ginlindzey

I have spent the better part of this weekend not grading quizzes as I should be but buidling a new set of quia.com online quizzes for reviewing and understanding Ablatives of Description, Comparison, and Respect.  During this time I'm watching friends post from the Living Latin Institute put on by Paideia in NY and feeling not only a little jealous but admittedly a bit defensive about what I've been working on.

But I'm not currently teaching via Comprehensible Input, I'm using the Cambridge Latin Course and focusing, as I have done for a long time, on reading strategies. The two are not, of course, exclusive. In fact, I am looking for ways to bring the two together in the future. And it may one day be that I will be totally CI in my approach, but for now, I'm a CLC girl.

CLC often gets complaints about not having enough grammar, but truly it's all there.  Sometimes it is discussed in the ABOUT THE LANGUAGE sections, but other times it isn't. Sometimes it is discussed in the LANGUAGE INFORMATION section in the back of the book, sometimes it isn't.  In the case of the Ablatives of Description, Comparison, and Respect, one can find very minimal information of them in the back of the book. One doesn't get a sense of how often one sees them in the text.  Certainly the students have no idea about what they are seeing. CLC would like students to discover patterns for themselves and/or to internalize new constructions after having experienced them multiple times.

However, there are times when the examples are spread out to just a few here or a few there. Sometimes explanations aren't really needed. But there does come a time when students start feeling that there are hundreds of exceptions to how to translate or understand something. And while I often feel more problems are caused by worrying about what would sound "right" in an English translation which could be avoided if we kept our focus IN the Latin, we have to understand the situation from the student's point of view.  That is, sometimes it is worth pointing out exactly what is going on grammatically, especially if we can back it up with multiple examples.  And when we start hitting ablatives that sound better translated with things other than "by" or "with" (the two standby's we learn with declining), to me that is the time to point out the new guys.

I give tests every couple of stages, for the most part, and usually pull together samples just from those stages of whatever needs targetting.  In this case, I decided we needed a closer look at Ablatives of Description, Comparison, and Respect. Combined together I was able to make two 18 question online quizzes regarding identifying the construction and translating.  (They use the same 18 sentences in each.)  While it may seem to the student and other users of these two new quia.com quizzes that I'm merely hammering home grammatical features, what I really am trying to do is to force students to read and reread these examples more times than we would have met them just in class.  In class I can count on them seeing the constructions in full context with their work groups (three people each) a couple of times, plus one more time when we go over it again all together in class.  That's maybe three times, four if I'm lucky. With the online quizzes, which I end up using to prep and preview for tests, I hope to force them to see these same sentences at least 2 more times, more if they review them again on their own time at home. I doubt more than 4 or 5 questions will actually make it to the test.  After all, Stages 36 and 37 cover present subjunctives and more on indirect statements--big ticket items. But sometimes it is frustration with the smaller items that can put off students, especially when examples are spread out and one feels you are learning something new each time it comes up.  Hence the need for repetition in context with similar items to focus and engage the students.

So here are the two new items.

1. CLC Stages 36-37: Identifying Ablatives
2. CLC Stages 36-37: Translating Ablatives

Unit Four isn't to be feared; it's to be mined for its wonderful depth of information. Join me in embracing it.

I must confess that I am disappointed that the Simon's Cat videos that I have been adding Latin subtitles to have been blocked on YouTube. I had, as I said, sent an email to (I guess) Simon, asking for permission or his blessing, providing a link, etc--being very up front and honest.  While I am sad that he never actually replied, I see now the response via the blocked videos. I respect that; I don't have to like it to respect it. I'm sure it seems like I'm interfering with his livelihood, and taking advantage of his art. And for that, I publicly and sincerely apologize.  But as you know (you few teachers who read this), I am but a Latin teacher with no ulterior motives for profit. Just trying to help provide usable materials for Latin teachers.

In any event, the Simon's Cat videos can be used without the Latin subtitles I provided. I encourage you to find them on YouTube, or better yet, go to the website at www.simonscat.com to support the creator directly. (I myself purchased one of his books this Christmas for a friend who has already opened the present and raved about how funny it is.)

So, in all honesty I was adding the Latin subtitles mainly for me, to make myself simplify what I'm seeing/what's being told in the story, and to make sure that I myself know the vocabulary so that I can do my best when trying to use them in the classroom. This ain't Caesar or Vergil after all. I realized that using the Simon’s Cat videos is one way of introducing some common daily vocabulary that we might need to discuss things around us versus what is introduced in the textbook (Cambridge Latin Course). For instance, I realized, as did my students, that we had never learned the word for “drop” before, yet in “Snow Cat” the dog drops his stick. I was able to contrast this with the stick falling down from the snow cat and the snow cat falling onto the cat. And it really isn’t necessary to have the Latin subtitles. Perhaps it is a crutch as we learn to go from a “dead language on the page” to something with more energy and life. Then again, it saved me time from having to write words on the board that were unfamiliar. And I could have gone from the version of Snow Cat with the Latin subtitles (it is probably blocked--OR TRY HERE through my Google Drive account) to the original without. The possibilities are endless.

I knew that doing a “Movie Talk” for the first time would not be perfect, especially because I am unpracticed at circling. However, I requested that my school’s instructional facilitator film the class so that I could critique myself, study problem areas, and work on ways to improve things.  It’s not brilliant; look to other people’s blogs for brilliant examples of things. But if you would like to see it, you should be able to go here to view it.  (You may have to join vialogues.com, but that just takes a minute.)  The Movie Talk begins around minute 11.

I have been a student/participant at Rusticatio for several years and have experienced circling and TPRS storytelling. I became aware that there was a mix of questions to prompt yes or no answers, etc, but I hadn’t studied it from a teaching perspective.  I thought that perhaps using the latest video which I added Latin subtitles to, Snow Business (here’s a link to the original without the subtitles), I could practice circling by writing it out here. I am using the circling template provided on Susan Gross’s TPRS website.

The sentence under question is a simple subject verb object sentence. Here are the basics from the template. It begins with a statement using a student as the subject and a proper noun or cognate as the object.  In this case, Lana finds a Rolex.

Circle the subject:

• Wants a YES Answer: (Does Lana find a Rolex? Yes, Lana finds a Rolex.)


• Provides a CHOICE: (Does Lana find a Rolex or does Pat find a Rolex? Right, Pat doesnʼt find a Rolex, Lana finds a Rolex)


• Wants a NO Answer: (Does Pat find a Rolex? No, Pat doesnʼt find a Rolex, Lana finds a Rolex)


• Open Ended / Answer Not in Question: (Who finds a Rolex? Thatʼs right, Lana finds a Rolex.)

Circle the verb:

• Wants a YES Answer:  (Does Lana find a Rolex? Yes, Lana finds a Rolex.)


