![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(Originally this was posted on the CLC list earlier today....)
My Latin 3’s are currently in the middle of Stage 37. Today they began cōnsilium Domitiānī I. There are several things that I like about this story (besides the story line), or rather that I like about the way CLC sneaks stuff in.
There are a couple of ablative of descriptions in this story. Of course, it isn’t critical that one even talks about them expressly except that they do come up in AP and instead of feeling like you have to cover so many little grammar topics then, why not point them out when they first start appearing? It’s not like we have to quiz everything.
The thing about these ablative of descriptions is that they’ve been hiding out like ablative absolutes: noun and participle in the ablative—what more does a student look for? Ok, sometimes set off by a comma but not always, as we well know. And perhaps you are like me and for the sake of simplification teach students only a couple of ways to translate ablative absolutes (until they truly have a handle on them). I use “after X had been done” (depending on the time frame of the main verb, naturally), which serves us well.
However, there are times when saying “with X verbed” just sounds better. I had wondered why in the back of my head until one day I realized that there were always parts of the body mentioned. (I know I made detailed lists of these things this summer, but that is on my personal laptop at home.)
So consider:
dum senātōrēs anxiī inter sē colloquuntur, ingressus est Domitiānus vultū ita compositō ut nēmō intellegere posset utrum īratus an laetus esset.
“with a face composed (in such a way)” or this one:
Cripsus diū tacēbat; superciliīs contractīs quasi rem cōgitāret, oculōs humī dēfīxit.
“with his eyebrows contracted/furrowed” – ablative of description. So how far back do these go? It seems to me one of the earliest ones was in Stage 31 in salūtātiō I in this sentence:
omnēs, oculīs in iānuam dēfīxīs, patrōnī favōrem exspectābant.
“everyone, with their eyes fixed upon the door,” sounds a whole lot better than “after their eyes had been fixed upon the door.” Yes, I know, the teacher’s manual does encourage us to explore a variety of different ways we could translate ablative absolutes with our students, but I usually follow a bit stricter translation for the simple reason that ablative absolutes are unique. Once you truly understand how they work and how things unfold in a Latin sentence (actions appearing in the order they happen), you can’t help but admire them. But students... well, they need something a little easier to grab onto.
And maybe it’s not worth pointing out the ablative of descriptions that have occurred as if it is critical to know the difference in the same chapter that ablative absolutes are taught (Stage 31). However, by Stage 37, students are more or less fine with ablative absolutes and sense when something doesn’t seem quite right. Therefore I did mention that the first two items above from Stage 37 are ablative of descriptions and how translating them is a bit different. (And, yes, of course there is overlap with ablative absolutes.)
There is something else kind of interesting going on with the first sentence in cōnsilium Domitiānī as well. Let’s look again:
dum senātōrēs anxiī inter sē colloquuntur, ingressus est Domitiānus vultū ita compositō ut nēmō intellegere posset utrum īratus an laetus esset.
Look this time at the result clause (ut nēmō...esset). I think, and I could be wrong because I’m rushing to finish this before my conference period ends, that this may be the first time we have a result clause not governed by a verb, but instead by a participle (compositō). This is part of the compacting that I like seeing throughout CLC. Once a new concept has been given enough time for mastery, it is combined in another concept. For instance, my Latin 2’s are in Stage 26 and have this sentence from adventus Agricolae in their recitation packet:
mīlitēs, cum Agricolam castra intrantem vīdisset, magnam clamōrem sustulērunt.
We have a nice participial phrase (Agricolam castra intrantem) nested inside a cum clause. Having a result clause governed by a participle is just another normal step up towards classical authors. And this isn’t the only participle governing a clause in the story. Take this sentence:
veritus tamen nē Domitiānum offenderet, verbīs cōnsīderātīs ūsus est:
A little tricky, this one, because it is maybe only the second fearing clause we’ve met, and it’s governed by veritus (not timeō or vereor). In fact, even that second sentence I originally mentioned has a little clause that is dependent on a participle:
Cripsus diū tacēbat; superciliīs contractīs quasi rem cōgitāret, oculōs humī dēfīxit.
I did not mention to my students that the quasi rem cōgitāret is displaying a “contrary to fact, present time” condition; totally unneeded. But it is nice (to me at least) to see quasi hanging off of contractīs.
The bell’s about to ring. I just wanted to share some observations from today.
