/clg/ - Classical Languages General

[Anonymous No.20560046]

Ēditiō passerīna
Prius fīlum: >>20548905

https://mega.nz/#F!9o4QEIIK!P3piz8Bfw-z7jgb7Q8NWDg

Remember, all claims about Latin the author can't back up in Latin are to be disregarded.
Mementōte, omnēs dē linguā Latīnā assertiōnēs quās auctor Latīnē corrōborāre nōn potest abiciendae sunt.

[Anonymous No.20560050]

>two weeks
It's fucking over

[Anonymous No.20560063]

>>20560050
There are very few people who can manage something like that. He was probably some kind of savant.

[Anonymous No.20560076]

>>20560046
quis est artifex?

[Anonymous No.20560093]

>>20560050
So... this is the power of anti immigration chud politicians..

[Anonymous No.20560097]

>>20560076
Edward Poynter

[Anonymous No.20560106]

>Diutius lacu quam montibus impeditae sunt copiae nostrae.

Why is lake and mountains ablative here?

[Anonymous No.20560118]

>>20560106
Do you get the rest of the sentence? The meaning is the same as in English
>Our forces were impeded BY

[Anonymous No.20560123]

>>20560106
They were hindered BY the lake and the mountains.

[Anonymous No.20560127]

An exercise for /clg/
This is one of the most famous passages from the Aeneid, Book 2 lines 40-49. Read it all the way through and you will know why.
Post your translations and see how they compare with others.

[Anonymous No.20560131]

Threadly reminder that there is little to no difference between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin grammar.
A dictionary is absolutely necessary, even for experienced readers of Latin

[Anonymous No.20560132]

>>20560106
>Our troops were impeded longer/more time by the lake than by the mountains
I think

[Anonymous No.20560140]

>>20560097
benedictus tu

[Anonymous No.20560145]

>>20560131
>A dictionary is absolutely necessary, even for experienced readers of Latin
I use a dictionary even for my first language.

[Anonymous No.20560154]

>>20560145
As do I, yet even that seemingly obvious and banal point is contested here

[Anonymous No.20560161]

>>20560131
Adhuc te expecto, neque mei testes se ipsos lingunt.

[Anonymous No.20560193]

>>20560118
>>20560123
You're right, I am retarded and forgot about the Ablative of Cause

>Ablative of getting your homework wrong

>>20560132
I think you're right.

[Anonymous No.20560241]

>>20558509
Chapter 10 C questions

>Num Neptunus homo est?
Neptunus non est homo sed deus.
Homines volare non possunt aut spirat in aqua autem dei possunt illi.
>Quis est Mercurius
Mercurius est nuntius deorum.
Cum alis pedis et alis petaso, Mercurius volari ut avis.
>Quid agunt mercatores?
Mercatores emit et vendit res multa et per distantiae longate ille portant.
>Num necesse est margaritas habere?
Margaritae non necesse est homini. Homines vivare sine margaritae.
Autem sine margaritae aut alii ornamenta, homines esse excurrere pecuniae et facere pecuniae non possunt.
Ornamenta habere, est sapiens esse.
>Quid est oceanus Atlanticus?
Oceanus Atlanticus magna mare est.
Oceanus Atlanticus inter Americam et Europam.
Nemo natat possare per oceanus Atlanticus.
>Cur aquila a parvis avibus timetur?
(I don't understand this question, I thought the sentence was supposed to be "Why eagle from small birds afraid?" but I see it's supposed to be "why from eagle, small birds fear".. as close to literal translation as possible. I see this is a void in my understanding of how passive sentences work)
Aqulia parvam avem est ergo ab aqulia, eis timentur et occultantur.
>Ubi sunt nidi avium?
In arbore, inter folias, nidi aviorum sunt.
>Quae bestiae ova pariunt?
Aves pariunt ova, canes non ova sed pulli pariunt.
Sine Matris, ova vivunt non posse.
>Quid agunt pueri in horto?
In horto, pueris luduntur.
ab Marcis verborum, Quinto in arborem ascendit et ab eo cadit.
>Cur ramus Quintum sustinere non potest?
Quia is est nimis, pinguis porcus.
In arbore, ramo crassus et tenuis esse. Quintus pedum in ramo tenui ponit quod sustinare non potest, igitur cadit.

[Anonymous No.20560273]

>>20560127
First there, before all, accompanying a great crowd
Laocoon, burning with anger, descends from the citadel.
And from a distance: "Oh wretched citizens, what is this madness?
Do you believe our enemies have fled? Do any of you really think
that the gifts of the Greeks are without trickery? Do you know of Ulysses?
Either this thing conceals Greeks within its wood
Or this machine was built to come into our walls
and enter the homes of the city from above
Or I am wrong and some other trap is hidden.
Either way, do not believe, Trojans.
Whatever it is, I fear Greeks bearing gifts.

I was able to read this pretty easily, but only because I've seen it before.

[Anonymous No.20560308]

>>20560050
Enoch Powell?

[ESL No.20560329]

>>20560127
Then, Laocoon, exited [not in a good way], was the first who ran in front of the accompanying mass of people [accompanying, going with the horse], down from the top of the fortress. And from far away said
"Oh, poor people, why so much madness, citizens? Do you really think the enemies went away? Or do you think that the gift from the Danaos are without tricks? Is Ulises known to be like this?
Or, the Achiui, being inside, are hidden by this wood, or this machine was made to come into our walls, to inspect the buildings of our city from above, or some other deceit is concealed.
Don't trust the horse, Teucri. Whatever it is, I fear the Danaos, specially when they bring gifts."

[Anonymous No.20560476]

>>20560241
>>Num Neptunus homo est?
>Neptunus non est homo sed deus.
>Homines volare non possunt aut spirat in aqua autem dei possunt illi.
aut spirare,
>>Quis est Mercurius
>Mercurius est nuntius deorum.
>Cum alis pedis et alis petaso, Mercurius volari ut avis.
cum alis pedum et alis petasi, Mercurio volat/volare potest
>>Quid agunt mercatores?
>Mercatores emit et vendit res multa et per distantiae longate ille portant.
emunt et vendunt, per longas distantias
>>Num necesse est margaritas habere?
>Margaritae non necesse est homini. Homines vivare sine margaritae.
Margaritas habere. Vivere possunt
>Autem sine margaritae aut alii ornamenta, homines esse excurrere pecuniae et facere pecuniae non possunt.
sine margaritis aut alis ornamentis, I don't understant what esse excurrere means, facere pecuniam
>Ornamenta habere, est sapiens esse.
>>Quid est oceanus Atlanticus?
>Oceanus Atlanticus magna mare est.
magnum mare
>Oceanus Atlanticus inter Americam et Europam.
>Nemo natat possare per oceanus Atlanticus.
potest natare
>>Cur aquila a parvis avibus timetur?
>(I don't understand this question, I thought the sentence was supposed to be "Why eagle from small birds afraid?" but I see it's supposed to be "why from eagle, small birds fear".. as close to literal translation as possible. I see this is a void in my understanding of how passive sentences work)
Why the eagle is feared by small birds?
>Aqulia parvam avem est ergo ab aqulia, eis timentur et occultantur.
Aquila parva ave est
ei timentur
>>Ubi sunt nidi avium?
>In arbore, inter folias, nidi aviorum sunt.
>>Quae bestiae ova pariunt?
>Aves pariunt ova, canes non ova sed pulli pariunt.
>Sine Matris, ova vivunt non posse.
sine matre, ova vivere non possunt
>>Quid agunt pueri in horto?
>In horto, pueris luduntur.
>ab Marcis verborum, Quinto in arborem ascendit et ab eo cadit.
ab Marci verbis, ab ea (arbor is femenine) cadit
>>Cur ramus Quintum sustinere non potest?
>Quia is est nimis, pinguis porcus.
kek
>In arbore, ramo crassus et tenuis esse. Quintus pedum in ramo tenui ponit quod sustinare non potest, igitur cadit.
ramus, crassus and tenuis are antonyms, pedem ponit, qui sustinere (ramus is masculine)

[Anonymous No.20560665]

