MrsDennis (mrsdennis) enters the room.
Susan (susan) enters the room.
Susan: Morning!
Peter (peter) enters the room.
Peter is now known as Peter.
MrsDennis: Hi there, Bec and Peter!
Peter: Good morning.
Lucy (lucy) enters the room.
Susan: Hey, Lucy and Peter!
Lucy: Good morning!
MrsDennis: Hi, Lucy!
MrsDennis: I think this is one of the days that Jill won't be along, so we can go ahead and start with the last of the P&R -- numbers 10-15.
MrsDennis: 10. Durum exsilium tam acrem mentem uno anno mollire non poterit.
Susan: The harsh exile will not be able to soften so harsh a mind in one year.
Lucy: Meep, brb...
Peter: 10. So harsh was exile that he was not able to calm his mind after one year.
MrsDennis: If I could make the incorrect words flash, these would be getting your attention now, Peter: was; was not able.
Lucy: A difficult exile was not able to soften so hard a mind over one year.
MrsDennis: The subject of "poterit" is not "he", it's *Durum exsilium*. You've added "was". And notice the tense of "poterit".
MrsDennis: Bec, Lucy -- good. For "Durum", though, it's more _harsh_, _rough_, _stern_ -- beyond "difficult". :)
MrsDennis: Right, Bec and Lucy.
MrsDennis: brb
MrsDennis: Okay, sorry.
MrsDennis: Did you figure it out, Peter?
MrsDennis: 10. Harsh exile will not be able to soften so fierce a mind (disposition) in a single year.
Peter: Harsh exile will not be able to calm the so harsh mind in one year.
MrsDennis: The subject if "Durum exsilium"; verb, "poterit".
MrsDennis: That's much better, Peter.
MrsDennis: 11. Propter omnes rumores pessimos (qui non erant veri), natae suaves eius magnopere dolebant et dormire non poterant.
Susan: 11. On account of all the very bad rumors, which were not true, the daughters were greatly grieving and could not sleep.
MrsDennis: Nice, Bec.
Peter: 11.Susanuase all the most evil rumors (which were not true) the sweet daughters of him greatly grieved, and were not able to sleep.
MrsDennis: Yes, Peter.
Lucy: Because of all the horrible rumors (which were not true), his sweet daughters were suffering greatly and were not able to sleep.
MrsDennis: Okay, good, Lucy.
MrsDennis: I like the outcome of "horrible rumors" -- however, more accurately, we might want to acknowledge the superlative form "pessimOs".
MrsDennis: Since "dolEbant" is in the category of a verb of emotion, we can translate it as straight past tense, even though the Latin habit was to put it in the imperfect tense.
MrsDennis: 11. Because of all the very bad rumors (which were not true), his sweet daughters were greatly aggrieved and could not sleep.
MrsDennis: Good job!
MrsDennis: 12., ga
Peter: 12. Si sapientissime non respodisses, pacem offerre dubitavissent.
MrsDennis: 12. If those philosophers should come soon, you would be happier.
Lucy: Si illi philosophi veniat, tu sit beatior.
Susan: Si illi philosophi mox venient, esset felicior.
MrsDennis: (We'll save that for #13, Peter.)
Peter: Oh, drat...
MrsDennis: :)
Peter: 12. Si philosophi mox veniat, beatior sis.
Lucy: Oh, oops.
Lucy: Sis.
Lucy: Not sit.
MrsDennis: We see, I trust, a "should--would" situation here. Present C-to-F.
MrsDennis: Otherwise known as...?
MrsDennis: sorry.
Lucy: Future less vivid?
MrsDennis: Yes, that's what I meant.
MrsDennis: Right you are.
MrsDennis: Present subjunctive in both clauses.
MrsDennis: Pretty good all round.
MrsDennis: We need plural "veniant" for the first verb; singular "sIs" or plural "sItis" for the second.
MrsDennis: 12. SI illI philosophI mox veniant, sIs (sItis) fElIcior/beAtior (fElIciorEs/beAtiorEs).
MrsDennis: 13. If you had not answered very wisely, they would have hesitated to offer us peace.
Susan: Nisi sapientissime respondisses, nobis pacem offerere dubativissent.
Susan: *dubitavissent
Peter: 13. Si sapientissime non respodisses, pacem offerre dubitavissent.
MrsDennis: Contrary to Fact Past: pluperfect subjunctive in both clauses.
Lucy: Si sapientissime non respondisses, nobis pacem offere dubitavissent.
MrsDennis is so proud. :)
Lucy: Yayyyy.
MrsDennis: More likely, though, it's "Nisi" for "If...not". We'll stick with that.
MrsDennis: Good!
MrsDennis: 14. If anyone does these three things well, he will live better.
Susan: Si quid haec trie res bene faciet, melius vivet.
Peter: 14. Si quis tres res bene facit, melior vivet.
Lucy: Si quis hos trie res bene faciet, melior vivet.
Lucy: Oh, wait.
Lucy: Is "res" masculine?
MrsDennis: It's feminine.
Lucy: Not "hos" then, "has".
MrsDennis: Think of "rEs publica".