• Provides a CHOICE: (Does Lana find a Rolex or does Lana eat a Rolex? Lana doesnʼt eat a Rolex; Lana finds a Rolex.)


• Wants a NO Answer:  (Does Lana eat a Rolex? Of course not, Lana doesnʼt eat a Rolex; Lana finds a Rolex.)


• Open Ended / Answer Not in Question: (What does Lana do? Lana finds a Rolex.)

Circle the complement / object:

• Wants a YES Answer: (Does Lana find a Rolex? Yes, Lana finds a Rolex.)


• Provides a CHOICE: (Does Lana find a Hummer or does Lana find a Rolex? Lana doesnʼt find a Hummer, Lana finds a Rolex.)


• Wants a NO Answer: (Does Lana find a Hummer? How ridiculous, Lana doesnʼt find a Hummer; Lana finds a Rolex.)


• Open Ended / Answer Not in Question: (What does Lana find? Thatʼs right, Lana finds a Rolex.)

Thus for us Latinists, we are talking about nōnne, aut/vel, num, and quis/quid questions, perhaps with a rectē, a certē and an est ridiculum thrown in for good measure. I suppose what I didn’t fully think about when I was doing my circling with Snow Cat was WHAT I was targeting—nominative, accusative, verb. I also didn’t have good alternatives to offer (like a Hummer instead of a Rolex in the examples above). I was doing well to just remember to try to question.

So, time to see what I can do with preparing to use Snow Business after the holidays. (This will all be thinking out loud sort of stuff, be warned!) I also want to create follow-up materials to get students writing. Here is a screen capture from Snow Business with Latin subtitles (OR TRY SEEING IT HERE!).  (Here is the original without).



I have a compound sentence here; I thought nothing of it when I wrote it. But if I want to circle anything here it would be useful to focus on either the first part or the second part.

So here's what perhaps I would circle: avis pilam niveam facit.

Circle the nominative:

• nōnne avis pilam niveam facit? ita vērō, avis pilam niveam facit.


• avis aut fēlēs pilam niveam facit? rectē, fēlēs pilam niveam nōn facit; avis pilam niveam facit.


• num fēlēs pilam niveam facit? est rīdiculum! fēlēs pilam niveam nōn facit; avis pilam niveam facit.


• quis pilam niveam facit? certē, avis niveam pilam facit.

Circle the accusative*:
(*Do we want to emphasize the accusative by moving it up in the sentence, since we can in Latin? Why not!)

• nōnne pilam niveam avis facit? ita vērō, pilam niveam avis facit.


• pilam niveam aut hominem niveum avis facit? rectē, pilam niveam avis facit.


• num hominem niveum avis facit? est rīdiculum! hominum niveum avis nōn facit; pilam niveam avis facit.


• quid avis facit? certē, pilam niveam avis facit.

Circle the verb**:
(**Although we could also move the verb up in the sentence, I’m not going to. Students will truly need to learn to listen for/watch for accusatives coming first in a sentence; it is far less common to have a verb first in a sentence.)

• nōnne avis pilam niveam facit? ita vērō avis pilam niveam facit.


• avis pilam niveam facit aut invenit? rectē avis pilam niveam facit.


• num avis pilam niveam invenit? est rīdiculum! avis pilam niveam nōn invenit; avis pilam niveam facit.


• quid agit*** avis? certē avis pilam niveam facit. (***I usually use quid facit for what is he doing but clearly with facit/making being targeted, this will not work.)

The alternatives I used here, hominem niveum (snow man) and invenit (find), are not exciting alternatives. Not as engaging as something more unusual or unexpected.  A Rolex and a Hummer will keep the attention of a student. However if I’m daring and think the students are able, I could follow with quō modō avis pilam niveam facit?

But that would be a big leap because the answer would require an ablative of means. That would better be modeled in a sentence first. And I guess I could circle it something like this:

• avis pilam niveam ālīs aut rostrō facit? or ālīs aut rostrō avis pilam niveam facit?

...and maybe follow that with

• vīdistīne avis vēra pilam niveam facit? est rīdiculum!

The good aspect of doing this would be making it a personalized question—getting direct student involvement and engagement at a personal level.

In reviewing what I have written for circling the nominative, it is worth noting that a moment later in the video the cat does make a snow ball too.  Thus it will be worth all of the circling so that pila nivea becomes internalized or at least comfortable.

Having hominem niveum for an alternate for the accusative is nice (even if not terribly exciting) because it is masculine and thus we have a different ending on the adjective. And while invenit is fine for an alternate for the verb, looking ahead to this next picture makes me realize that perhaps the alternate verb should have been portat.



In fact, if I had been thinking about how I would teach with this video, I might have used portat instead of habet, as I have above. Also, considering the big cat imprint in the picture (the bird hits the cat in the behind with a snow ball and he lands deep in the snow), I could have used angelam niveam as well as hominem niveum. Then perhaps we could have joked that he made a fēlem niveam when he fell.

So, if I have really circled early on in the video with NOM ACC VERB, I can still continue to do similar things, or I could consider other constructions worth targeting. In this second screen capture, the bird has a huge snowball. I could work adjectives in some sort of circling fashion, I suppose.

Circling positives:

• nōnne pila nivea est magna? ita vērō, pila nivea est magna.


• estne pila nivea magna aut parva? rectē pila nivea est magna.


• num pila nivea est parva? est rīdiculum! pila nivea nōn est parva; pila nivea est magna.


• quanta est pila nivea? certē pila nivea est magna.

Circling comparatives:

• nōnne pila nivea est maior quam avis? ita vērō, pila nivea est maior quam avis.


• estne pila nivea maior quam avis aut fenestra? rectē pila nivea maior quam avis.


• num pila nivea est maior quam fenestra? est rīdiculum! pila nivea nōn est maior quam fenestra; pila nivea est maior quam avis.


• quae est maior? (Not sure if this is really doable, since for a comparative you can’t really have something open-ended—after all, you are comparing two things!)

I could return to the earlier snowball, but maybe that is best left for the superlative:

• quae est maxima—prīma pila nivea,  secunda pila nivea, aut tertia pila nivea avis? certē tertia pila nivea est maxima!

The bird, however, does miss when he throws this huge snowball. I suppose we could develop a line of questioning of which is more accurate, the larger snowball or the smaller one? Unfortunately, off the top of my head I’m not sure what I would use for “more accurate.” A quick look at a dictionary tells me that we could use accūrātus, -a, -um (nice and easy!);  more accurately is adverbial, which would be good to work in since it uses a different ending from the comparative adjective.

• quae pila nivea accūrātius iacitur—parva pila nivea aut magna pila nivea?

​or

• quis pilam niveam accūrātius iacit—avis aut fēlēs?