>>20560476
>aut spirare
darn I had originally written spirare but changed it to spirta because I thought it was wrong, I guess I should have listened to my gut on that one.
>cum alis pedum...
I wrote pedis because it was cum + abl.. is there a rule here I'm missing about cum + gen? I suppose it's "with his winged feet and hat"
>emunt et vendunt
darn I also wrote this this way first time but later changed it to singular
>per longas distantias
ack I failed to notice per + acc. I wrote the per after I had written long distances.
>margaritas habere?
Is there a rule with acc + habere here or am I just missing a basic use of the accusative?
>vivere possunt
ah I had spent a long time on that last little sentence, I thought possunt wouldn't make sense in the sentence but perhaps it is fine.
>sine margaritis aut alis ornaments
aliis is ablative right? is there an aut + abl rule or am I missing another basic use of the ablative here?
>esse excurrere
I was attempting to say sometihng like... "humans - to be - run out - money", "people may run out of money... and not be able to make any more" because they haven't got any jewels to pawn off.
>magnum mare
ah I made the mistake of assuming mare was feminine
>potest natare
hmm looks like I got the infinitive the wrong way around. I'll have to reread the chapter to get a better feel for which way round it goes.
>why the eagle...
hmm I suppose a way of writing the latin sentence would be
"cur aquila timetur a parvis avibus"?
Either way it sounds like I really need to re-read chapter 6 again.
>aquilla parva ave est
Am I wrong in the sentence structure of
Aquilla - parvam avem - est
nom - acc - verb
subject - object - verb
est as in edo
>ei timentur
hmm I'm not entirely sure why I wrote eis as abl... I vaguely remember a reason but I can't remember it. but it's probably wrong anyway so I suppose it doesn't matter.
>sine matre
ack another sine + abl rule. I have these written down but it seems they always sneak around me
>ab Marci verbis
aaaa another one oh my god I think I keep missing these because I write my sentences in the wrong order. I probably wrote the ab long after I wrote Marci
>ab ea
ah I made the english mistake of calling the tree an it.. as if it's not male or female, but of course.. arbor is female, he fell out of her.
>ramus, crassus, and...
My sentence was
"in the tree, there are thick and thin branches"
Is "there are" an incorrect use of esse?
maybe I should have used an illa word
>pedem ponit
hmm that's a silly mistake on my part, no excuse there, of course there's no such word as pedum for feet
>sustinere (ramus is masculine)
oh I didn't even know there was a masculine, feminine, neuter for sustin- I thought it was all just one word.


This was a pretty fun one, although I think I'm beginning to struggle in juggling all the syntax. I think I can still read very well but I fear by the end of this book my latin sentences are not going to make much sense lol

[Anonymous No.20560969]

>Nihil tam indignum illo tempore fuit, quam quod aut Caesar aliquem proscribere coactus est aut ab ullo Cicero proscriptus est.
>coactus est
kek, propaganda or self-censorship? I guess he was writing for public consumption under Tiberius

>In huius locum suffectus Valerius Flaccus, turpissimae legis auctor, qua creditoribus quadrantem solvi iusserat, cuius facti merita eum poena intra biennium consecuta est.
>poena merita
Paterculus really hates debt relief

[Anonymous No.20561055]

>>20560969
>Paterculus really hates debt relief

The more I read, the more I dislike pompous Roman aristocrats.

[Anonymous No.20561168]

>>20560046
Should I learn Greek?

[Anonymous No.20561229]

>>20561168
ναί

[Anonymous No.20561235]

ν

[Anonymous No.20561391]

>>20560665
>>cum alis pedum...
>I wrote pedis because it was cum + abl.. is there a rule here I'm missing about cum + gen? I suppose it's "with his winged feet and hat"
with the wings OF the feet
with winged feet = cum alatis pedibus
>>margaritas habere?
>Is there a rule with acc + habere here or am I just missing a basic use of the accusative?
you use the accusative for the direct object, and habere is a transitive verb
>>vivere possunt
>ah I had spent a long time on that last little sentence, I thought possunt wouldn't make sense in the sentence but perhaps it is fine.
why not?
>>sine margaritis aut alis ornaments
>aliis is ablative right? is there an aut + abl rule or am I missing another basic use of the ablative here?
Yes I forgot an i. aliis ornamentis is ablative because it goes with the preposition sine
>>aquilla parva ave est
>Am I wrong in the sentence structure of
>Aquilla - parvam avem - est
>nom - acc - verb
>subject - object - verb
Order doesn't really matter in Latin. The verb sum doesn't take the accusative because it's a copula, not a transitive verb

>>ramus, crassus, and...
>My sentence was
>"in the tree, there are thick and thin branches"
In arbore, rami crassi et tenues sunt (I'm not sure if crassus is the right word to describe thick branches though)
>Is "there are" an incorrect use of esse?
I don't know why you used the infinitive there
>>sustinere (ramus is masculine)
>oh I didn't even know there was a masculine, feminine, neuter for sustin- I thought it was all just one word.
I was referring to the word you used before that, "quod"

Just out of curiosity, what's your first language?

[Anonymous No.20561556]

>>20561229
How do you acquire vocabulary?

[Anonymous No.20561699]

>>20561229
Is that a no?

[Anonymous No.20561766]

starting a Classics degree in October

what's a good fast track for Latin so I can arrive prepared?

[Anonymous No.20561780]

>>20561766
llpsi

[Anonymous No.20561803]

>>20561556
Read.

[Anonymous No.20561830]

>>20561766
Start writing one or two paradigms daily to save yourself the hassle of learning them piecemeal, so you can blaze through your classes. Other than that just get a textbook (Reading Latin / Cambridge / Wheellock) and start doing it, asking questions when you get stuck. You could be well past done the textbook and reading real Latin already by September.

Do Greek as well. Classics is a meme degree now where they don't even force you to learn languages anymore, so if you go into your program with a really good base in first year Greek and Latin, you will blitz through your classes and have lots of room to explore more interesting things in the degree and get to know whatever old guard professors are still around. They will appreciate that you care enough to transcend the class and take the initiative. In 3 or 4 years when you're graduating and Classics is even more of a dying meme degree than it is now, you may even wind up as one of the few good memories they have of academia during its death throes, which will get you good letters of recommendation, which will maybe get you into some secret old guard Classics PhD program where a few old timers are still trying to keep the discipline alive.

>>20561780
Terrible method for newbies in my opinion. Recent threads with people asking really basic questions because the book doesn't explain things sufficiently (no fault of their own, that's the book's fault) have made me even more annoyed with LLPSI.

>>20561556
Just read, vocabulary absorption is 90% repetition+context. Don't feel bad if you have to look something up a dozen times. The next ten billion times you see that word you're not going to be thinking of the one dozen times you had to look it up. What matters early on is that you get through the text and you keep going no matter what.

[Anonymous No.20561831]

>>20561766
>>20561780
Seconding this. I read most of LLPSI, tested into Latin 2, and mostly did better than my classmates.

[Anonymous No.20561846]

>>20561831
On the other hand, the local LLPSI defender who has spent 300 hours writing defenses of his shitty magical method for making you "think in Latin" can't identify "non sequitur" as a Latin expression and butchered it to "non-sequiter." Say la vie.

[Anonymous No.20561847]

>>20561830
>Terrible method for newbies in my opinion. Recent threads with people asking really basic questions because the book doesn't explain things sufficiently (no fault of their own, that's the book's fault) have made me even more annoyed with LLPSI.
I think to some extent that's their fault for being impatient because it would be made clear if they read further ahead. I don't remember having much in the way of remaining questions or confusions if I just kept reading further ahead.

[Anonymous No.20561854]

>>20561846
Why "think in Latin" in quotes? Do you think it isn't possible?

[Anonymous No.20561862]

>>20561830
Oh nigger nigger nigger, about to start a thread long debate on lipsey because some people are retarded and use it in isolation instead of in conjunction with a grammar.
See everyone in 100 replies.

[Anonymous No.20561925]

>>20561862
Does the Lingua explains the periphrastic infinitive participle gerund deponent ablative absolute of the gerundive middle voice? I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.20561927]

>>20561854
It's possible in the same way thinking in any other language you learn is possible, just takes time and exposure. Whether you can get sufficient exposure to "think in" a highly artificial, dead literary language is a philosophical question I suppose. You'd have to ask Lorenzo Valla or Montaigne or something. Or maybe a monk who felt left behind by the Carolingian renaissance reforms, which is often cited as the moment Latin "died" (by realizing it's a bunch of medieval romance dialect barbarisms). Maybe someone who grew up thinking he was speaking and thinking in Latin and then saw it turned into a curated fossil by a new generation of experts would have interesting opinions on what Latin is or isn't.

Short of that, everything is pretty subjective. I have asked elderly veteran Latinists whether they think even they read Virgil the way a native Roman listener would have heard him being read, and they said no, classical syntax will always remain fundamentally alien on some level. Even to a native speaker of a modern romance language, all of which are more similar in "feel" to a Germanic language than to Latin or Greek. I have a feeling this is because the syntax and idiom are artificial, because literary languages are understood by their users as special and abnormal. Who ever spoke like a Shakespeare character speaks?

>>20561862
I'd normally ignore it but someone asked for real advice.