My Latin 3’s are currently in the middle of Stage 37. Today they began cōnsilium Domitiānī I. There are several things that I like about this story (besides the story line), or rather that I like about the way CLC sneaks stuff in.
There are a couple of ablative of descriptions in this story. Of course, it isn’t critical that one even talks about them expressly except that they do come up in AP and instead of feeling like you have to cover so many little grammar topics then, why not point them out when they first start appearing? It’s not like we have to quiz everything.
The thing about these ablative of descriptions is that they’ve been hiding out like ablative absolutes: noun and participle in the ablative—what more does a student look for? Ok, sometimes set off by a comma but not always, as we well know. And perhaps you are like me and for the sake of simplification teach students only a couple of ways to translate ablative absolutes (until they truly have a handle on them). I use “after X had been done” (depending on the time frame of the main verb, naturally), which serves us well.
However, there are times when saying “with X verbed” just sounds better. I had wondered why in the back of my head until one day I realized that there were always parts of the body mentioned. (I know I made detailed lists of these things this summer, but that is on my personal laptop at home.)
So consider:
dum senātōrēs anxiī inter sē colloquuntur, ingressus est Domitiānus vultū ita compositō ut nēmō intellegere posset utrum īratus an laetus esset.
“with a face composed (in such a way)” or this one:
Cripsus diū tacēbat; superciliīs contractīs quasi rem cōgitāret, oculōs humī dēfīxit.
“with his eyebrows contracted/furrowed” – ablative of description. So how far back do these go? It seems to me one of the earliest ones was in Stage 31 in salūtātiō I in this sentence:
omnēs, oculīs in iānuam dēfīxīs, patrōnī favōrem exspectābant.
“everyone, with their eyes fixed upon the door,” sounds a whole lot better than “after their eyes had been fixed upon the door.” Yes, I know, the teacher’s manual does encourage us to explore a variety of different ways we could translate ablative absolutes with our students, but I usually follow a bit stricter translation for the simple reason that ablative absolutes are unique. Once you truly understand how they work and how things unfold in a Latin sentence (actions appearing in the order they happen), you can’t help but admire them. But students... well, they need something a little easier to grab onto.
And maybe it’s not worth pointing out the ablative of descriptions that have occurred as if it is critical to know the difference in the same chapter that ablative absolutes are taught (Stage 31). However, by Stage 37, students are more or less fine with ablative absolutes and sense when something doesn’t seem quite right. Therefore I did mention that the first two items above from Stage 37 are ablative of descriptions and how translating them is a bit different. (And, yes, of course there is overlap with ablative absolutes.)
There is something else kind of interesting going on with the first sentence in cōnsilium Domitiānī as well. Let’s look again:
dum senātōrēs anxiī inter sē colloquuntur, ingressus est Domitiānus vultū ita compositō ut nēmō intellegere posset utrum īratus an laetus esset.
Look this time at the result clause (ut nēmō...esset). I think, and I could be wrong because I’m rushing to finish this before my conference period ends, that this may be the first time we have a result clause not governed by a verb, but instead by a participle (compositō). This is part of the compacting that I like seeing throughout CLC. Once a new concept has been given enough time for mastery, it is combined in another concept. For instance, my Latin 2’s are in Stage 26 and have this sentence from adventus Agricolae in their recitation packet:
mīlitēs, cum Agricolam castra intrantem vīdisset, magnam clamōrem sustulērunt.
We have a nice participial phrase (Agricolam castra intrantem) nested inside a cum clause. Having a result clause governed by a participle is just another normal step up towards classical authors. And this isn’t the only participle governing a clause in the story. Take this sentence:
veritus tamen nē Domitiānum offenderet, verbīs cōnsīderātīs ūsus est:
A little tricky, this one, because it is maybe only the second fearing clause we’ve met, and it’s governed by veritus (not timeō or vereor). In fact, even that second sentence I originally mentioned has a little clause that is dependent on a participle:
Cripsus diū tacēbat; superciliīs contractīs quasi rem cōgitāret, oculōs humī dēfīxit.
I did not mention to my students that the quasi rem cōgitāret is displaying a “contrary to fact, present time” condition; totally unneeded. But it is nice (to me at least) to see quasi hanging off of contractīs.
The bell’s about to ring. I just wanted to share some observations from today.