This latter could lead to an interesting discussion towards the end, because at 1:47 (thereabouts) the cat hits the bird while it is flying—a moving object—and the bird then ends up stuck to the window. Some other questions come to mind now, which are admittedly getting away from circling, but that’s ok:

• quis plūs pilārum niveārum iēcit? (Tense change, plūs + partitive genitive)


• quis pilās niveās celerius fēcit? (Tense change plus another comparative adverb)

From here, I could work infinitives:

• nōnne fēlēs avem edere vult? ita vērō fēlēs avem edere vult.


• fēlēs avem edere aut laudāre vult? rectē fēlēs avem edere vult.


• num fēlēs avem laudāre vult? est rīdiculum! fēlēs avem laudāre nōn vult; fēlēs avem edere vult.


• quid fēlēs facit? certē, fēlēs avem edere vult.


• (quō modō scīs fēlem avem edere velle? quod fēlēs ōs aperit!) (indirect statement!)

I could see side comments worked in as well:

• fortasse fēlēs avem laudāre vult quod avis magnam pilam niveam fēcit.

And if I keep the video frozen on this particular screen, I could also ask students what they think will happen next. But first, maybe we should recap:

• prīmum fēlēs in nive lūsit. tum avis et fēlēs pilās niveās iēcērunt. nunc avis ad fenestram adhaesīvit. quid proximē accidet?

Perhaps that is too open-ended. Maybe offer some choices (and work the future tense)?

• fēlēs avem edet?


• avis advolābit?


• avis rostrō fēlem pulsābit?


• fēlēs fenestram franget?


• ūnā hominem niveum facient?

To sum up, there’s a lot to be said about working out much of your circling in advance, especially if you are new to it as I am. I certainly saw some different avenues I could take that I think will be fruitful, many of which I wouldn't have seen on the fly. Even now, it occurs to me to think about the level of questioning with regard to ACTFL's Proficiency Ratings as simplified in WAYK speak as "Travels with Charlie" or "Tarzan at the Party":

NOVICE (Tarzan at the Party / Sesame Street)

• memorized words and phrases

INTERMEDIATE (Get to the party / Dora the Explorer)

• question and answer


• full sentences

ADVANCED (What happened at the party last night? / Larry King Live)

• past/present/future tenses


• paragraph narrative

SUPERIOR (What if parties were illegal? / Charlie Rose)

• lengthy discussions of complex issues


• structured arguments


• hypothetical speech

Basically we are operating in the intermediate level, albeit low because the circling is pretty leading. But we are modeling full sentences in the questions and answers. We are tiptoeing up to advanced by using different tenses. I might even be able to squeeze a little superior level in if I were to ask something along the lines of "What if snow balls fights were illegal?" (haha)

One last thing I want to do, as I mentioned earlier, is to create a follow-up written assignment. Yes, I could do a timed write, but since my students didn't learn timed writes from Latin 1, I think that could spook them. Instead, I think I will make some more screen captures, maybe without the subtitles, include them on a worksheet with maybe a word bank, and let them write using the pictures as prompts. I have some ideas.... But perhaps that should be for another blog. 

The instructional facilitator at our school sent a few of us an email at the end of last week.  She wanted to pilot a new website/program which allowed for the videotaping of a class and then being able to constructively talk about it afterwards. I warned her that the last week or two before semester exams probably would not yield the best results.  I wasn't doing anything creative or new worth filming.  However she really wanted to try it out NOW.  So I consented.  I'm game.  And I'm not afraid of criticism.  That's how you learn and grow.

Now, let me just add that there's nothing in the lesson that I did that is grand.  I think it is competent. If you use the Cambridge Latin Course it will probably be worth watching. It shows an average day from start to finish.  You will see:

1. "jobs" - Students doing beginning of the class jobs which include reading the agenda (which is in part or all in Latin), reading the date in Latin (this includes what yesterday and tomorrow are, and neo Latin dating, not ancient Roman dating), being the "weather person" (in Latin), and general announcements about stuff happening on campus (in English).


2. warm-ups - "praeparationes" which I do via PowerPoint to target grammar constructions or issues that will be met in the day's story


3. vocab flashcards (yes, yes, not currently the best pedagogy, but it is what I do at this level)


4. reading the story - In this case we are reading it chorally.  But I do talk about metaphrasing at one point plus I model left to right reading, etc. (Stage 23, epistulam Cephali)


5. The relationship I have with these students.

Watching the whole thing may not be for you.  Like I said, I don't think it is anything great or brilliant.  Funny at times, perhaps, but that's it.  However, if you create a vialogues.com account (takes a minute), I *believe* you can see this and you may even be able to make comments.  I don't know for sure; I only just got permission to share. You will see a screen like the one below with the video on the left and comments WITH TIME STAMPS on the right.  This is the feature I like.  These time stamps, which the program does automatically when you start to write a comment, allows you to go straight to a section you want to see.  That is, if you read through the notes and find where I talk about metaphrasing, you can then get the time so you can find that place easily in the video.  Or, if you have a question about WHY I do something in the video, you can start typing in the comment box and it will automatically time stamp it for you so I can see what you are asking about.  So easy, so useful.

When all else fails for me I go back to one thing that I feel truly competent at: teaching reading skills, real reading from left to right. Over the years I have been developing my understanding of mental expectations. In working with my Latin 4s, we were talking about how important it is to truly understand what participles are doing, and to read with expectations with regards to infinitives. I decided it was time to try to write up some thoughts:

Participles:
1.      Most likely there is a noun of the same case nearby, usually before it, though it can come later in the sentence.  The main thing is that they will be in agreement in CASE, NUMBER, & GENDER.
·        astrologus ancillās lacrimantēs vīdit. – He saw the slavegirls crying. [acc]
·        Phormiō ad urbem contendit, medicum quaerēns. – Phormio hurried to the city, searching for the doctor. [nom]
·        mīlitēs gladiīs dēstrictīs intrāvērunt – The soldiers entered with swords drawn.

2.      Often other words are in between noun and participle, including prepositional phrases and adverbs.
·        Salvius et Memor, in hortō ambulantēs – Salvius and Memor, walking in the garden,
·            servus, graviter vulnerātus – the slave, (having been) seriously wounded

3.      Present Active Participles can have Accusative objects.
·        servī, Barbillum portantēs – the  slaves, carrying Barbillus,

4.      Perfect Passive Participles often have “by” phrases (ablatives) with it.
·        faber, ab architectō laudātus – the craftsman praised by the architect
·        mīlitēs, gladiīs armātī – the soldiers, armed with swords

5.      Perfect Active Participles can have Accusative objects.
·        Latrō, haec verba locūtus – Latro, having spoken these words

6.      Future Active Participles can have Accusative objects.
·        nunc ego quoque moritūrus sum. – Now I am also about to die.
·        praecō puellam vīdit, nāvem cōnscēnsuram. – The herald saw the girl about to go on board the ship.