[Anonymous No.20561955]

>>20561847
There are also multiple supplemental materials that should be used in addition to reading the main text of LLPSI, such as the workbook and multiple additional dialogue books such as Colloquia Personarum and Fabilae Latinae. I imagine if a person only did the main textbook and nothing else they would be left with a pretty bare-bones understanding of elementary Latin.

I'm on Chapter 19 of LLPSI right now while also doing the supplementary texts and workbook and, despite being deliberate in my attempt, it's clear that I will probably need to go through Wheelock's after finishing just to shore up some grammatical issues that LLPSI didn't address adequately, especially if I want to write Latin correctly and not simply read it.

[Anonymous No.20561968]

>Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐνώπιον τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν Τῷ Βιβλίῳ™ τούτῳ
Fucking seriously John?

[Anonymous No.20561977]

>>20561679
>these threads suck

They're way more comfy than most of the garbage threads on /lit/, which are now typically about retarded marginal e-celebs, topics that have been covered a thousand times (Is Fahrenheit 451 really about censorship? Should I read Infinite Jest?), current political topics ham-fisted into threads of dubious literary quality, or Anons asking for books to make them less depressed or more confident. The posters in the classical languages threads might be the only people on /lit/ these days actually attempting to learn anything meaningful.

[Anonymous No.20561978]

>>20561968
that dope ass shit this mofo did gonna be in The Bible 2

[Anonymous No.20562015]

>>20561968
>multa quidem et alia signa fecit Iesus in conspectu discipulorum suorum quae non sunt scripta in libro hoc

Source: trust me, bro

[Anonymous No.20562117]

>>20562015
it's amazing how literally they translated the Greek

[Anonymous No.20562136]

Am I alone in using LLPSI to include the entire series of lingua latina books including familia romana and roma aeterna but also colloquia personarum, fabellae latinae, de bello gallico, catilina, ars amartoria, cena trimalchionis, amphitryo, sermones romani, aeneis I et IV but also fabulae syrae and epitome historiae sacrae?

[Anonymous No.20562152]

>>20562136
Consooom more supplements to cover what the base text doesn't cover. This is le methode natural. Also buy Patreon recordings.

[Anonymous No.20562206]

>>20562152
Yeah, you need more than one book's worth of comprehensible input. That's how languages are. You're a fool if you pay for books though.

[Anonymous No.20562227]

>>20562206
>You're a fool if you pay for books though.

[Anonymous No.20562270]

>>20562227
What, like you don't pirate?

[Anonymous No.20562287]

>>20562270
I'm not >>20562152, but yes, I do pirate books. Except for when I can't find them online. Then I buy them.

[Anonymous No.20562331]

>>20562270
I prefer a book to a computer screen

[Anonymous No.20562374]

>>20562331
I do too, but I also don't have infinite money. I use the library when I can, though.

[Anonymous No.20562389]

>>20562152
Well yeah, familia romana would have to be a huge book to introduce all of that vocab as extensive reading material

[Anonymous No.20562442]

>>20562389
It's like 1/3 maybe even 1/4 of Wheelock. I'm not comparing the content before you guys start arguing again, just in terms of book thickness.

[Anonymous No.20562463]

>>20562442
I have no idea what you're trying to say

[Anonymous No.20562485]

>>20562442
Wheelock is at least 3 times as thick as LLPSI. So I'm saying those supplementary books could have been combined into one volume by Orberg without the physical size of the book being all that big.

[Anonymous No.20562628]

>>20562485
Hans Ørberg spent his entire adult life on LLPSI, he didn't just write it all quickly and release them all at once
Also the total pages of the main books + supplements would be around 2000 pages

[Anonymous No.20562777]

>>20562628
You are including the adapted readers and Roma Aeterna. You could easily put Colloquia Personarum, Fabulae Syrae together with Familia Romana. You may even be able to fit Sermones Romani and Epitome Historiae Sacrae. Wheelock is 1000 pages btw.

[Anonymous No.20562779]

>>20562628
Why the fuck are you using that rune instead of an o? The Nazis used that.

[Anonymous No.20562785]

>>20562779
I never even thought about it that way. Thanks for informing us.

[Anonymous No.20562813]

>>20562779
Probably because that's how it's written on everything he has ever published.

[Anonymous No.20562861]

>>20562813
Looks like he was a Nazi, then.

[Anonymous No.20562879]

>>20562779
>>20562785
>>20562861
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98
It's not a rune
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runes
You are thinking of Othala. This is the rune that the Nazis used: ᛟ it makes the "o" sound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othala

[Anonymous No.20563159]

>>20562879
>replying to some of the laziest bait posts in /lit/ history

[Anonymous No.20563186]

>>20563159
I'm just trying to make sure no one gets confused. At least it's not another argument.

[Anonymous No.20563572]

>>20561846
>and butchered it to "non-sequiter." Say la vie.
uhhh no he said non-sequitor which happens to be how it is used in english these days but nice try

[Anonymous No.20563666]

>>20563572
lmao cope

[Anonymous No.20563677]

>>20561977
This. clg is shit, lit is utter shit, but clg is pushing the scattered middle class culture forward. I'd prefer less shitposting and more classroom posts, and a slower thread, but I'll take what I can get.

[Anonymous No.20563686]

>>20563666
not coping cuz it was not my post in the first place - im merely pointing out the sophist tactics of >>20561846 who a few weeks ago embarassed himself by not knowing that sequitur is considered a misspelling in english
now he's trying to claim it was sequiter in hopes that people had forgotten and he could get away with it

[Anonymous No.20563697]

>>20562861
wtf I løve lipsi nøw

[Anonymous No.20563702]

>>20561977
I hate /lit/ so much it's unreal

[Anonymous No.20563750]

>>20563677
There's 20 regular posters at most. You are in a classroom.

[Anonymous No.20563762]

>>20560127
Can someone explain to a retard (me) how are lines 46 and 47 supposed to be read? I'm struggling with those.
Also
> 'o
It took me a while to see it was a quotation mark and not some Irish surname kek

[Anonymous No.20563769]

>>20563762
aut haec in nostros fabricata est machina muros, inspectura domos uenturaque desuper urbi,
Hope this helps desu

[Anonymous No.20563801]

>>20563769
not really, but thanks for trying, fren
anyway, I read it like this
>this machine was fabricated against our walls
>to inspect our buildings and to come from above our city (per venire dall'alto della città)
or something like that. i don't really get what Laocoon is trying to explain here

[Anonymous No.20563839]

>>20561391
My first language is english... but I've never had any proper education in it so I'm unfamiliar with many grammatical concepts like transitive and intransitve etc

[Anonymous No.20564018]

>>20560127
>timeo Danaos et dona ferentis
I always thought it was ferentes... it doesn't make sense like this.

[Anonymous No.20564579]

[Anonymous No.20564609]

>>20563762
>>20563801
machina - war machine, siege engine
>this was built as a machine of war
desuper goes with both participles
>to view our homes and enter the city (from above)
One of the best tips I got in college was to avoid English cognates as much as possible. When translating try not to go for the obvious. It will make you think a bit harder and open up new meanings while also cementing alternate possibilities which are abundant in Latin
>>20564018
often 3rd declension plural nouns have -is instead of -es. It is extremely common, in both poetry and prose.

[Anonymous No.20564727]

>>20563839
maybe learning some grammar may be useful. wheelock seems to be the most recommend around here

[Anonymous No.20564960]

>>20563839
Check out English Grammar for Students of Latin by Norma Goldman. She wrote Latin Via Ovid if anyone is familiar with that text.

[Anonymous No.20565076]

>>20563839
'Transitive' means a verb that takes an object, like 'Alice hit Bob'. (An object is a word that you would replace with 'me, us, him, her, them' rather than 'I, we, he, she, they' if you changed it to a pronoun, essentially.) Intransitive is a verb that doesn't take an object- you can say "Alice is smiling" but you can't say "Alice is smiling Bob." Think "transitive" as in it goes (ire) across (trans) to some other thing.

[Anonymous No.20565077]

>>20564579
>fat >person's opinion
lmao

[Anonymous No.20565085]

>>20565076
what about indirect objects

[Anonymous No.20565096]

>>20565085
Is there a verb that can take indirect objects but not direct objects? I can't think of one off the top of my head.

[Anonymous No.20565133]

>>20565096
intransitive verbs can take indirect objects
>alicui loquor

[Anonymous No.20565140]

>>20565133
I'm not sure if dative in Latin and indirect object in English are exactly the same thing. I usually understand "indirect object" as referring to things like "bake *me* a cake" but not "bake a cake *for me*". But maybe that's too narrow an understanding.

