see (again <sigh>) that I should use a positive sentence with num to imply the English question form.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.
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.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.
I want a Snoopy happy dance emoji , please...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.
Could nōnne also be used? I think the expected answer is "(yes,) I had gone too far."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.
1/ Careless of me.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/ Noted: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/ Again, my lack of care, sorry.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/ I've put autem second, now, as it is a conjunction here not a preposition.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.
It is direct speech, not reported speech.Does the fact that is reported/indirect speech have a bearing?
"Good." is Pacifica's equivalent to a dance emoji, and it's amongst the highest forms of praise she will give out.I want a Snoopy happy dance emoji , please...
nonne wouldn't make so much sense here.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.
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).3/ Is that to imply 'this particular' way?
Agricola, qui agrum propter silvam colēbat, mē dē eā viā docuit.
I would translate the "there" as well and repeat the verb: cum autem ante scholae horam ibi ambulas, mihi non placet.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
3/ Is that to imply 'this particular' way?
Agricola, qui agrum propter silvam colēbat, mē dē eā viā docuit.
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.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).
I don't think you went further in your ellipsis than what Cicero might have occasionally done. It seemed OK to me.In this one, I think you are correct. I left too much out.
Thanks for the clarifications.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.
Very good!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.
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.
Very good.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.
That's also right!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.
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."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'.
2nd person.4. You know that he did not come yesterday.
Scit eum herī nōn vēnisse.
If you want to be exact, you should translate "to him" as well.7. A farmer said to him yesterday that they were dangerous.
Agricola herī dixit eam perīculōsam esse.
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.8. He himself told me that the farmer had said this to him.
Ipse mihi docuit agricolam eī id docuisse.
Wrong verb for "to think".9. But I thought that he would come.
At scīvī eum ventūrum (esse).
Oh! Again! Damn!2nd person.
Missing bits!If you want to be exact, you should translate "to him" as well.KarlaUK dixit:
7. A farmer said to him yesterday that they were dangerous.
Agricola herī dixit eam perīculōsam esse.
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!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.KarlaUK dixit:
8. He himself told me that the farmer had said this to him.
Ipse mihi docuit agricolam eī id docuisse.
Also: If "He himself" and "him" are the same person, then it should be sibi rather than ei.
Basic vocab!Wrong verb for "to think".
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.Missing bits!
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.
Germans!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!
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.b/ Noted. I'm still woolly on pronouns.
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 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.
Thank you. At least this was covered adequately!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)."
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.Germans!
At least she had a good taste regarding authors.
Reflexive pronouns have been covered. Pronouns are where I stalled previously learning Latin. Now, I am much improved but still wobbly.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.
Thankstamen 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.
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.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.
I think you've said it all.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.