7.      If there doesn’t seem to be a noun of the same case for it to modify but it is clearly acting as a participle, consider the subject of the previous sentence as being understood. 
·        haec verba locūtus, rēgī pōculum obtulit. – Having spoken these words, he (Cephalus) offered the cup to the king.

8.      If you have a perfect tense participle but feel you really need a verb (or an infinitive in indirect statement), consider whether a form of “est” should be understood.
·        Haec ubi dicta [sunt] – When these words were spoken,...
·        ēmissamque [esse] hiemem sēnsit Neptūnus – Neptune sensed that a storm had been sent out,

9.      If it is a present participle by itself, consider translating with “those (people)” (pay attention to the case!).
·        strepitum labōrantium – the noise of those (people) working
·        ad praetereuntēs – toward those (people) passing by

10.   Present participles in the dative are frequently used in the give and take of a conversation.
·        Salviō rogantī quid esset agendum, aliī alia suādēbant. – To Salvius asking what must be done, different people answered different things.
·        Tālia iactantī strīdēns Aquilōne procella / vēlum adversa ferit... – To him (Aeneas) hurling such words, a storm squealing with the North Wind opposite (the sail) struck the sail.

11.   The “time” of the participle is relative to that of the main verb. Present Participles are the same time as the main verb, Perfect Participles are one step back in time, Future Participles are one step forward in time. This affects how you translate Ablative Absolutes.
·        iānuā apertā, in līmine appāruit praecō. – After the door had been opened, the herald appeared on the threshold.
·        Olympō recitante, ingressus est Epaphrodītus. – While Olympus was reciting, Epaphroditus entered.
·        Martiālis, recitātiōne perfectā, ex audītōriō ēgreditur, omnibus plaudentibus. – Martial, after the recitation was finished, leaves from the auditorium while everyone is applauding.

Infinitives:
1.      When reading in word order, if you encounter an infinitive first, consider that it may be a complementary infinitive—completing a verb. Common suspects are:
·        volō (I want), nōlō (I don’t want), malō (I prefer), possum (I am able)
·        dēbeō (I ought), audeō (I dare), cōnor (I try)
·        incipiō (I begin), coepī (I began)

2.      Neuter adjectives with a form of est or impersonal verbs often infinitives.
·        victōribus decōrum est victīs parcere. – It is proper for victors to spare the conquered.
·        necesse est mihi exīre. – It is necessary for me to leave.
·        licetne mihi īre ad fontem aquae? – Is it permitted forme to go to the water fountain?

3.      When reading in word order, if you encounter a form of iubeō, expect accusatives and infinitives. This is particularly helpful in identifying and properly understanding those hard to recognize passive infinitives.
·        iubeō tē ipsum Cogidubnō pōculum offerre. – I order you yourself to offer the cup to Cogidubnus.

4.      When reading in word order, a “verb of the head” will often precede indirect statements formed with accusatives and infinitives. However, it doesn’t have to:
·        Intereā magnō miscērī murmure pontum, / ēmissamque hiemem sēnsit Neptūnus – Meanwhile Neptune sensed that the sea was being mixed with a great murmur, and that a storm had been sent out...

5.      If you can see one obvious infinitive and there are conjunctions (et, -que, etc), reread and look for passive infinitives.
·        Chionē iussit lectīcam parārī et lectīcāriōs arcessī. – Chione ordered the sedan chair to be prepared and the chair carriers to be summoned.

6.      If you see no obvious governing verb but seem to have a string of infinitives, you may have historic infinitives (for creating immediacy).
·        dein concutī ferrum, vincula movērī. – Then iron is clashed together, chains are rattled.

I am all about vocabulary in context.  My preference is to find every occurrence of the word in a passage--but sometimes one is pressed for time, especialy when teaching. I constantly feel a strain between what I think would be truly good teaching, and the reality of dealing with the 50 minute hour.  Yes, I rely too much on flashcards, and often feel guilty for using flashcards.  But I'm not at a point where I can more totally away from flashcards and go total TPRS (with a few new words a day). It doesn't fit with the rest of what I do. I need a compromise, and a good one.

I like it when a good idea comes along, one that helps students internalize vocabulary and energizes the class.  We (world language teachers) had an OWL workshop (see earlier post) on Monday.  A lot of this workshop was about getting students in circles and doing things in energetic ways.  Lots of movement.  And apparently kinesthetic connections to vocabulary create one of the strongest links in the brain. I don't doubt that at all. So I'm totally game for everything we are doing in the workshop.

Now today it's Friday.  I wanted to liven things up.  Latin 2s had a new set of vocabulary (my "A" list for Stage 21 in CLC) and I thought it was time to experiment. I got the students in a circle and handed out one vocab flashcard (mine are large--5"X8") to each student. Here's the vocabulary list in question:

• ā/ab - by


• barbarus, -a, -um - barbarian, barbaric


• circum + acc - around


• dēiciō, dēicere, dēiēcī, dēiectus - to throw down


• fōns, fontis (m) - spring, fountain


• gravis, gravis, grave - heavy, serious, grave


• haruspex, haruspicis (m) - soothsayer, diviner


• hōra, -ae (f) - hour


• iubeō, iubēre, iussī, iussus - to order


• morbus, morbī (m) - illness


• nōnnūllī, nōnnūllae, nōnnūlla - some, several (not none!)


• oppidum, oppidī (n) - town


• perītus, -a, -um - skillful


• plūs, plūris (n) - more


• pretium, pretiī (n) - price, worth, value


• sapiēns, sapiēns, sapiēns (gen: sapientis) - wise

Each student then had to come up with an action for their vocab item. If they were really stuck, they could ask for help from the group. You would start by saying your Latin word (and holding it in front of you), saying what it meant in English, then doing the gesture. Once the gesture is established, no more English. I started with plūs, and did a gesture as if I were piling up something on my hand. Not brilliant, but it served its purpose. We practiced it together a couple of times, and then went to the next person. Some of the best ones were pretium with a gesture of "raining money" (I think that's what it's called); gravis, physically dropping a little lower with each syllable; and haruspex, with grunting noises as you made imaginary cuts to open up where your liver is and then a "hmmm" (in an examination sort of tone) as you look down at your imaginary liver. (We call the haruspex the "divine liver inspector" instead of just a soothsayer or a diviner.)  For oppidum, we made a peak over our heads with our hands and moved it around with each syllable of the word to symbolize the many houses in a town.

Every time we learned a new word we went back around the circle doing all the previous words.

It was HIGHLY engaging, energetic/kinesthetic, and everyone enjoyed it.