[Anonymous No.20565154]

>>20561766
Starting my classics major next year
gay

[Anonymous No.20565188]

>>20565140
that "me" without for in English is only possible because those pronouns like me, him, them are leftover oblique cases. You wouldn't say "I bake the dog a cake", but it would work if I reintroduce the old English dative "I bake þaem doggan a cake"

[Anonymous No.20565195]

>>20565188
>You wouldn't say "I bake the dog a cake"
Maybe not in your dialect. I definitely would.

[Anonymous No.20565200]

>You wouldn't say "I bake the dog a cake"
I would. But I wouldn't say "I bake a cake the dog". Word order is doing the work since English lost cases.

>þaem doggan
Why does Old English have so much soul?

[Anonymous No.20565209]

>>20565200
>But I wouldn't say "I bake a cake the dog".
What if you were in fact baking a dog on behalf of the cake? Not that that's likely.

[Anonymous No.20565213]

>researching local history in the Roman/sub-Roman period
>urban centres crumble to ruins
>latin degenerates into romance languages
>latin place names degenerate to at most two syllable grunts

grim

[Anonymous No.20565215]

>>20565209
gettin real colorless green ideas in here

[Anonymous No.20565223]

>>20565215
Baking a dog on behalf of the cake at least seems like something physically imaginable even if only a lunatic would actually do it.

[Anonymous No.20565259]

>>20565213
>>latin degenerates into romance languages
By that logic isn't Latin itself a degeneration of Proto-Italic, which is a degeneration of PIE, which is a degeneration of (possibly) Proto-Nostratic?

[Anonymous No.20565342]

>>20565259
which is a degeneration of monke screaming
reditote ad simiam

[Anonymous No.20565349]

>>20565259
romance languages are very clear simplifications of a highly inflected latin

sort of similar to the difference between English and Ebonics

[Anonymous No.20565357]

>>20565349
They've developed some complexities of their own. French is starting to evolve polypersonal agreement, supposedly.

[Anonymous No.20565372]

>>20565259
>Proto-Nostratic
Well, that sent me down a rabbit hole.

>>20565349
Like modern English and old English? Wouldn't that make Americans and brits Niggers? And i mean, modern English is way more stripped down when it comes to everything than romance languages and their relation to latin.

[Anonymous No.20565402]

>>20565372
>Like modern English and old English?

yes, exactly, our languages are degenerating over time

English is a horrible language compared to Old English; likewise romance languages compared to Latin

[Anonymous No.20565426]

>>20565402
That's not how it works. Natural languages aren't 'better' or 'worse', they're just different. Consider that some of the greatest poetry and philosophy in history was written in Classical Chinese, one of the most isolating languages ever.

[Anonymous No.20565458]

>>20565342
kek

[Anonymous No.20565460]

>>20565426
are aesthetics nowhere in your tally?

[Anonymous No.20565486]

>>20565460
Sure, but I think there are different ways for a language to be aesthetically beautiful. The extreme of isolating grammar has an elegance of its own.

[Anonymous No.20565733]

German Wikipedia says
> In quantitativer Hinsicht umfasst das klassische Chinesisch der Zeit der Streitenden Reiche nur etwa 2000 bis 3000 Lexeme
[Quantitatively, the Classical Chinese of the time of the Warring States consists of just 2000 to 3000 lexemes.]

If this is true, and Classical Chinese is
> one of the most isolating languages ever,
does that mean that one only needs to cram those 2-3k moonrunes, to be able to read proficiently? This seems too good to be true.

[Anonymous No.20565803]

>>20565733
How difficult is classical chinese morphology? If it is like modern Chinese then it would be, indeed, a piece of cake.

[Anonymous No.20565831]

>>20565803
The way I understand "isolating language" is that there is no morphology to speak of.

[Anonymous No.20565956]

>>20565733
That seems like a low estimate to me, especially if you include compounds, different senses of the same word, idioms etc. Plus you still need to know the grammar- morphology isn't the only sort of grammar.
>>20565831
Old Chinese had a few remnants of morphology, which were mostly either not indicated by the script, or treated as separate words. For example
無 *ma wú 'there is no, do not'
莫 *maːɡ mò 'none, do not'
如 *nja rú 'be like'
若 *njaɡ ruò 'be like this, be such, if'
are clearly showing some sort of morphological pattern, as are
吾 *ŋaː wú 'I' (mainly nominative)
我 *ŋaːlʔ wǒ 'I' (mainly oblique)
And of course, you have characters with multiple readings, like
數 *sroʔ shǔ 'to count'
數 *sros shù 'number'
數 *sroːɡ shuò 'often'
Notice how Mandarin preserves the affix as a tonal distinction. In some cases, later shifts in Mandarin even turned the same initial into different ones, since it operated differently based on the tone:
重 *doŋʔ zhòng 'heavy'
重 *doŋs zhòng 'to attach importance to'
重 *doŋ chóng 'overlapping, repeated'
Although Mandarin merges the first two reading, Cantonese, for instance, keeps them distinct, as cung5 and zung6.
So Old Chinese did have some remnants of morphology, but it was on the way out.

[Anonymous No.20566130]

>>20565956
Thanks! As you'll notice below, I'm totally clueless about anything East Asian...

> That seems like a low estimate to me, especially if you include compounds, different senses of the same word, idioms etc.
I guess it's often a matter of opinion whether a sequence of Classical Chinese characters is considered a compound word, or an idiom, or simply a sequence of words. For this estimate, they probably chose a way that minimizes the lexemes, that is, by just counting a distinct character as one lexeme whenever possible.

> Plus you still need to know the grammar- morphology isn't the only sort of grammar.
Okay, but I always heard that Chinese (Classical or not) grammar is quite easy.

Mandarin learners typically get nightmares from the endless characters, which is why that Wikipedia quote was so interesting to me. I would rather puzzle over an idiom whose individual words I understand than having to add yet another character to my Anki.

[Anonymous No.20566143]

>>20565831
>>20565956
Can I just skip Mandarin to learn Classical Chinese? I don't give a fuck about modern Chinese.

[Anonymous No.20566159]

>>20566143
Why would you need to learn Modern Chinese? The only time you use that is to pronounce names. Classical Chinese wasn't pronounced which is why they stopped using it

[Anonymous No.20566164]

>>20566159
I heard there are like no good resources to learn it in English and all the good annotated commentaries are in Mandarin.

[Anonymous No.20566185]

>>20565349
I wonder what clg threads will look like when ebonics displaces English.

[Anonymous No.20566187]

>>20566164
Get the book by Paul Rouzer
If you can't learn from that then you can't learn.
But I don't think you should learn it since it doesn't benefit a person much.

[Anonymous No.20566195]

>>20566185
the change is well underway fr

[Anonymous No.20566198]

>>20566195
No cap, we even named the board lit

[Anonymous No.20566202]

>>20566187
> But I don't think you should learn it since it doesn't benefit a person much.
Please expand on this. You're saying Classical Chinese literature is not worth it?

[Anonymous No.20566227]

>>20566202
I would have thought that Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Arabic had most of the world's literature.

[Anonymous No.20566235]

>>20566227
I actually meant to include Chinese here! Sorry, typo.

[Anonymous No.20566264]

>>20566130
>I guess it's often a matter of opinion whether a sequence of Classical Chinese characters is considered a compound word, or an idiom, or simply a sequence of words.
I'd say the practical question is what's a lexeme- what do you have to know the meaning of and can't derive from its component parts? I'd say that's more than two to three thousand.
>Okay, but I always heard that Chinese (Classical or not) grammar is quite easy.
It's more isolating, but that doesn't mean you don't have to learn the sentence structure, particles, get a feel for constructions, and so on. Often you could parse a sentence more than one way and you have to rely on intuition and context.
>I would rather puzzle over an idiom whose individual words I understand than having to add yet another character to my Anki.
It still needs quite a few words, but it might be a little less difficult in that respect than Latin? Not sure. Part of the issue is that Classical Chinese also covers a wide period, though.
>>20566143
Absolutely, I knew virtually no Mandarin when I started on CC and I still know more CC than Mandarin. I'd still recommend learning to pronounce it in some pronunciation or another, though; the structure of the characters only makes sense in reference to a spoken language. (I wouldn't recommend just learning reconstructed Old Chinese; for one thing there aren't many materials for it, and for another the current reconstructions aren't meant as literal phonetic values, but as a sort of schematic system to predict modern reflexes.)
>>20566159
What do you mean 'wasn't pronounced'? It was always read in some pronunciation or another, though that pronunciation varied greatly by time and place. Recitation and chanting of poetry and other texts has always been an important part of the tradition.
>>20566164
There are definitely resources in English- aside from Rouzer's book which >>20566187 mentions, you might also check out the wiki on r/classicalchinese.
>>20566235
>>20566227
I think they all have a large chunk, but I wouldn't be surprised if Classical Chinese was the largest since it was the scholarly lingua franca of such a large empire and many of its neighboring countries for millennia.