MrsDennis: Okay, yes, Lucy.
MrsDennis: We could say "haec tria" or "hAs trEs rEs".
Susan: the former
MrsDennis: (More likely, Bec.)
Lucy: Both work, ja? One's neuter and one's feminine?
MrsDennis: Future more vivid, so future tense in both verbs: aget (faciet), vEvet.
MrsDennis: Right, Lucy.
Lucy: Alright.
MrsDennis: Not "quid", though, Bec -- *quis*.
Susan: sorry.
MrsDennis: 14. SI quis haec tria bene aget (faciet), melius vIvet.
MrsDennis: What's the difference between "melius" and "melior"?
Susan: nom/acc and gen?
Lucy: Gender?
Susan: no, that's not right.
Susan: hmm...
Susan: (talking about my answer, Lucy. :))
MrsDennis: I was thinking that "melius" -- in this context -- is an adverb, and "melior" is an adjective.
Lucy: Oh, alright.
Susan: melior is needed, then.
MrsDennis: *he will live better* -- probably calls for an adverb, unless you're thinking "he will live as a better man."
MrsDennis: I think, though, it implies "live better" -- referring to *how* he will live.
MrsDennis: So, adverb.
MrsDennis: melius
Susan: *shakes head* sorry, was confusing the two.
MrsDennis: This one is a little oblique. I mean, there's no "-ly" to knock us into thinking "adverb". :)
MrsDennis: 15. If you were willing to read better books, you would most certainly learn more.
Susan: Si meliores libros legere velles, plus certissime disceres.
Lucy: Si meliorem liberi legere velles, plures res certe discereris.
Peter: Si melior liber legere volares, plus certissime disceres.
MrsDennis: (Keep in mind the forms of "volO", Peter: volO, velle, voluI, ---".)
MrsDennis: Here it is:
MrsDennis: 15. SI librOs meliOrEs legere vellEs (vellEtis), plUs certissimE discerEs (discerEtis).
MrsDennis: I think some of your attention went altogether toward forming the verbs, and the easy stuff like direct objects got neglected. :)
MrsDennis: Everybody okay with this one?
Lucy: Affirmative.
Peter: Yep.
MrsDennis: What kind of Condition is this one?
Susan: c-f present?
MrsDennis: Indeed it is.
MrsDennis: I realize that we never did the SA, right?
Peter: Yep.
Lucy: Erk, brb.
MrsDennis: Let's take care of these, then.
MrsDennis: Okay, Lucy. We'll go on without you. :)
MrsDennis: 1. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Peter: 1. If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
Susan: I had a bit of a dilemma this morning. My wireless internet adapter bugged out on me and I was forced to steal a PC's wire so I could connect. I'm afraid I need to leave a bit so I can plug it back in before I leave for class. :( Thing's just aren't working for me this week, are they? Heh.
Susan: If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
MrsDennis: Exactly.
MrsDennis: Oy vey, Bec -- I understand. Sorry about that!
Lucy: If you wish for peace, get ready for war!
MrsDennis: Good, Lucy.
Susan: I'm really sorry, too. You guys are too much fun.
MrsDennis: 2. Arma sunt parvi pretii, nisi vero consilium est in patria.
Susan: Bye!
MrsDennis: Bye!
Susan has left the room.
MrsDennis: :)
Lucy: Swords are of small value, unless there is true counsel in the country.
Peter: 2. The arms are of small value, unless the plan is truly in the fatherland.
MrsDennis: You both have this for the most part...
Lucy: I just thought about how Peter's would sound if they literally meant "arms".
Lucy: It made me laugh.
MrsDennis: Lucy, "verO" here is an adverb in the positive degree. We can tell that Susanause there's no noun for it to agree with.
Lucy: Just saying. :)
Lucy: Okay.
MrsDennis: Arghh, Lucy.
MrsDennis: :)
MrsDennis: Weapons...arms...not necessarily swords, though it makes for a nice alliteration: swords...small. :)
MrsDennis: Weapons are of little value, unless there truly is wisdom in our country (unless our country has good judgment).
MrsDennis: 3. Salus omnium una nocte certe amissa esset, nisi illa severitas contra istos suscepta esset.
Lucy: The health of all (men) will certainly be lost one night, unless we undertake those severe (things) against those (men)?
Peter: 3. Health would be lost to all by one night, except that sternness against that was taken.
MrsDennis: Let's sort out the verb forms.
MrsDennis: We have 1) amissa esset, and 2) suscepta esset.
MrsDennis: Do those have something in common?
Peter: Passive pluperfect subjunctive?
MrsDennis: Or somethings?
MrsDennis: Yes, Peter.
MrsDennis: We see that they're both third person singular...do they have the same subject?
Lucy: No...
MrsDennis: No, they don't.
Lucy: Is this a contrary to fact past thingwhack?
MrsDennis: Subject #1 = Salus; subject #2 = severitAs.
MrsDennis: It is Contrary to Fact Past, yes.
Lucy: Ooookay.
Lucy: Can I retranslate mine?
MrsDennis: So we would assume we'll translate using the auxiliaries "had" and "would have".