I am doing this every time from now on for the first day of a new list of vocabulary.  I know ideally, certainly in a Comprehensible Input/TPRS classroom one is learning fewer words a day and not using flashcards, but I'm not there yet.  I have to find something that works for me, works for the students, works for my curriculum, etc.

Try it.  It feels great--worthwhile and not gimmicky.

So today my LOTE department has a special trainer in doing a workshop.  OWL stands for Organic World Language.  It's tying into a lot of what I've learned at SALVI events (Rusticatio), where we use a mixture of comprehensible input, TPRS, and WAYK (Where Are Your Keys?).  This has been wonderfully high energy (except that I'm having serious problems with my Achilles tendons lately and all the activity is aggravating severely them).

There are many activities or means of grouping that I will steal and share with my SALVI peeps right away. So, with OWL you are always up and moving (at least in what we've seen so far) and either you are in a circle, or you are paired or grouped up in some way.  If she calls out 2, we get in pairs and play Rock, Paper, Scissors. The winner dances disco, the loser dances salsa. THEN the instructor actually gives the prompt for discussion. (Topics may be listed on the board.) If she calls out 3, you pose for Charlies Angels (three people, posing with finger guns). If you have a person left out, that person decides the topic (from the list). If she calls out 4, it's for Pirates--two prisoners with wrists crossed, two pirates standing behind doing pirate sort of things. If she calls out 5, it's for Zombies--two people lie on the ground, the other three act like they are eating the two that are down.



All of the goofy activities have a useful purpose besides simply being fun. Doing something goofy with your body lowers the affective filter and thus they don't stress as much over speaking. There's also this reassuring aspect that it's just all play--as all good learning should be.

At one point we were grouped into threes, and then did an activity called Microlab. Each person would have a chance to speak with NO interruption from the other two about whatever the topic was. A little monologue. If that person doesn't fill the whole time, that's ok. Transitions between turns happen when the teacher calls out (in the target language) to raise your hands (both), and then calls the number of the person who is to talk next.  Beforehand, the instructor had numbered each person in the group and then asked all the 1s to raise their hands, then the 2s, then the 3s.  After each person had their turn to monologue, we were given a new question. She assigned a new order (3s then 1s then 2s, for instance), once again asked all the 1s to raise hands, 2s, then 3s. And each transition between speakers was done with "raise your hands" (in the target language).

Any time we start to drift off topic, the instructor immediately gets us back by telling us in the target language to touch our heads, touch our elbows, raise our hands, etc. As the day wore on, we were more inclined to digress, so this was done a few times. :-)

There was a discussion on most learning happening as "brain sparks" at the beginning and end of class with a big sagging wave in the middle, and that by changing the class to a more kinesthetic environment that you create a bunch of little waves and thus more "brain sparks."

Another discussion was regarding vocabulary: FULL, PARTIAL, & CONCEPTUAL.  Vocabulary lists are kept on white boards for her classes, and as students move through and acquire vocab, old words are erased and new ones added.  FULL are words that are internalized. Partial are those that are in the process of being acquired. Conceptual are new words that have yet to work their way into active use.

There is a great emphasis on SOCIAL interaction, and social interaction creating the driving need for language acquisition.  We had discussed that we all experienced ownership of the language when in an immersion situation and had to be able to communicate.  Of course, there was lots of discussion about mistakes being made along the way and that that's how we learn.

I also liked the idea that it's necessary to DEUNITIZE. That is, we shouldn't keep topics separate. We should find ways to connect everything, because the more connections that are made with vocabulary and concepts, the quicker those words are internalized. She did a great word web example with CAT in the middle, surrounded by all sorts of related words; then started taking each of the related words out through their various connections. It was amazing to see all the digressions, and how some of those digressions actually ended up with similar vocab. I wish I had taken a picture.

We kept coming back to the theme that CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. Hearing this repeated so many times made me feel very positive about the things I've done with the Phaedrus poems (see previous post). Having the time to set up context, to build upon previous knowledge, to understand the background--all those things I think have aided in our enjoyment of the Phaedrus poems. And it also emphasizes that language doesn't occur with lists of vocabulary in isolation.

Late in the afternoon we were working with ACTFL proficiencies and types of questioning. I really enjoyed the activities we did because if nothing else, it demonstrated to me that understanding exactly the level of questioning I use (novice, intermediate, advanced) is not as simple as it looks.  I was reassured when the instructor said that questioning is the hardest skill to master. Maybe this is why I balk at asking a story (something I know I want and need to do with my 4s at least).

OWL has five goals for students:

1. to speak L2 exclusively


2. to not be afraid of the L2 environment


3. to take risks and break down affective filter


4. to be able to infer and circumlocute


5. to participate in and be part of a community.

Anyway, these are only the bare bones of what went on today. I'm afraid that if I don't take time to process all of this now that I will be too busy to do it later.

One thing that keeps going through my mind when I consider OWL, WAYK, TPRS, etc is that underlying realization that traditional methods of language instruction have failed this last century. The US in its paranoia at losing English as its "only" language has meant language study has just not been taken seriously. Our forefathers did not fear learning other languages--English, French, Latin, and Greek. Surely some Spanish too. But too many feel like everyone else should learn English instead of embracing opportunities to learn other languages.  And Latin's out-of-date focus on its benefits for SAT scores has killed us. That, and that it's the ideal language for people who are afraid of the oral aspect of modern languages.  My friend, John Kuhner, just today has published a wonderful article about Rusticatio and Latin's place in the spoken Latin world. The Latin Speakers of West Virginia. This last summer I couldn't afford to go to Rusticatio and I missed it desperately. It is a magical place. But I realized when I saw that list of 5 goals--I missed it because Rusticatio, for me, has been the only place where all five of those goals were in play for me.

When we were asked today at what point did we feel we really owned our language, I fudged it and said it was when I dreamed in Latin at Rusticatio. In truth, I still don't own this language. I can't pick up just anything in Latin and read with total fluency and comfort, though I am far closer now than I was when I got my degree.  To use a WAYK term, I have massive holes in my pocket.  Massive.  But I love this language. I can't tell you why, I just do.  My roommate asked me last summer what I would do if I could have my dream job.  I'd still teach, but significantly fewer hours, for higher pay so I could get out of debt.  LOL.  And I would find time to be a student.  I think in a past life I must have been a Roman. I can't explain any other reason for why I do what I do. Why I obsess over pronunciation, why I abandoned my moderately successful AP Latin program for level 4 to do what I'm doing now. And to constantly be questioning even now what I am doing.

So I got sidetracked from writing lesson plans to post in my various Google Classrooms and whatnot by the delightful discovery of a new reader for Latin! The book is called Pluto: fabula amoris.  Read more about this here: http://pomegranatebeginnings.blogspot.com/p/publications.html.