[Anonymous No.20566317]

>>20566264
Do you enjoy the language?

[Anonymous No.20566327]

>>20566317
Oh, absolutely. Some of my favorite poems are in Classical Chinese, and I enjoy taking notes or journaling in it when the mood strikes me.

[Anonymous No.20566371]

Greek verbs are literally murdering me. Pray for me, Anons.

[Anonymous No.20566431]

>>20566371
Oh man, how bad are they in comparison to Latin? I heard Greek has Dual so that should be fun.

[Anonymous No.20566440]

>>20566431
Well, they have six principal parts.

[Anonymous No.20566487]

>>20566431
does get better at some point, there's lots of logic to it ultimately
even duals are rather limited with only few endings to remember
but yeah Latin's verb system does look kinda babby-tier in hindsight

[Anonymous No.20566489]

>>20566440
dam boi dat grammar is THICC

[Anonymous No.20566492]

>>20566487
Learn Classical Chinese, it has no verb conjugation at all!

[Anonymous No.20566596]

>>20566371
>>20566431
>>20566440
it's not as bad as it first seems. just look for patterns. also dual isn't used very often. I remember there being like 5-8 instances in Anabasis

[Anonymous No.20566651]

>>20566487
>>20566596
If you just learn Koine and not Attic or Homeric, is it that bad?

[Anonymous No.20566687]

>>20566651
I would guess Koine will have overall simpler forms, but after all Attic is its basis so it would still be a quite juicy verb system to learn.

[Anonymous No.20566693]

>>20566492
But.....how?

[Anonymous No.20566709]

>>20566693
What do you mean, how? Isolating languages aren't that uncommon. Tense, person, mood etc are mostly obvious by context and when they aren't it's easy enough to specify them with separate words.

[Anonymous No.20566887]

>>20566693
You have a pretty impoverished view of the variety of human languages if your reaction to the idea of language without verb conjugation is "but... how?".

[Anonymous No.20566890]

Roma in Italia est.

[Anonymous No.20566903]

>>20566887
Especially since English is already halfway there. Just split off the "ed", "ing", "s" suffixes.

[Anonymous No.20566911]

>>20566903
Yes, English is pretty analytic as IE languages go, though still not as much so as Classical Chinese.

[Anonymous No.20566915]

>>20566651
yes, Koine is basically a pidgin

[Anonymous No.20566928]

>>20566915
Ancient Greek is just a pidgin of PIE

[Anonymous No.20566938]

Can a conlang be a classical language? Like Quenya or Sindarin?

[Anonymous No.20566939]

>>20566928

[Anonymous No.20566948]

>>20566938
If it has a long history of usage as a literary and cultural language, sure. But what conlang has that? Though I guess some could be a classical language in-universe, but not in real life.

[Anonymous No.20566957]

>>20566948
They are Elvish. Sindarin is like a Romance language equivalent of Elvish and Quenya is like Latin. In reality Sindarin is based on Welsh and Quenya is based on Finnish. Tolkien was a philologist and polyglot so they are quite well done, although not complete.

[Anonymous No.20566967]

>>20566957
So Quenya is a classical language in-universe. This general is, to my understanding, for languages that are classical languages in real life, which a conlang could perhaps some day be but has not yet been.

[Anonymous No.20566972]

>>20566967
Yes Quenya is "Old Elvish"! Oh well, still better than Esperanto.

[Anonymous No.20566977]

>>20566972
>still better than Esperanto
Most things are.

[Anonymous No.20566983]

>>20566972
>>20566977
At least Esperanto actually has literature and media not made by the inventor of the language.

[Anonymous No.20567002]

>>20566983
The mere fact that Esperanto literature exists is not evidence of quality or cultural relevance.

[Anonymous No.20567013]

>>20567002
I can attest some of it is quite good.

[Anonymous No.20567023]

>>20566938
>A classical language is any language with an independent literary tradition and a large and ancient body of written literature.

[Anonymous No.20567134]

>>20566596
the real difficulty with the verb system does not fully come to light until you get into composition. It's not that hard to get used to it while reading. But in I think it's fair to say that the step up in difficulty going from English to Latin is less than going from Latin to Greek. You have learnt more than half of the Latin conjugation system once you know the active and passive endings and know how to conjugate esse (to stick it to the perfect stem). You can't even begin to understand the Greek verb system before you have internalised the rules of contraction and general euphony.

[Anonymous No.20567200]

>Rhenus et Danuvius sunt fluvii magni
>Brundisium et Tusculum magna oppida sunt

Alright so I've finished the first chapter and I'm going to assume the ending of the adjective always 'follows' the noun. Also it seems word order doesn't matter like it does in English.

[Anonymous No.20567211]

>>20567200
Usually, yes.
And the word order can have pragmatic effect but it doesn't affect the basic meaning, no.

[Anonymous No.20567232]

>>20567211
What do you mean by pragmatic effect

[Anonymous No.20567256]

>>20567232
Like, the literal meaning is the same but the pragmatic implications in a conversation might be different.

[Anonymous No.20568211]

bvmpvs maximvs

[Anonymous No.20568307]

>>20568211
If you are going to use the V, you better all caps that shit bro

[Anonymous No.20568335]

>>20560046
>bothering to putt marks on vowels to indicate which are long vowels
>but still using the letter U instead of V

Weird writing style you’ve got there OP

[Anonymous No.20568347]

>>20568335
be nice to him, he doesn't actually read Latin and is still on his first textbook. gold star for trying

[Anonymous No.20568351]

>>20568347
knows more than you

[Anonymous No.20568625]

anyone been reading fabulae syrae?
comfy kino supplementary reading

[Anonymous No.20568750]

>>20568625
I have it, but I'm only on like cap. 18

[Anonymous No.20568906]

>>20566928
which is a pidgin of monke screams. you just hairless monkes lmao AAHHH AHHH AHHHAHHH AAAAAAHHHHH

[Anonymous No.20568921]

>>20568307
>>bothering to putt marks on vowels to indicate which are long vowels
this convention has nothing to do with emulating ancient orthography

[Anonymous No.20568923]

>>20568921
meant for >>20568335

[Anonymous No.20568943]

>>20567134
i admit contractions were probably the biggest stepping stone for me along with the II aorist when I first learnt greek but you can get a pretty good feel for them by doing drills and just reading a lot.

[Anonymous No.20569017]

How would you translate

>He heard about this from very many messengers

into Latin? Its not passive so you can't use Ablative of Agent.

[Anonymous No.20569069]

>>20569017
Is aural hoc ab magnus multae tabellarium

[Anonymous No.20569080]

>>20569069

[Anonymous No.20569154]

LLPSI Read Along Chapter 11

In which Julius needs to employ a better doctor

[Anonymous No.20569158]

>>20569154
This chapter introduces some more third declension forms, but really the main part of this chapter is the introduction of the accusative + infinitive clause.

[Anonymous No.20569162]

>>20569158
Personally I find this to be difficult, but there are so many examples of it in the text of this chapter that you should be able to get a basic grasp of it.

[Anonymous No.20569167]

>>20569162

[Anonymous No.20569176]

>>20569167
One other area that might cause confusion is the anatomy bit.
Assuming you didn't pay attention in high school:
pulmo - lungs
vena - veins
iecur - liver
cor - heart
venter - stomach

[Anonymous No.20569184]

>>20569176
also just incase anybody isn't on board on this already,
Next chapter will be the day after tomorrow

[Anonymous No.20569254]

>>20569069
Are you sure?

[Anonymous No.20569341]

>>20566890
In Italia est Roma

[Anonymous No.20569394]

>>20569341
est in italiā roma

[Anonymous No.20569432]

>>20569394
Rome is in Italy

[Anonymous No.20569434]

>>20569154
>>20569158
>>20569162
>>20569167
>>20569176
fucking based

[Anonymous No.20569449]

>>20569017
Hoc audiit e plurimis nuntiis.

You can still use the ablative, but it's not the ablative of agent, since it's not the messengers who do the hearing.

>>20568335
You're not making any sense.

[Anonymous No.20569494]

How difficult is Hesiod's greek compared to Homer?

[Anonymous No.20569519]

is it possible to move around prepositions in latin like in English (putting them at the end of the sentence for example, or maybe putting other words in between) or do they always have to precede the word they go with?

[Anonymous No.20569525]

>>20569519
no
its called a PREposition for a reason

[Anonymous No.20569527]

I'm too lazy to do all the pensum and memorise the cases
It's just too much

[Anonymous No.20569540]

>>20569527
> memorise the cases
Just read, it's almost impossible not to know them by heart after a while.

