Example of a chat session from a 2009/2010 Latin 1 Session meeting
The names of the participating students have been changed to protect the students' privacy.
Good morning to you, Susan, Peter and Edmund!
Are you all expecting a lovely Thanksgiving?
Yeah I am staying here
Sounds good to me...the part of Texas where you are generally has good fall weather.
(As I remember, anyway, from my Dallas years.)
Any questions on our work for today?
I don't think so
Okay, then, we'll return to the SA, and #9.
We'll go in pairs: Susan and Lucy; Peter and Edmund.
GA, girls with #9.
If a spirit is not strong, it shall bot be able to tolerate good fortune.
9. If the soul is weak, it shall not be able to tolerate good fortune.
9. Si animus infirmus est, non poterit bonam fortunam tolerare.
Looks good to me.
Third person (he, she, it, they) + future tense in English *usually* equals will __________.
If we say, "he shall come", it implies that there's compulsion or force, besides a future act.
If you say, "He will come" -- just plain future tense. "He shall come" implies that whether he wants to or not, he *shall* come.
All that to say that the normal expression would be "If the spirit is weak, it will not be able to tolerate good fortune." (The point is that too much good fortune can spoil a person who lacks a strong character.)
Peter and Edmund, #10.
10. Ubi leges valent, ibi populus liber potest valere.
10. Were laws are strong, there a people are able to be free.
Where laws are strong, there the people are able to be free.
Both are very good.
At first I thought that liber was book... and the sentence didn't make any sense :-P
Do you all see that in the Latin it's the singular: populus lIber potest
(Ah, Edmund -- exactly. Those two words are easily confused!)
hmmm but isn't populus plural in the singular as well? like s: people p: peoples
However, in English, even if we say, "a people" -- as opposed to "peoples" (multiple people groups), we use a plural verb.
Let's look at the readings.
"I Do Not Love Thee, Doctor Fell" -- first line, Susan and Lucy.
Non amo te, Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare.
I do not love you, Sabidus, and I am not able to say therefore.
I don't love you, Sabidius, I am able able to not say that.
Pretty much it.
For quArE -- "why", or "wherefore". Literally, "by what reason".
I do not love you, Sabidius, and I cannot (nor can I) say why.
Boys, next line:
Only this I am able to say: I do not love you.
Hoc tantum possum dicere: non amo te.
That's good, Edmund.
I can say only this: I do not love you.
This couplet doesn't seem to go anywhere, does it? :)
But there is an interesting feature about it...
sorry it's hard to transmit on this omputer.
(Oh. Sorry, Peter. Just keep transmitting -- we'll wait. :) )
Do you all know the term "chiasmus"?
From the Greek alphabet letter chi, which is written "X".
Here's one definition:
In rhetoric, chiasmus (from the Greek: χιάζω, chiázō, "to shape like the letter Χ") is the figure of speech in which two or more clauses are related to each other through a reversal of structures in order to make a larger point; that is, the clauses display inverted parallelism.
oh I see
You know how in the Psalms there are many verses whose first part states a thought, and the second part restates the same thought?
Here's Psalm 1, verse 2:
But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
That's not the best example, actually.
You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.
Those two are pretty much parallel.
But in this couplet by Martial, the thoughts are reversed from line one to line two.
Oh yeah I see it now!
I do not love you -- I do not love you
And in between, "I can't say why....I can only say"
Good, Susan. :)
This was a favorite Greek and Latin poetic device -- you'll see it again.
Here's a little more interesting information:
The title Wheelock provides for Martial's epigram derives from an imitation of the poem composed in the 17th cent. by a disgruntled Oxford student, Tom Brown [later author of Dialogues of the Dead], who wrote of his Latin professor, the Dean of Christchurch, “I do not love thee, Dr. Fell, / and why I cannot rightly tell; / but this I know, and know full well, / I do not love thee, Dr. Fell.” Dean Fell had threatened young Tom with expulsion unless he could translate this epigram of Martial's -– as he most cleverly did!
Who knows what the alleged offense was? But this is a scholarly way of getting out of being expelled. :)
It's pretty cute.
Good work, girls.
What was it?
I wish I knew.