However, I was disappointed.  No macrons.  This is a book meant for level 1 Latin students and yet no macrons.  Well, instead of my rewriting all my thoughts on the topic, let me just copy and paste from the rants I had on the Latin Best Practices list:

***
This is terrific except....

OK, I'm sorry, but I'm going to be a pain in the ass here.  WHY aren't there macrons?

When I learn new words I really like there to be macrons because Cicero isn't around for me to ask, "Hey, how do you pronounce this?" and I certainly don't want to slow down my reading by looking stuff up in a dictionary.  I had this argument some years back with an editor at Bolchazy-Carducci.  She said that at some time we are all weaned off macrons and certainly you're not going to find them in serious author texts.  True.  I pointed out that I didn't need them for endings.  I knew my noun endings.  It was the new vocabulary words that I was meeting in context and therefore could construe meaning but didn't know how to pronounce the word--thus to be certain I wanted macrons.  I want to hear it in my head as if I am saying the word aloud, which I may well be doing.  (Reading aloud keeps me from translating into English/keeps me in the Latin.) And I certainly don't want to discover later that I've been pronouncing a word wrong and have to UNteach it.

And let me say again that I am totally THRILLED to see a novella, at a good price for a school purchase, at Amazon.  And may there be many, many more.

But no one is setting type by hand anymore. There is no good reason to avoid including macrons (unless we ourselves are unsure of our pronunciation--and that is another issue altogether). We are in a glorious digital age which allows us to type our documents with macrons (I have MS Word keys scripted so I can type ALT and the vowel and get my long marks that way). And we as teachers should be learning and teaching our vocabulary with accurate pronunciation so that when we go to write the word we know where the long marks go because we are saying it correctly.  Know what I mean?

This isn't about memorizing where the macrons go.  This is about tasting the words when you speak them and knowing them intimately because of that.  This is OUR language!  We are the keepers of this language and we should be doing our utmost to deserve this honored position as guardians.

Let me add that I don't count off for long marks if my students don't use them, but I encourage them to learn them, and I explain that if you just listen to how you say the word and have learned the word, you can write the word accurately because you have internalized what is long and what is short.

So can I please encourage the use of macrons because they are not a crutch; they are our secret way to have Cicero whispering in our ears on how to pronounce new words when we meet them.

Thus endeth the rant.

Oh, and congrats to our budding authors!

***

[Then I felt the need to reply to a comment on this, on why we really need to teach them, on what value they have in the overall acquisition of the language.]:

***
As TEACHERS we should know exactly how words are pronounced as best as our knowledge and evidence allow. How a word is pronounced is represented by long marks.  Those macrons aren't learned separately from the word.

Consider when Nancy/Annula Nostra is teaching: she ALWAYS writes with macrons because they represent the correct sound of the word.  We don't have to demand this from our students; they will understand why we do it (or we can explain it to them). I don't require it of my students but I do encourage it. When I do Patibulum/Hangman I use it--just as Annula does.  When I did dictation recently with my Latin 4s I was impressed with how well they did, especially with vowel quantity. I demand high quality from myself (which I do work at conscientiously) and when they are transcribing what I write, it is because they are hearing it and understand it is part of the language.

I can pick up a text without macrons and feel like I can read most of the words accurately--only unsure of those words that are new to me. It provides a pleasure of the mastery and the sound of language. Why would we not want this for our students?

Read what Rick LaFleur says in Wheelock's Latin.  Off the top of my head, I believe it goes something like: Vowel length is important because it is the difference between cape and cap (that silent e), <something else>, and sheet and sh*t....  Vowel length can change the whole meaning of a word!

Consider sōlum vs solum.  One is “of suns” while the other is “the ground.” It may look very similar on the page but is sounds different.  There are so many others that are similar.  People think they are hard to distiguish, but if said correctly they are not hard to distinguish at all. Not at all.

Why should we only be picky about a few endings versus all of them?  Why does the base of the word not get consideration? After all the endings are easy enough to master, internalize, and apply.  But what about the bases of all the new vocabulary?

Let students make mistakes!  Mistakes are how we learn.  But shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? EVEN IF IT MEANS WE HAVE TO RETEACH OURSELVES so that we can set a good example?

That my Ille Hobbitus and Harrius Potter don't have macrons doesn't bother me.  I mean, I would rather they had macrons because there is so much vocabulary to acquire. But it is of a level of Latin that I don't expect macrons.

However, anything we make for students--anything--should have macrons.  We should always be modeling the best Latin that we can.  It is the only way we can have that great seance with Cicero, Caesar, and Vergil in the same room!

And just because you were never taught formal pronunciation in school--high school or university--is no excuse.  If we started not teaching something just because it wasn't in our Latin Methods/Ed courses, well, we'd have to throw out most everything we do.

***

In closing, let me add that I purchased the book from Amazon before I ranted.  I am so pleased to know people are writing books.  I think I need to be writing Latin books.  I certainly have started novels in English that never went far.  A story in Latin might be a totally doable thing for me.  Put my money where my mouth is.

So, since I last wrote when my head was spinning with ideas and I was full of energy, I have apparently developed some weird heart arrhythmia. Yes, I am seeing a variety of doctors, have a stress echo scheduled and whatnot. The biggest problem is that it seems to be zapping my energy plus just feels damned weird.  And it seems to be constant. This is week two of school and I don't know what I will do once I have a mess of quizzes and tests to deal with. Ah well, one thing at a time.

However, little things have been going well enough.

Today I filled 8 (I only have 8 Latin 4s) paper bags ("sacculi") with various things, but included plastic spiders/spiderweb, perfume (cheap stinky stuff), and a packet of salt--things that get mentioned in Catullus 13. The other bags had: little toy dinosaurs, pens, candy (Jolly Ranchers), plastic googly eyes, and cups. Sometimes I feel we work the most basic things orally which they would understand well enough if in print. But that's ok.  I know that comprehending spoken Latin is a different beast.  So we worked meus sacculus, tuus sacculus, eius sacculus; cuius coloris and some other things about whether what was in the bag was mollis aut durus; and then finally "sacculus meus est plenus__(gen)__" (which is in Catullus 13). Genitives seemed to get a fair bit of work.

We might have done a bit more but this was the first day that Bluebell Ice Cream was back on the market in central Texas and a student (not mine but friends with mine) had gone to the local HEB and bought a tub of vanilla and spoons. I had cups and napkins.  We needed the ice cream break.

Anyway, I have a little PowerPoint (2 slides) with a picture of a wallet (crumena) and purse (perula) on the first slide with "quid est in crumena tua/perula tua?" and an indication that I want plenus to be incorporated in the reply.  On the next slide is a picture of a Roman reenactor with a little money bag (true saccula) attached to his belt and another of a little bag and some coins (admittedly medieval). So before we read the Catullus we will make that further connection.