Would still do the pensa, though.

[Anonymous No.20569574]

Gradus divus: heros "Read along" agens; quisquis respondit quaestiones aliis de linguis classicis
Gradus superior: Quisquis respondit quaestiones de lingua latina; Quisquis scribit ulla in LC
Gradus inferior: Quisquis de LLPSI/Wheelock disputat; Quisquis respondit nuntios e gradu merdae
Gradus merdae: Quisquis tangeret linguam Esperantam; ille "Threadly reminder" pathicus

[Anonymous No.20569610]

Is there any good guide that details how to pronounce Latin?
Luke Ranieri's original familia romana recordings makes the long vowels very clear but other recordings I've found like Hans Orbergs original reading it's kind of hard to hear when it's a long vowel or a short vowel

[Anonymous No.20569641]

>>20569449
Thanks Anon, the checking I did suggested it should be 'a plurimis' so I went with that.

[Anonymous No.20569685]

>>20569641
The source for audire is usually indicated by e/ex, according to OLD, with uses in Caesar and in Cicero.

[Anonymous No.20569725]

>>20569527
You should do the questions because it forces you to prove you understood it, and in doing so, you realize you don't understand it as much as you thought.

Personally I think it's fine to just read through the whole book and then do the questions on the second reading

[Anonymous No.20569848]

>>20569574
>Gradus merdae
literally me

[Anonymous No.20569856]

>>20569610
If you use Luke's, you will sound very unnatural and pretentious.

[Anonymous No.20569866]

>>20569610
>it's kind of hard to hear when it's a long vowel or a short vowel
I believe the difference in timing was very subtle since Romans considered closed syllables and diphthongs to be long, too. The difference between ta and tā would be similar to the difference between ta and tan or tae.

[Anonymous No.20569894]

>>20569610
since it's supposed to be a beginner text it makes sense to recite it making extra emphasis on long vowels which may have not been how actual Romans spoke, but helps your brain get used to it, especially if you are, as it's likely, a native speaker of a language that makes no such distinction or not as clearly
even when you are reading yourself you should try to make extra emphasis, your brain will pick up on it

[Anonymous No.20569898]

>>20569154
>In which Julius needs to employ a better doctor
Hey, they didn't know much about medical science then. Hell, didn't the ancients think lesbians had sex by one of them penetrating the other with their erect clitoris? And that the brain was an organ for cooling blood?

[Anonymous No.20569900]

>>20569519
No. The "rule" about not putting prepositions at the end of sentences was someone's attempt, not based in actual English usage, to make English more like Latin- in Latin it genuinely is ungrammatical. Same deal with splitting infinitives.

[Anonymous No.20569908]

>>20569574
*linguam Esperanticam
https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Esperantica

[Anonymous No.20569927]

>>20569525
>>20569898
thanks. what about putting another word in between, for example
>ibant per celeriter campos

[Anonymous No.20569933]

>>20569927
I don't think I've heard of such a usage, but I don't have a lot of experience with Latin. Maaaaybe with poetic license?

[Anonymous No.20569949]

>>20569574
>quisquis respondit quaestiones aliis de linguis classicis
>Quisquis respondit quaestiones de lingua latina
>ille "Threadly reminder" pathicus
all me, faggot
stay mad at the truth

[Anonymous No.20569950]

>>20569927
adverbs yes but only in a certain sense e.g
>"Per varios casus, per tot discrimina rerum tendimus in Latium" - Virgil
that is, the adverb modifying the noun/adjective directly related to the preposition(tot discrimina), your usage would be essentially unseen I think

[Anonymous No.20569965]

>>20569162
>the n word again
I'm dropping this shit I swear

[Anonymous No.20570008]

>>20569908
Gratias tibi ago. Posthac hoc modo scribo, ut de illa lingua audire nolim.

>>20569949
Si complures gradus conveniunt, infimus eligendum est.

[Anonymous No.20570048]

>>20569933
yes it sounds pretty weird, but after seeing stuff like qua de causa i was wondering how flexible word order could be in this case
>>20569950
thanks

[Anonymous No.20570056]

>>20570008
scribo should be future
conveniunt should be passive but it isn't the right word, try miscere or coniungere instead
ironically if you used a dictionary you would know that
Instead of replying to this post, try this one >>20560127

[Anonymous No.20570243]

>>20570056
> scribo should be future
I think it's fine, though future would also be possible. The present is included in "from now on", after all.
See Terence:
> Nulla mihi res posthac potest iam intervenire tanta

> conveniunt should be passive but it isn't the right word, try miscere or coniungere instead
It is, and no, it should not be passive. Why would it be passive? Did you misread the sentence?
Look it up in the OLD if you must, there are numerous uses for the sense of "to fit" or "to befit".
Ovid:
> et fora conveniunt amori

[Anonymous No.20570340]

>>20570056
you got btfo kek

[Anonymous No.20570361]

>>20570243
I can't find a single example of posthac being used with the present first person. Yes, it does matter. The onus should be on you to show it is used that way but I concede that it is technically feasible.
If you use conveniunt in that way there should be a dative along with it. There is in your example. To confirm I did indeed look it up in the OLD. Thank you for conceding that dictionaries are necessary at all levels of Latin

[Anonymous No.20570402]

>>20570361
>If you use conveniunt in that way there should be a dative along with it.
Why would they write "(esp. with dative)" if it were a strict requirement? It's not at all uncommon to drop things like "tibi", when they're clear from the context, like here.

[Anonymous No.20570409]

Man, is his spot in the shit tier list well-deserved.

[Anonymous No.20570533]

>>20570361
> A: [retarded incorrect assertion]
> B: No, look it up if you don’t believe me
> C: See? I told you a dictionary is necessary!
Are these the rhetorical superpowers one acquires by reading Cicero?

[Anonymous No.20570541]

>>20570533
with C=A, even, kek

[Anonymous No.20570544]

>>20570402
Because it almost always has a dative when that particular meaning is intended. It isn't a free license to pick and choose what gets dropped or is 'clear from context'. That ends up in unnatural Latin.
Latin operates on different rules. That is why there are entire books written specifically for Latin composition and why it is so difficult. It is also why writing pidgin Latin on 4chan without consulting said books and dictionaries is foolhardy and a waste of time.
See Woodcock's A New Latin Syntax or Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition if you really want to hone your Latin writing.
Call all this nitpicking but it matters if you want to write and read properly. It's like knowing the difference between assentior, profiteor, confiteor and fateor. All the details matter.

[Anonymous No.20570698]

>>20569866
doesn't have to be subtle, it may sound strange to you or modern Romance speakers who lost phonemic vowel length. German has it and the difference is at least 2x and sometimes you can drag it out even further when the syllable is emphasised or you want to talk more clearly. Here is the difference between German "a" and "a:"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/File:De-ahnen.ogg
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/File:De-an.ogg
I would guess that in Ancient Greek and Latin it was quite a large difference since all poetry is based on syllable length. It's the same for us with tones in Chinese, while every language makes use of those 4 tones to some extent to express certain emotions, you might not be accustomed to them being phonemic. Similarly, when you hear someone pronouncing a long vowel you think he is emphasising a stress, because you are not used to it being a distinct sound from the short vowel that makes a difference in right pronunciation.

[Anonymous No.20570780]

>>20570698
>for us with tones in Chinese
Any advice to learn Mandarin?

[Anonymous No.20570798]

>>20570780
More or less the advice for any language- focus on using it in practice. That and read phonetically-annotated texts to help with acquiring the writing system.

[Anonymous No.20570885]

>>20570698
>I would guess that in Ancient Greek and Latin it was quite a large difference since all poetry is based on syllable length
Isn't it actually based on morae?
short vowel: 1 mora
long vowel: 2 morae
closed syllable (with short vowel): 2 morae

[Anonymous No.20570970]

>"ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ μήκους τῆς ὁδοῦ ὅσον οὐκ ἀπειρηκότες, συνεβουλεύνοντο τί χρὴ ποιεῖν"
>ὅσον οὐκ ἀπειρηκότες
I'm not exactly sure about this usage of ἀπεῖπον lads
the meaning from the context of the story should be that at some point along their way to a temple, they consulted among each other about what they ought to do....

[Anonymous No.20570995]

>>20570798

Practice is for faggots

The only way is the hard way, going balls deep in grammar, learn just what you need to learn in order to translate one text, translate it, and then parse the text and translation on paper

[Anonymous No.20571005]

>>20570995
ignore this plebbitor

[Anonymous No.20571044]

>>20570970
i don't know much about the context, but something like, insofar as they have not given up because of the length of the way, they consulted what should be done.

[Anonymous No.20571055]

>>20570995
Why would you think that's a good idea?