MrsDennis: Yes, go for it, Lucy.
Lucy: Actually, never mind.
Lucy: I still don't get where "nisi" fits.
MrsDennis: Ah.
MrsDennis: Nisi = if not, unless.
MrsDennis: Let's try "if...not".
MrsDennis: Sorry, I thought perhaps the first try didn't go through.
Lucy: If the health of all (men) had certainly been lost in one night, severe things would not have been undertaken against those (men)...?
Hmmm...it didn't.
MrsDennis: The "if...not" goes with the second clause:
Lucy: OHHHH.
MrsDennis: if that severity (severe course of action) had not been undertaken against those men.
Lucy: The health of all men had certainly been lost in one night, if that severity had not been undertaken against those men. I get it now.
MrsDennis: Much better!
MrsDennis: If you also use "would", it's improved: "The safety of all would certainly have been lost in a single night,..."
Lucy: Okay.
Lucy: Well...
Lucy: I have to go now.
Lucy: Thanks for class!
MrsDennis: Okay, bye till next week --
MrsDennis: you're welcome!
Lucy: Bye!
Lucy has left the room.
MrsDennis: In totO, then:
MrsDennis: 3. The safety of all would certainly have been lost in a single night, if that severity (severe course of action) had not been undertaken against those men.
MrsDennis: Happy with that, Peter?
Peter: yep.
MrsDennis: Good. :)
MrsDennis: 4. Si quid de me posse agi putabis, id ages—si tu ipse ab isto periculo eris liber.
Peter: 4. If you think someone to be able to be driven from me, you will drive him -- if you yourself are freed from danger itself. ( I think)
MrsDennis: The framework is pretty much intact...there are some particulars of translating, though, that we should adjust.
MrsDennis: SI...putAbis: If you think....---?
MrsDennis: Sorry.
MrsDennis: I meant to write SI...putAbis: If you think....--->
Peter: *nods*
MrsDennis: What follows is an indirect question: quid...posse agI: anything to be able to be done.
MrsDennis: If you think (that) anything can be done
MrsDennis: dE mE = about me
MrsDennis: So, all of this is in the indicative so far.
Peter: Question...
MrsDennis: PutAbis = future tense, of course, for this Future More Vivid condition.
MrsDennis: Yes, go ahead, Peter
Peter: If this is an indirect question, why is "putabis" at the end?
Peter: Oh, nevermind. :)
Peter: Just realized that question made little sense.
MrsDennis: It's okay -- I understand. Trust me, I've done the same thing and wondered why, after I'd done it. :)
MrsDennis: And in the protasis (which comes second, in this sentence), the future tense verb is "eris":
MrsDennis: so we get "if you will yourself be free from that risk."
MrsDennis: 4. If you think that anything can be done about me, you will do it – if you will yourself be free from that risk.
MrsDennis: How's that? Make sense?
MrsDennis: Literally, "If you will think", of course.
Peter: It makes sense, now that I know what it means. :)
MrsDennis: Heh. 'Twas ever thus.
MrsDennis: The key was to recognize the indirect question, I think. All those future indicatives (plus the "SI") pointed to the Future More Vivid.
MrsDennis: Let's do one more, then you get an early release. :)
Peter: Ok.
Not that you are a prisoner...:)
MrsDennis: 5. Si essem mihi conscius ullius culpae, aequo animo hoc malum ferrem.
Peter: 5. If I were conscious of any guilt for me, by a fair spirit this evil you would have born.
Peter: ER, I would have born.
MrsDennis: Okay, you've got the basics here just fine -- the contrary to fact present condition.
Peter is now known as Peter.
MrsDennis: Not "would have borne", though -- it's present tense, so just "would bear".
Peter: *nods*
MrsDennis: What do you make of *aequO animO*?
Peter: I took it to be an ablative of means.
MrsDennis: Yes, it could be; or it could be seen as abl. of manner.
MrsDennis: I was thinking, "with a calm spirit".
Peter: Ohhh.
MrsDennis: Can you put what you have in a more regular English word order?
Peter: 5. If I were conscious of any guilt for me, I would bear it with a calm spirit.
MrsDennis: There you go.
MrsDennis: Another way to put the first part could be "If I were to myself (in my own mind) aware of any crime" -- but yours is good.
MrsDennis: culpa -- blame, fault, censure, etc. (not so much "crime", necessarily, now that I think of it)
MrsDennis: Good!
MrsDennis: Okay, we'll carry over numbers 6-9 and the readings to our next meeting -- Monday of next week.
Peter: Ok.
MrsDennis: Once you've got the Latin translated, try to compose an English translation that fits into the normal English word order.
MrsDennis: Not only will it just sound better, it might reveal any unnoticed errors.
Peter: *nods*
MrsDennis: If you read your sentence to yourself, or out loud, and it doesn't sound like something someone would say in English, then it might be time to do some re-considering -- or at least re-ordering. :)
MrsDennis: Okay, have a good weekend, Peter!
Peter: Thanks for class!
Peter has left the room.
MrsDennis: Sure!
MrsDennis has left the room.