Tonight they are reading chapter 2 in Orberg's Lingua Latina and doing a short reading log. Tomorrow will be discussion about the story in Latin and then tying into their own families with the idea that they will make a family tree with proper terminology for homework.  I may try to find a way to work in some adjectives for describing relatives (LOL) because I want to get venustus (charming) into their vocabulary before we meet it in Catullus 13. And perhaps work in some comments about family dinners. Wednesday is when I plan to use the PowerPoint mentioned above, and do some dictation to cover/reuse some vocabulary coming up in Catullus 13, especially affero. And then Thursday will be Catullus Day. Well, that's the plan. Wish me luck.

So, I will confess that I’m not sure that I had ever really heard of Subjective or Objective Genitives before this summer.  Perhaps that’s an indication that you really need to know the details of grammatical terminology; or more likely it means that I’ve been sloppy for far too long, especially since I’m the teacher.  While I’m not necessarily convinced that it’s worth understanding the difference between the Possessive and the Subjective Genitive (which will be for another post, I hope), I feel that understanding the Objective Genitive is worthwhile, if for no other reason than sometimes you don’t use “of” to translate it. I had this “I should have had a V8” moment—and wondered why I had missed this for so long. There was no need to be “winging it” as I felt I was sometimes in explaining why some genitives just didn’t sound right with “of.”

Truth be told when I think of what my grounding in grammar was, what my go-to reference was before daring to open Gildersleeve and Lodge in college, it was what certamen players rely upon: good old Amsco.  My well-worn Amsco 3-4 only has four things for the genitive: possession, description, partitive, and with certain adjectives (cupidus, perītus, imperītus, and plēnus). And sadly too many of us use texts like this to guide students (at least for certamen) on which grammar items are important instead of what is actually being used in our texts and in our stories. There is no in between, no grammar reference that has an intermediate range of information. After all, reading Gildersleeve and Lodge isn’t for everyone—that’s for sure!

Anyway, let’s look at what the grammarians say first, then the list of those sentences from CLC (17-40) which I think probably are Objective Genitive, and why we should care.

(http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/genitive.html)
ADJECTIVAL USES
3.      objective genitive denotes the object of the activity implied by a noun or adjective (metus hostium)

Genitives, Bennett’s new Latin Grammar
195. With Nouns the Genitive is the case which defines the meaning of the limited noun more closely. This relation is generally indicated in English by the preposition of. There are the following varieties of the Genitive with Nouns:--
…
Objective Genitive, denotes the object of an action or feeling: metus deōrum, the fear of the gods; amor lībertātis, love of liberty

Genitives Gildersleeve and Lodge, p230ff
363. When the substantive on which the Genitive depends contains the idea of an action (nōmen āctiōnis), the possision may be active or passive. Hence the division into
1.The Active or Subjective Genitive: amor Deī, the love of God, the love which God feels (God loves)
2.Passive or Objective Genitive: amor Deī, the love of God, the love toward God (God is loved).
Remarks: The English form in of is used either actively or passively: the love of women. Hence, to avoid ambiguity, other prepositions than of are often substituted for the Passive Genitive, such as for, toward, and the like. So, also, sometimes in Latin, especially in Livy, and later Historians generally: voluntās Servīliī ergā Caesarem: the goodwill of Servilius toward Caesar. Odium in bonōs inveterātum, deep-seated hate toward the conservatives.

Genitives, Hale & Buck p 180ff
354. The Genitive may be used to express the Object or the Application of a Noun, an Adjective, or a Participle used adjectively.
The list of nouns is very large. The adjectives are especially those denoting desire, knowledge, skill, memory, or participation.
rēgnī cupiditāte, by desire of sovereignty
cupidum rērum novārum, desirous of a revolution
cōnscius iniūriae, conscious of wrong-doing
amantissimōs reī pūblicae virōs, firm friends of the state
reī pūblicae iniūriam, the wrong done to the state
excessū vītae, by departure from life
cui summam omnium rērum fidem habēbat, in whom he had the greatest confidence in all matters
praestantiam virtūtis, the preeminence in virtue
a.       Instead of the Objective Genitive depending on a noun, prepositions with the Accusative are often employed, especially ergā, in, and adversus, toward, against.
in hominēs iniūriam, wrong to men; deōrum summō ergā vōs amōre, by Heaven’s great love toward you.
b.      In Ciceronian Latin, only a moderate number of adjectives, mostly expressing or suggesting Activity, take this Genitive. With nouns it is more freely used.
c.       Freer poetic and later Genitive of the Object or of Application. In poetry and later Latin this Genitive is used with greater freedom.
fessī rērum, weary of trouble
integer vītae, upright of life
poenae sēcūrus, safe from punishment
indignus avōrum, unworthy of my ancestors
ēreptae virginis īrā, wrath at the loss of the maiden

Ok, here are the sentences that I think probably contain Objective Genitives.  Some may be wrong but I think most are correct.  You can decide for yourself.  I’ll discuss a few below.