[Anonymous No.20571247]

>>20571044
>insofar as they have not given up
thanks, that's kinda what I had in mind, though I'm still kinda confused by the wording of the phrase though it fits I guess
here's the whole story

[Anonymous No.20571292]

Anyone got a PDF of Learn Old English with Leofwin?
My googlfu has failed me

[Anonymous No.20571322]

>>20570995

[Anonymous No.20571325]

>>20571247
Maybe it's more like "not yet having given up due to the length...". Btw Plato would consequently use the dual for this whole story

[Anonymous No.20571339]

Italian Athenaze is just extremely comfy reading. Luigi Miraglia is a good story teller.

[Anonymous No.20571352]

>>20571292
z-lib

[Anonymous No.20571371]

>>20571352
Damn, so it is. I've failed myself...

[Anonymous No.20571415]

>>20570995
That is decent advice with highly synthetic languages like Greek, but not with analytic ones like Chinese.

[Anonymous No.20571431]

>>20569154
Chapter 11 C questions

>Quae sunt membra corporis humani?
in corpore humani sunt duo bracchia et duo pedes.
>Ubi est cerebrum?
Cerebrum intra capite quod supra collum. In capite medici, ubi est eius cerebrum? modo deus scit.
>Quid est in pectore?
In pectore sunt multa organa ut cor et pulmones et venter et cetera.
Humani requiro illa organa vivere
(illa organa are both accusative)
>Ubi est venter?
In pectore, venter est. Venter est sub polmonibus et corde.
Edi ventrem habet humani debetur.
(I was trying to say "to eat, humans must have a stomach" but I'm pretty sure I screwed it up)
>Cur Quintus cibum sumere non potest?
Quintus cibum sumere non potest quia is aeger est.
Eum bibere potest sed eum edere non potest.
>Estne Quintus solus in cubiculo suo?
Non est solus, Quintus apud Matrem eius et Ancillam suae.
Syram stare potest. Quintum stare non potest quia pedes eius dolere.
>Unde medicus arcessitur?
Medicus arcessitur a Tusculo ad domum Julii a Syrae.
Ire domum, Medicum arcesse necesse.
("To go to the domus, the doctor must be summoned" the first part of the sentence is pretty vague about who exactly is going to the domus.. but I couldn't figure out a clearer way of writing it)
>Quid videt medicus in ore Quinti?
in ore Quinti medicus videtur uno nigro dente et linguam eum rubere.
>Quid Quintus in bracchio sentit?
in bracchio Quinti, sanguinem fluere.
>Cur Syra Quintum mortuum esse putat?
Syra quintum mori putat quia eum respirare non audit.

Pretty late on this, I almost forgot to do the questions today, but atleast I proofread my answers for any prepositions + abl/acc!

[Anonymous No.20571447]

>>20570995
This is bait, probably the Esperanto tranny parodying the strawman caracature of what people who study gar actually think - which is, by the way, not this. Like not at all.

[Anonymous No.20571455]

>>20571447
grammar*

[Anonymous No.20571466]

>>20571447
Nope, that's not me.

[Anonymous No.20571471]

>>20571466
Why would you willingly identify yourself as "the Esperanto Tranny"

[Anonymous No.20571491]

>>20571471
Most likely a degradation fetish

[Anonymous No.20571502]

>>20571471
I mean, it's an accurate description. I'm trans, and I speak Esperanto.

[Anonymous No.20571572]

lol

[Anonymous No.20571712]

>>20571502
based

[Anonymous No.20572054]

I never imagined I would find Latin to be so enjoyable. As an artist learning to draw was the hardest thing I've ever done, everything else now is piss easy in comparison

[Anonymous No.20572152]

>>20572054
Do you plan to do greek?

[Anonymous No.20572173]

>>20569610
Learn Italian pronunciation. It takes like 20 minutes. Then just apply to Latin.

[Anonymous No.20572210]

>>20572152
Perhaps in a few years

[Anonymous No.20572214]

>>20572173
Would you advocate reading Ancient Greek in modern pronunciation too? To be clear I agree it's a perfectly respectable approach in both cases, just wondering if you're consistent, and if not, why not.

[Anonymous No.20572218]

>>20571447
you're right, it's clearly missing the crucial step of schizoposting in this thread, which takes up anywhere between 95 and 100% of study time

[Anonymous No.20572226]

>>20572214
Any ancient Greek I come across I pronounce in modern Greek. But I've never studied any ancient Greek.

[Anonymous No.20572229]

>>20572226
What's your view on traditional pronunciations of Latin other than the Italian one?

[Anonymous No.20572297]

>>20572218
You're the one trying to start arguments as usual. You call every schizos everyday and people usually ignore you, so maybe you are the one who needs meds Mr.Anti-Grammar.

[Anonymous No.20572309]

>>20572229
Isn't Ecclesiastical pronunciation basically just Latin being pronounced like Italian?

[Anonymous No.20572358]

>>20572309
Right- that's what I mean by 'the Italian one'. But up until recently everywhere read Latin in their own traditional pronunciation.

[Anonymous No.20572363]

>>20572358
>But up until recently everywhere read Latin in their own traditional pronunciation.
Not John Milton

[Anonymous No.20572371]

>>20572363
Oh, does he talk about that? What did he use?

[Anonymous No.20572424]

>>20572371
>About this time Elwood the quaker, being recommended to Milton as one who would read Latin to him [due to Milton's failing eyes], for the advantage of his conversation, attended him every afternoon[...] Milton, who, in his letter to Hartlib, had declared, that to read Latin with an English mouth is as ill a hearing as Low French, required that Elwood should learn and practise the Italian pronunciation, which, he said, was necessary

[Anonymous No.20572560]

>>20572424
So he used a different traditional pronunciation, but not reconstructed Classical. Interesting.

[Anonymous No.20572858]

>>20572424
>Milton used ecclesiastical
Weni widi wiki chuds it's fucking over...

[Anonymous No.20572873]

>>20572560
Ahhh, do you think the reconstructed pronunciation was a thing at the time he was born?

[Anonymous No.20572883]

>>20572858
>Weni widi wik
Someone explain to this Trad Cath how Indo-European phonology works.

[Anonymous No.20572974]

>>20572873
NTA, but I think Erasmus was one of the first to put together the original sound but it was only a thought experiment. I believe piecing together the restored pronunciation wasn't undertaken seriously until the 20th ce. Admittedly, using the restored pronunciation doesn't guarantee that you'll sound like a native if you continue to use your native language's phonology, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMfnw6oBq9w&t=20s

[Anonymous No.20573133]

>>20572974
I thought it started to become popular some time in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.20574182]

Speaking of pronunciation, how are Latin vowels supposed to be pronounced? Like Italian (7 vowels)?

[Anonymous No.20574356]

what's the function of "hoc" in the 8th verse? Does it goes with quidquid?
(We could also do a read along with the poems of catullus, maybe even one a day since these doesn't tend to be too long)

[Anonymous No.20574495]

>>20574182
I think it's more like Spanish 5 + elongated vowels + nasalized final vowels (em, um, Im) and aspirated ones (he, ho, hu), so like japanese lol.

[Anonymous No.20574503]

>>20574356
Man, i would love that, we could all get to Catullus 16 and laugh together.

[Anonymous No.20574515]

>>20574356
There's an implicit (or maybe even explicit, but not in your edition) "est" at the end of that line that makes it more clear: "hoc" is a pronoun, so it doesn't go with anything.

The translation on Wikipedia is good, I'd say:
> Therefore, have for yourself whatever this is of a little book,
Maybe my ESL shows, but the English seems to be ambiguous in exactly the same way as the Latin, in that "this of a little book" could mean "this example of a little book", but also "that you find in the little book".

What do you say?

[Anonymous No.20574537]

>>20574495
>so like japanese lol
big if true kek
>should I learn Japanese in order to learn Latin?

[Anonymous No.20574551]

>>20574515
It makes sense, I got confused thinking that quidquid was a pronoun, too. The English translation is both literal and clear. Thanks fren.
>>20574503
Let's do it then

[Anonymous No.20574558]

>>20574515
It makes sense. The English translation is both literal and clear. Thanks fren.
>>20574503
Let's do it then

[Anonymous No.20574649]

Was there a set ideal of how Latin was supposed to be written based on the classical authors or was it mostly general rules that were frequently broken even by cicero?

[Anonymous No.20574670]

>>20574649
Traditionally, that ideal was defined by Caesar and Cicero, for prose.

[Anonymous No.20574759]

Any resources for Greek vocabulary or something similar? I think I'm going to focus on writing to attain fluency

[Anonymous No.20574807]

>>20574759
make an Anki deck

[Anonymous No.20574912]

>>20574356
> qualecumque quod, o patrona virgo,
> plus uno maneat perenne saeclo.
So at least one of his wishes was fulfilled, in the end.