Whatever it was, I daresay students would get by with it in our day. :)
For the next reading, Peter, please take "Populus...laudAbAmus."
okay hold on one sec
The Roman people have many friends and few faults. We think concerning your duty and praise your glory.
But now We have much leisure, and there are many greedy men.
Overall, good, Peter.
Peter, what's the tense of "habEbat"?
oh sorry I didnt go to possumus
k one sec
Yes. So rather than "We have", what should it be?
not "We have", just "Roman people _______."
we did have
(I was looking at Edmund's.)
I got you off track with the person and number, Peter -- it's third person singular, "habEbat".
The subj. is, as you have, "Populus Romanus".
The Roman people __________ (habebat).
Yes. Or "used to have".
Same for "cogitAbAmus" and "laudAbAmus" --
We are able to tolerate neither our faults or cures.
(the last part)
we used to think/we were thinking
we used to praise/we were praising
And, to complete the thought, "We used to think about our duties (dE officiIs)...
Edmund, yours is good. For "multI sunt avarI", though --
the word order suggests "Many men are greedy", rather than "there are many greedy men".
Of course the meaning is the same.
It's entirely possible to say, "there are/there is" -- but the form of "sum" (est...erant...etc.) would come first.
Erat agricola = There was a farmer.
Yes I got that from Henle. that text did it a lot
Agricola erat bonus = The farmer was good.
Oh, is that right?
Right. So there's a difference. :)
Very nice, everyone.
We still need to do the P&R, I believe?
Let's tackle those.
Susan and Lucy, take the odd-numbered ones; Peter and Edmund, the evens.
for ch. 6?
1. Oculi nostrI nOn valEbant; quAr agros bellos videre non poteramus.
One more time:
1. Oculi nostrI nOn valEbant; quare agros bellos videre non poteramus.
1. Your eyes were not strong; therefore we were not able to see the pretty fields.
Our eyes aren't strong we were aren't able to see the preety fields.
Hmmm... I thought we did P & R already...?
Yeah I thought we did too.
This seems familiar.
Oh. Let me look at these first.
Lucy: "Our eyes".
Susan: "were not strong".
I do believe we did, yes.
Let's dash through Lectio B -- even if you've not done it yet.
for ch. 6 or 7?
For Ch. 6.
workbook, p. 51.
1. RespondE LatInE (Reply in Latin)
1. Amatne poEta Sabidium?
(Just enter your answer as soon as you have it.)
poeta Sabidium non amat.
Does everybody see that?
The question is: "Amatne poEta Sabidium?" -- Does the poet love Sabidius?
We know this is a question because of "-ne" on the end of the first word in the sentence.
PoEta -- nominative singular, and the subject of "Amat(ne)".
Sabidium -- accusative singular, the direct object of "Amat(ne)".
2. POtestne poEta dIcere quArE?
Poeta non dicere
You just need two words, Susan: "potest" and "quArE".
You've said, "The poet not to say."
There's no main verb.
The poet potest dicere quArE.
quare poeta non potest dicere
Oops -- nOn is missing.
Start with "PoEta", Peter. Otherwise, "quArE" becomes an interrogative adverb: "Why" is the poet not able to say?
wait isn't the question... Is the poet able to say?
PoEta nOn potest dIcere quArE.
No -- "Is the poet able to say why?"
oh I see.
--why he doesn't like Sabidius, of course.
non quare poest dicere
Poeta non potest dicere quare.
Better to put the "nOn" directly before the word it's associated with, Peter: nOn potest -- is not able.
Okay with this, Lucy?
Okay. Let's have #3 from everyone.
nOn amO tE
3. Quid poEta SabidiO dEcere potest? (LatInE.)
pooeta sabidus non amat
poeta non amat
3. What is the poet able to say to Sabidius?
poeta Sabidium non amat.
Susan and Peter, your answers are true (only, Peter, it's *Sabidium* as the Dir. Obj.) --
But they're not quite the proper answer to the question.
Not "nihil" -- the poet does say something:
As Lucy says...
He says he doesnt love Sabidium?
NOn amO tE.
I do not love you.
amO...possum dicere...possum dIcere...amO.
The order is amo...possum -- possum...amo
so its reversed :)
We talked about the literary device for this reversed parallel construction...
the word order is switched
How does this make the point?
it emphasizes the point?
