Profile

ginlindzey: At ACL (Default)
ginlindzey

October 2017

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Custom Text

Most Popular Tags

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 ambulantēsSalvius 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 laudātusthe craftsman praised by the architect
·        mīlitēs, gladiīs armātīthe soldiers, armed with swords

5.      Perfect Active Participles can have Accusative objects.
·        Latrō, haec verba locūtusLatro, 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 NeptūnusNeptune 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 labōrantiumthe 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 recently gave a paper at CAMWS (Classical Association for the Middle West and South). There was a portion in it which I called progressions--how a textbook gets students to the point of being able to read Latin that is more like what they will encounter with a real author. I wanted to put that section here in case others (what few who may read this slow moving blog) may want to comment. Maybe they've observed similar things in the textbook they use.

***
Another feature of the Cambridge Latin Course that I’ve come to admire over the last several years is how they build up from simple to more complex phrasing. For instance, let us consider the phrase “after he said (or heard) these words.” One of the earliest phrasings for this occurs in Stage 21 of Unit 2: postquam haec verba dīxit. Simple enough. But if we follow how this phrase and similar are used subsequently, we see the following progression:

1. Memor, postquam haec verba dīxit, statim obdormīvit. (“Lūcius Marcius Memor” Unit 3 8)

2. Latrō, haec verba locūtus, exiit (“Vilbia” Unit 3 20).

3. Vilbia, simulatque haec audīvit, īrāta fontī appropinquat (“amor omnia vincit: scaena tertia” Unit 3 37).

4. haec verba locūtus, rēgī poculum obtulit (“in thermīs II” Unit 3 48).

5. senex, haec locūtus, lentē per iānuam exit (“Britannnia Perdomita” Unit 3 54).

6. cum Dumnorix haec dīxisset, Quīntus rem sēcum anxius cōgitābat (“Quīntus cōnsilium capit” Unit 3 68).

7. Belimicus, cum haec audīvisset, gladium dēstrictum ad iugulum servī tenuit (“Salvius cōnsilium cognōscit” Unit 3 72).

8. sollicitus erat quod in epistulā, quam ad Agricolam mīserat, multa falsa scrīpserat (“in prīncipiīs” Unit 3 107).

9. deinde renovāvit ea quae in epistulā scrīpserat (“in prīncipiīs” Unit 3 107).

10. haec cum audīvisset, Agricola respondit, “sī tālia fēcit, eī moriendum est” (“tribūnus” Unit 3 111).

11. haec ubi dīxit Agricola, Salvius respondit īrātus, “quam caecus es! quam longē errās!” (“contentiō” Unit 3 112).

12. quod cum audīvisset, Salvius, “ego” inquit, “nōn Cogidubnus, aureōs tibi dedī (“cēna Salviī” Unit 3 150).

13. Belimicus hīs verbīs perturbātus, “nimium bibistī, mī amīce,” inquit (“Belimicus rēx” Unit 3 152).

14. quae cum audīvisset, Haterius adeō gaudēbat ut dē tignō paene dēcideret (“polyspaston” Unit 3 198).

15. hīs verbīs audītīs, praecō, quī Eryllum haudquāquam amābat, magnā vōce, “Eryllus!” inquit (“salūtātiō II” Unit 3 220).

16. tum Messālīnus, simulatque haec Epaphrodītī verba audīvit, occāsiōne ūsus, “satis cōnstat,” inquit, “nūllōs hostēs ferōciōrēs Germānīs esse, nūllum ducem Domitiānō Augustō esse meliōrem (“cōnsilium Domitiānī II” Unit 4 57).

17. quibus verbīs sollemnibus dictīs, Pōlla postēs iānuae oleō unguit fascinātiōnis āvertendae causā (“cōnfarreātiō III” Unit 4 71).

18. quibus audītīs, Salvius spērāre coepit sē ē manibus accūsātōrum ēlāpsūrum esse (“cognitiō” Unit 4 105).

19. hīs dictīs impēnsō animum flammāvit amōre / spemque dedit dubiae mentī solvitque pudōrem (The Aeneid IV.54-55).

20. quam simul ac tālī persēnsit peste tenērī / cāra Iovis coniūnx nec fāmam obstāre furōrī / tālibus adgreditur Venerem Sāturnia dictīs: (IV.90-93).

The transition from a simple postquam clause through various subjunctive clauses to ablative absolutes (and those using a qui-transitional, no less) was gradual but meaningful, supporting a pattern already in place and thus developing into an expectation within the student’s mind. Repetition with slight variations reinforces both structure and meaning so that by the time you get to Vergil (or other authors), such phrases are second nature.
This is one of many progressions from simple to more complex grammar that the Cambridge Latin Course does well. I offer up, to those interested, tracing the type and phrasing of participles, quī transitionals, the use of ille, the position of genitives, and the use of versus and conversus. If conscientious teachers recognize and support through exercises or discussions these progressions, their students will become efficient readers of Latin.
***
Comments??
So there was a discussion on the classics list regarding whether a textbook should include an explanation of when you use which and when you use that. Below is my two denarii on the subject:

****

I have read this thread with interest, esp since I noticed that my sole AP student (which I inherited from another school during a midyear transfer), used "that" in a translation the other day. Since I doubted whether he truly understood the difference between which and that I confess I told him to remember that AP is so literal to switch it to which. Now, admittedly, that was lame, but considering he's in a class that also consists of 17 Latin 2's and 8 Latin 3's, I didn't exactly have time for a lengthy discussion of that vs which.

But with all that being said, I think it is worth mentioning the distinction and it can be up to the teacher and/or student about whether to use the information. Better to have the information and decide to break a rule than to be ignorant. I definitely remember when a English prof went on a which-hunt on one of my drafts and my being stunned that no one had explained that vs which to me before.

I have always found relative clauses tricky to teach; the sharpest kids understand the whole concept of the antecedent providing gender and number, while the use in the clause providing case, but in general I find students have a very difficult time, say, choosing the correct form of a pronoun to complete a sentence correctly. But more important than picking the right pronoun is comprehending the relative pronoun accurately when reading.

I think the *real* question is whether there was any expression of restrictive vs non-restrictive IN LATIN. We are supposed to be teaching students how to read Latin, with improving English skills as merely a side benefit. There are many constructions in Latin that don't have a smooth and easy equivalent in English. Consider William Harris's article, "Latin...Why Study It at All" http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/whylatin.html).

Should we not be more concerned with teaching our students how to THINK LIKE A ROMAN, than to translate with perfect English? By all means, provide information for translating appropriately, but shouldn't we focus more on getting into the "Roman head"? If we don't, will we ever get beyond "read 60 lines for the next class" and really read with depth and length? Wouldn't you like larger upper division classes, or are you happy with the way we weed out students by only advancing the best decoders, not letting the rest know that you can learn to read in word order and thus read with better comprehension and less stress (and thus able to cover more lines)?

For instance, ablative absolutes sound so clumsy in English, and students hate them because they are difficult to translate. But if you get BEYOND the need to translate and focus on the need to READ and READ LOTS, then ablative absolutes become nifty, compact little constructions. I like them.
They are great connectors, as are those pesky relative pronouns that will start a sentence for seemingly no reason. Surely if we focus more on how to UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND these as a Roman would, a more flowing, natural translation will eventually follow.

BTW, I've never read anything from Prof Harris's site that I haven't liked.
They are thought-provoking articles that students should be shown.

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Style Credit