;_;

[Anonymous No.20574979]

Is it important to do the Exercitia Latina?
I've done the Pensum for chapter 1&2

[Anonymous No.20574995]

>>20574979
Yes, absolutely
get as much practice reading, writing and thinking as you can

[Anonymous No.20575020]

>>20574995
Yeah alright, sounds convincing
Do they differ much from the Pensum?

[Anonymous No.20575051]

>>20575020
Does it matter?
Do them

[Anonymous No.20575965]

>>20574979
I have never done a sinlge one of them.
My latin is shit btw, but I can read familia romana without problems

[Anonymous No.20576066]

>translating exercise, letter from a guy visiting Italy but the genders and cases are super wonky
>worry i'm being stupid
>at the end he says he's learning Latin but its much easier than Greek

They had me in the first half.

[Anonymous No.20576100]

another soul-crushingly boring llpsi chapter conquered

[Anonymous No.20576128]

>>20575965
Argumentum pensa accurandi hoc est.

[Anonymous No.20576183]

>>20574182
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_phonology_and_orthography#Vowels

[Anonymous No.20576196]

>>20576128
what does that mean?

[Anonymous No.20576197]

>>20576100
same

[Anonymous No.20576218]

>>20576196
> That's an argument for diligently doing the exercises.

[Anonymous No.20576219]

>>20576183
I'm going to stick to ecclesiastical from now on... how the fuck was classical latin so ugly

[Anonymous No.20576230]

Why is Old English so bloody comfy lads?

[Anonymous No.20576232]

>>20576197
Absolute madlad

[Anonymous No.20576241]

>>20576196
This is evidence that the pensa should be done carefully

t. also never did pensa

[Anonymous No.20576253]

intellegere sese, tametsi pro veteribus Helvetiorum iniuriis populi Romani ab his poenas bello repetisset...

can anybody explain the double genitive and "ab his"?
my translation is "they understood that, although he had revisited punishments for the Roman's old wounds by the Helvetii to these men with war..." but I'm not sure how ab functions

[Anonymous No.20576260]

>>20576219
What's so ugly about it? And why Ecclesiastical rather than your own language's traditional pronunciation (assuming you're not Italian)? Ecclesiastical Latin is just the traditional Italian pronunciation.

[Anonymous No.20576269]

>>20576253
yep this guy needs llpsi

[Anonymous No.20576293]

>>20576218
what's accurandi? genitive gerund? shouldn't it be a gerundive and concord with pensa, since it's a gerund with a direct object? and would it be genitive the correct case for it anyways?

[Anonymous No.20576297]

>>20576260
>What's so ugly about it?
all those weird vowels

[Anonymous No.20576306]

>>20576269
So can you answer the question with your llpsi knowledge? As you can see I've "comprehended" the sentence but I'm actually interested in translation and grammar

[Anonymous No.20576314]

>>20576306
>As you can see I've "comprehended" the sentence
lol

[Anonymous No.20576335]

>>20576306
"he" can't

[Anonymous No.20576345]

>>20576253
What do you mean by double genitive?

>populi Romani repetisset poenas ab his
The roman people demanded penalties/reparations from them

>pro veteribus inuriis Helvetiorum
for the old injuries of the Helvetii

[Anonymous No.20576348]

>>20576314
interesting, thanks for the help. I can see LLPSI has really done wonders for your latin.

[Anonymous No.20576353]

>>20576297
So why Ecclesiastical (i.e. the traditional Italian pronunciation) rather than your native language's traditional pronunciation? Or are you Italian?

[Anonymous No.20576355]

>>20576345
repetisset is sg. and Caesar is the subject, the injuries are the Roman people's, done by the Helvetii.

[Anonymous No.20576363]

>>20576348
you're welcome scrub

[Anonymous No.20576419]

>>20576293
> what's accurandi? genitive gerund?
Yes.
> shouldn't it be a gerundive and concord with pensa, since it's a gerund with a direct object?
Both should work in this case. You can see that in chapter 33 of Familia Romana, in the margin of line 80:
> cupidus patriae videndae = cupidus patriam vendendī
> and would it be genitive the correct case for it anyways?
Argumentum takes the genitive for what it is an argument for, yes.

[Anonymous No.20576428]

>>20576230
I don't know, you tell us. Is it worth it, just to be able to read Beowulf in the end?

[Anonymous No.20576429]

>>20576353
Ecclesiastical is simply very close to my language. I don't even know how to pronounce those short i and u for example (in the classical reconstruction). Those sounds are totally alien to me.

[Anonymous No.20576435]

>>20576419
Thanks

[Anonymous No.20576437]

>>20576429
What's your native language? If it's European it'll have its own traditional pronunciation of Latin.

[Anonymous No.20576470]

>>20576355
I've seen Latin authors use singular for a subject that I would think of as plural, but Caesar as the subject makes more sense.

After looking it up, 'iniuriis populi Romani' is an object genitive, but I'm not sure why.

[Anonymous No.20576473]

why is this thread so good some weeks and then so trash other weeks? a bunch of dunning kruger fags cyclically show up to argue about their favorite beginner textbooks and drown legitimate questions. then they leave again and you get people offering thorough explanations and shitposting in decent greek for a few weeks.

[Anonymous No.20576497]

>>20576473
and then the cycle begins again with the next generation of beginners who will drop latin in two weeks

[Anonymous No.20576506]

>>20576470
Because Helvetiorum is the possessive genitive - the Helvetii's injuries to the Roman people

[Anonymous No.20576515]

>>20576497
Yet esperanto man is always here and never seems to learn more latin, I guess he spends too much time learning about the science of language acquisition to actually progress past beginner level faffing in an actual language

[Anonymous No.20576519]

>>20576515
Esperanto is an actual language which I speak fluently.

[Anonymous No.20576524]

>>20576419
>>20576435
Okay, I've read some more about it, at https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/gerund-and-gerundive

Now I'm not sure whether my gerund is correct. Your gerundive with matching object clearly would be:
> When the gerund would have an object in the accusative, the Gerundive is generally used instead. The gerundive agrees with its noun, which takes the case that the gerund would have had.

Further below, there's a possible exception:
> The genitive of the gerund sometimes takes a direct object, especially a neuter pronoun or a neuter adjective used substantively.
But I don't see how the given examples match that exception:
> Nūlla causa iūsta cuiquam esse potest contrā patriam arma capiendī. (Phil. 2.53)
> artem vēra ac falsa dī iūdicandī (De Or. 2.157)
How is "arma" a neuter pronoun or a neuter adjective?

[Anonymous No.20576531]

>>20576519
lol whatever dude

[Anonymous No.20576550]

>>20576531
Se pri tio vi dubas mi kontentas trapasi ĉian teston, kiun vi povas elpensi pri lingvonivelo.

[Anonymous No.20576574]

>>20576550
Not a classical language

[Anonymous No.20576579]

>>20576550
Translate a Beatles song from Sgt Pepper. (NOT written by Lennon.)

[Anonymous No.20576582]

what drives a man to learn esperanto of all things?

[Anonymous No.20576587]

>>20576550
Could you do some poetry?

[Anonymous No.20576590]

>>20576524
Thanks again
I think arma is neuter and always plural
>Arma virumque cano
I think both are accusative

[Anonymous No.20576598]

>>20576590
> I think arma is neuter and always plural
>>Arma virumque cano
> I think both are accusative
Yes, sure, but the exception explicitely calls for a pronoun or an adjective. That's the part I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.20576624]

>>20576598
It says it sometimes takes a direct object, *especially* a neuter pronoun or a neuter adjective used substantively, not *exclusively*

[Anonymous No.20576629]

>>20576624
Okay, you're right. But then they could really have picked better examples.

[Anonymous No.20576641]

Novum fīlum:
>>20576632
>>20576632
>>20576632
>>20576632
>>20576632

[Anonymous No.20576643]

>>20568625
im gonna finish the last chapter of familia romana and then move onto it. For me, it was difficult to read along with familia romana, and if i were to, i would do it a few chapters behind familia romana, at least. im looking forward to it.

[Anonymous No.20576653]

>>20576598
oh sorry
but since it says "specially", maybe it's always ok to use the genitive gerund like that (with an accusative), even if not common, no?

[Anonymous No.20576665]

>>20576653
That's possible. I'll use the gerundive in the future, like you said, to be on the safe side.

[Anonymous No.20576813]

>>20576665
To be on the safe side, you should NOT do anything I say kek

[Anonymous No.20577150]

>>20576100
This shit is not as fun as advertised. I'm on 16.