Why is it effective to say, "I do not love you; I can't say why: I can't say why; I do not love you."
I think so, Peter.
It "poetically" repeats itself, unabashedly declaring lack of love.
And not even giving a reason! Talk about insulting. :)
Well says that he doesn't love Sabidus but can say why. But then he reinforces it with "I can say something though, I do not love you"
great sprits and few friends
The Roman people used to have great courage and few faults. We used to think about our duties (responsibilities) and were always praising the glory of war. But now we have much (a great deal of) leisure, and many men are greedy. We can tolerate neither our faults nor their remedies.
Great courage and few faults, you mean, Lucy. :)
great ourage and few faults
In the plural, "animI" often means _courage_ -- or _high spirits_.
oh yes I forgot to look at spirits :)
Yes, first point. Good.
What about the tenses of the verbs?
faults and remedies
Ah, that's another one, Peter.
used to think...were praising//(now) we have...are (greedy)...can tolerate
From imperfect tense to present tense.
I would say d. also
For Chapter 7, did anyone have a particular question?
Or a general question, for that matter?
These third declension nouns are, after all, just *nouns* -- which of course you'd handled for several weeks now, in the first declension and in the second.
But there are some distinguishing characteristics, of course.
For first declension nouns, there's only one set of endings.
What gender are most first declension nouns?
A few are masculine -- so far they've been in the category of work or jobs: agricola, poEta, nauta. Jobs that a man would have done.
The only catch here is that we have to remember to use *masculine* adjectives to modify these masculine nouns. Nauta mala -- no good.
It has to be "nauta malus".
This is sometimes hard to remember, but if you're thinking *Case, Number, Gender* and matching all those, you should come out with the right form.
What genders are possible for the second declension?
maculine and neuter.
For masculine nouns of the second declension, what are the possible endings in the nominative singular?
There's one very common one -- ?
That's it, "-us" in the nom. sg.
What's another one?
(more common than -us)
(But thanks for the review on singular case endings, Edmund. :) )
Well, the "-I" is gen. sing. or nom. plr.
What about "-er" -- puer, puerI, ager, agrI?
(dat. and abl. sing.)
I guess ya
So, for masculine nouns in the second declension, the nominative singular can end in 1) -us, or 2) -er.
What about neuter nouns of the second declension?
And *only* "-um".
unless its plural haha
Well, yes -- then what is it?
In the third declension, is/are there just one or two possible nominative singular endings?
Pas du tout! (As the French say.)
Not at all!
There's all kinds of unique and different ones!
Indeed. And all three genders are represented, too.
gender is hard with third declension.
As long as you know the genitive singular ending, you can find the stem of any third declension noun.
(A bit more so, yes, Edmund.)
What is the genitive singular ending for 3rd decl. nouns?
Memorize both the nom. and the gen. forms from the vocabulary, and of course the gender.
Rex, regis, m.
REx, rEgis, m., actually -- long "E".
What's the stem of this noun?
That's two-thirds of it, Susan. :)
By removing the "-is" from the genitive form -- rEgis -- we get the stem rEg--.
To that stem we can confidently attach any appropriate third declension ending.
It's true that they're all different from 1st and 2nd decl. endings, but look at the similarities:
Instead of "-am" or "-um" for acc. sing., we have -em.
Plural accusative: "-Es" rather than "-As" or "-os".
Make those comparisons/contrasts in your mind.
Write out the endings by themselves, as well as copying out the declined nouns in all three genders.
This is very doable. There's no new grammar, just some new endings and new vocabulary to memorize.
not too hard :)
So, get the Workbook exercises and LEctiO A ready if you haven't yet -- we'll do them on Tuesday of next week.
Right, Edmund. You all have been doing this same thing for the first and second declensions.
Especially be aware of noun-adjective agreement.
There won't necessarily be matching endings.
Of the good king: rEgis bonI
To/For the ancient names: nominibus antiquIs
Etc. You get the idea. :)
Thanks for staying -- see you next week!
Alright thanks for class!!!
ValEte omnEs, et pax!
You're welcome. :)
Thank you, bye!
Scholars Online is accredited by AdvancED and the Northwest Accreditation Commission.