ginlindzey | Entries tagged with caesar

October 2017

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Custom Text

So, I'm in over my head these days, just feeling my way along what I am doing with my Latin 4s, determined, if nothing else, to consider ENJOYING THE LANGUAGE a priority. Thus this semester we are reading Harrius Potter, chapter 3. This is the chapter where the letters start arriving. We are about 5 pages in, and have had some productive days and some not so productive days, which is what happens when you have seniors 7th period.

We have had some good discussions on WHY the translator, Peter Needham, chose the phrasing which he chose. Today I wrote to a colleague more knowledgeable than I, but in the process discovered a few things. This is what I wrote to him:

***

Here are a couple of things we noted yesterday and I would be interested on your take:

Page 27, midway down:

Harrius epistulam suam, quae in membrana gravi eiusdem generis ac involucrum scripta est, explicaturus erat, cum repentino motu Avunculi Vernon e manu erepta est.

I know I have not read broadly enough to judge certain things, but I kept feeling that this sentence would have been helped if ILLA had been used in the cum clause (cum ILLA repentino motu...) to indicate that we had changed subjects. (And since I had taught explicare as "explain" earlier this week to Latin 2, I had to think twice to realize he's using it for "unfold" here.) Is it just not provided because the quae clause has scripta est and it is parallel to that, thus making ILLA unnecessary?

Also on Page 27, but few paragraphs farther down:

Dudley epistulam captabat ut ipse legeret, sed alte sublatam ab Avunculo Vernon non attingere poterat.

In this sentence, Dudley is purposefully kept as the subject throughout, but in the English original it reads:

Dudley tried to grab the letter to read it, but Uncle Vernon held it high out of his reach.

We understand it, of course, but wondered why the translator went to the trouble to keep the focus on Dudley. Then again, occurs to me know that Caesar purposefully kept the same case for an item-- that is, in the case of Pullo and Vorenus, in book 5.44. Line 13ff

transfigitur scutum PULLONI et verutum in balteo defigitur. Avertit hic casus vaginam et gladium educere CONANTI dextram moratur manum, impeditumque hostes circumsistunt.

So, do you think it's THAT sort of thing that the translator was after? Except in this case it was EPISTULAM...SUBLATAM. Huh. Well, if that IS this case, do you think it was a good choice or maybe over the top in translating a modern story?
***
I have yet to get a reply, but decided to show the letter to my students anyway. One even thanked me (how lovely!). And I told them I think we need to read the seen with Pullo and Vorenus in Caesar before the year is out.

As for the structure of what I'm doing write now... well, in some ways it is too loose for comfort. Before we begin each day I do make them read aloud with a partner what we read the day before. And as we are reading through and discussing the day's reading, I keep circling back and rereading the paragraph(s) we are working on. We've also had some dictation (a "nightmare" that combined elements from Harrius Potter) which worked some vocabulary items a bit.

Anyway. This was more of a thinking out loud post than anything else.

Tags:

Ah. Internet is working, school is out, and I'm already working on AP. I didn't give as many vocab quizzes as I had wanted to in the spring--I didn't get them revised and the kids were burning out. Whiners.

haha

When we were reviewing before the exam, I realized that I had picked some really good passages on my passage quizzes that targeted good examples of grammar commonly found in each author. But at one point, when I was starting to say things like indirect statements are more common in Caesar, I started realizing how many indirect statements come up in Vergil. Ok, not like Caesar's... but then again, worth looking at.

In fact, worth doing some comparisons.

So as I'm going through and revising Vergil vocab quizzes, I'm looking at indirect statements. I haven't gotten very far, but I am enjoying this. I'm a nut; I like making lists like this and thinking about what the author is doing and why.

I haven't gotten very far, but I'm excited about looking for them. I just have two from book 1.