·         20  mandō Quīntō Caeciliō Iucundō cūram fūneris meī.
·         21  multī medicī, ad aulam arcessītī, remedium morbī quaesīvērunt.
·         21  rēx Cogidubnus hūc venit, remedium morbī petēns.
·         23  Memorem ē cūrā thermārum iam dēmōvī.
·         25  Valerius nōs vult custōdēs carceris esse.
·         25  ūna est spēs salūtis.
·         28  Belimicus, spē praemiī adductus, mīlitēs Rōmānōs adiuvābat et incitābat.
·         28  aliī, spē praedae adductī, inter sē pugnāvērunt;…
·         28  mandō C. Salviō Līberālī cūram fūneris meī.
·         28  Belimicus, prīnceps Cantiacōrum, spē praemiī adductus, Salviō summum auxilium dedit.
·         28  Belimicus, metū mortis pallidus, surrēxit.
·         28  Belimicus, venēnō excruciātus, pugiōnem tamen in Salvium coniēcit, spē ultiōnis adductus.
·         29  nūlla spēs salūtis nōbīs ostenditur.
·         29  amōre līberōrum meōrum plūs quam timōre servitūtis afficiēbar.
·         29  amōre līberōrum meōrum plūs quam timōre servitūtis afficiēbar.
·         29  illūc multī senātōrēs, spē favōris Domitiānī, conveniēbant. * two gens
·         30  itaque ambō humum rediērunt, alter spē immortālitātis ēlātus, alter praesentī pecūniā contentus.
·         31  cēterī autem, oculīs in vultum praecōnis dēfīxīs, spē favōris manēbant.
·         31  …aliī spē pecūniae dēiectī invītī discessērunt.
·         32  etiam eī quī spē favōris cēnās magistrātibus dant, rē vērā labōrant.
·         33  labōribus cōnfectus atque spē sacerdōtiī dēiectus, ad vīllam rūsticam abierat ut quiēsceret.
·         34  Epaphprodītus “nōn modo ego,” inquit, “sed etiam Imperātor poenās Paridis Domitiaeque cupit.”
·         34  scīlicet falsa fuerat epistula, mendāx nūntius morbī!
·         34  nunc dēnique intellēxit quis esset auctor exitiī Paridis.
·         35  nūper ego et aliī senātōrēs ab Imperātōre cōnsultī sumus dē poenā illārum Virginum Vestālium quae incestī damnātae erant.
·         36  dīcis amōre tuī bellās ardēre puellās / quī faciem sub aquā, Sexte, natantis habēs. * love for you (your love = amōre tuō)
·         37  ibi mīlitēs nostrī, spē glōriae adductī, victōriam nōmine tuō dignam rettulērunt.
·         37  …omnēs scīmus Galbam cupīdine imperiī corruptum esse;…*or does cupīdō need a genitive?
·         38  est mihi nūlla occāsiō fugiendī.
·         38  est mihi nūlla spēs fugae.
·         40  subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē  ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
·         40  eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
·         40  eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
·         40  patefēcerat enim Myropnous pūmiliō Salvium auctōrem fuisse exiliī Domitiae, Paridis mortis. *split from governing (?) noun (predicatively)
·         40  patefēcerat enim Myropnous pūmiliō Salvium auctōrem fuisse exiliī Domitiae, Paridis mortis. *note chiasmus, double genitive
·         40  quis tam stultus est ut crēdat mē mortem rēgis octōgintā annōrum efficere voluisse?
·         40  intereā Rūfilla, Salviī uxor, dum spēs eius firma manēbat, pollicēbātur sē sociam cuiusque fortūnae futūram esse.
·         40  intereā Rūfilla, Salviī uxor, dum spēs eius firma manēbat, pollicēbātur sē sociam cuiusque fortūnae futūram esse.
·         40  invidia Salviī aucta est suspīciōne Cogidubnum venēnō necātum esse.
·         40  subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē  ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
·         40  …ille tamen, fīliī salūtis memor, hoc cōnsilium rēiēcit. *two gens

***
These two sentences, from Gildersleeve and Lodge, offer the kind of explanation that I think would be so helpful to students (since it was so helpful to me):

The English form in of is used either actively or passively: the love of women. Hence, to avoid ambiguity, other prepositions than of are often substituted for the Passive Genitive, such as for, toward, and the like.

And here I thought it was just more of, “eh, sometimes ‘of’ just doesn’t work.”  This is being more specific about WHEN it doesn’t work and WHY it doesn’t work.  And what we are looking for “denotes the object of an action or feeling.”

And when looking for an example of a “feeling,” why not look to spē praemiī adductus? I was never keen on “driven by the hope of a reward,” but hear how much better it sounds when we translate it as “driven by the hope FOR a reward”! There are 16 examples that I’ve pulled which have a form of spēs. I think each and every one of them sounds better with “for” (and remember from a previous post, spē is not really Ablative of Means but Cause/Reason). Here are some examples:

·         25  ūna est spēs salūtis.
There is one hope FOR safety.
·         28  Belimicus, spē praemiī adductus, mīlitēs Rōmānōs adiuvābat et incitābat.
Belimicus, driven on account of his hope for a reward, was helping and inciting the Roman soldiers.
·         28  aliī, spē praedae adductī, inter sē pugnāvērunt;…
Others, driven on account of their hope for loot, fought among themselves;…
·         29  nūlla spēs salūtis nōbīs ostenditur.
No hope for safety is shown to us.
·         31  …aliī spē pecūniae dēiectī invītī discessērunt.
…others disappointed in their hope for money left unwilling(ly).
·         40  eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
For a great help to them was Lucius Marcius Memor, diviner and client of Salvius, who, as a one-time ally of the crimes of Salvius, now was driven to betray him, from the hope for a reward or from the fear of punishments.
·         40 intereā Rūfilla, Salviī uxor, dum spēs eius firma manēbat, pollicēbātur sē sociam cuiusque fortūnae futūram esse.
Meanwhile Rufilla, the wife of Salvius, while hope him was staying strong,was promising that she would be his partner of whatever fortune.

This last one (with eius) I was never able to translate smoothly into English, even though I understood the Latin just fine, or so I thought. But maybe my lack of understanding about the Objective Genitive and its translations other than “of” was the real problem. Moreover, I like learning that the Objective Genitive has to do with actions and feelings, so that when I see spēs and mētus (and timor) I can already understand that in all likelihood we are dealing with something different from possession, something where “of” might not sound best. Surely the original authors of CLC would not have included so many examples, repeating and repeating the concept, if this weren’t one we were supposed to take note of and help our students to understand. If we just let them guess until something sounds right, it makes Latin seem arbitrary and and even a little vicious to the learner.

Another example which benefits from understanding what the Objective Genitive is would be the Martial epigram about Sextus: dīcis amōre tuī bellās ardēre puellās / quī faciem sub aquā, Sexte, natantis habēs. If tuī was functioning as possession, it actually would be the adjective tuō to modify amōre (“your love”).  That these girls were burning with “love of you” or even “your love” always sounded so wrong to me. But, put in “FOR you” and this epigram totally makes sense, because Sextus can’t be the object of love if he has a face like someone swimming underwater (an image I’m still trying to figure out—are his cheeks totally puffed out like he’s holding his breath or what?).

Looking for a “cure FOR the illness (remedium morbī) sounds so much more logical than a “cure of the illness”—even though it is comprehensible. After all, how many times have you asked for a couple of ibuprofen “of your headache”? No! It’s always “for your headache”! So even though remedium isn’t denoting the object of an action or feeling; it is, however, an “object or application of a noun.” The cure would be applied to the illness, right? What about all the times poena is used—wouldn’t this be about who the penalty was applied to? Consider this sentence: nōn modo ego sed etiam Imperātor poenās Paridis Domitiaeque cupit. The emperor desires punishments FOR Paris and Domitia—he wants the punishments to apply to them, he wants them to be the objects of the punishments.

Of course, ideally we should be trying to teach our students to stay “in” Latin—that the goal of learning Latin is not to translate it into English but to understand what we are reading in Latin through Latin. But I am also a realist; I know how the local big universities teach their classics courses (sadly) and I know that AP wants students who understand and can translate Latin literally.

So, maybe I wouldn’t put this one in the About the Language section, but I think I would certainly include it in the Language Information section at the back of the book, especially if you are going to include the Genitive of Indefinite Price/Value which could be included under Genitive of Description, according to some of the grammarians (see previous post).  I’m not sure I would bother Latin 2 students with this concept, but the Latin 3 students usually have higher aims and crave clarity and information, so I probably will show them.  And the 4s will definitely have this information.