1) progeniem sed enim Troiano a sanguine duci
audierat, Tyrias olim quae verteret arces;
hinc populum late regem belloque superbum
venturum excidio Libyae: sic volvere Parcas. 1.19-22

2) Interea magno misceri murmure pontum,
emissamque hiemem sensit Neptunus 1.124-125

Both have examples of esse being understood. And even with just two examples I am already asking myself whether Vergil uses more passive infinitives. I haven't thought about it before.

I do know that constantly asking myself (or students) "What is -que connecting?" is truly important in seeing (in the 2nd example) that a participle is really an infinitive. I have to confess, though, that I sat staring at regem belloque superbum for quite a while tonight, thinking to myself that I didn't like where that -que was coming, thinking it should be on regem and trying to reconcile that it was ok where it was. I feel like I'm not seeing something because thinking about -que steered me clear on way too many occasions this year. In fact, I just loved seeing the phrasing unfold in front of me.

Last summer at this time I was studying Caesar with Andrew Riggsby, and I felt the Latin was unfolding beautifully in front of me because I was seeing the PHRASING which even the grad students were missing. But I still have farther to go, more to learn, and in learning I find the sorts of things my students need in order to see Vergil as something that can be read as opposed to something that is painfully and slowly decoded. If that.

I miss writing. I miss having time to think out loud in print. Maybe I can write more this summer, though this is really just for my own benefit. Does anyone really read this??? :-)

Tags:

I'm working on a paper I'm presenting at TFLA tomorrow. I foolishly volunteered but it will be a good thing. The fact is, I really like working on papers, pouring over a text to try to find things (or using search engines). This year I have my eye on phrasing that turns up in Caesar.

I've posted this progression before (2 years ago when I was working on a different version of this paper for CAMWS), but this now includes examples from Caesar and Vergil that correspond to the construction from CLC. What I was showing with this progression, as I call it, is the development of a simple phrase for "after he said these words" to the more complex structures such as ablative absolutes. See if you can follow: (we'll see how it copies and pastes in...)

Progression from simpler to more advanced grammar for the same or similar phrase.

Memor, postquam haec verba dīxit, statim obdormīvit. (“Lūcius Marcius Memor” Unit 3 8)
Latrō, haec verba locūtus, exiit (“Vilbia” Unit 3 20).
Vilbia, simulatque haec audīvit, īrāta fontī appropinquat (“amor omnia vincit: scaena tertia” Unit 3 37).
haec verba locūtus, rēgī poculum obtulit (“in thermīs II” Unit 3 48).
senex, haec locūtus, lentē per iānuam exit (“Britannnia Perdomita” Unit 3 54).
cum Dumnorix haec dīxisset, Quīntus rem sēcum anxius cōgitābat (“Quīntus cōnsilium capit” Unit 3 68).
Belimicus, cum haec audīvisset, gladium dēstrictum ad iugulum servī tenuit (“Salvius cōnsilium cognōscit” Unit 3 72).
sollicitus erat quod in epistulā, quam ad Agricolam mīserat, multa falsa scrīpserat (“in prīncipiīs” Unit 3 107).
deinde renovāvit ea quae in epistulā scrīpserat (“in prīncipiīs” Unit 3 107).
- his rebus adducti et auctoritate Orgetorigis permoti constituerunt ea quae ad proficiscendum pertinerent comparare, iumentorum et carrorum quam maximum numerum coemere, sementes quam maximas facere, ut in itinere copia frumenti suppeteret, cum proximis civitatibus pacem et amicitiam confirmare. (DBG 1.3.1)
haec cum audīvisset, Agricola respondit, “sī tālia fēcit, eī moriendum est” (“tribūnus” Unit 3 111).
- haec cum dixisset, procedit extra munitiones quaque pars hostium confertissima est visa irrumpit. (DBG 5.44.4)
haec ubi dīxit Agricola, Salvius respondit īrātus, “quam caecus es! quam longē errās!” (“contentiō” Unit 3 112).
- haec ubi dicta, cavum conversa cuspide montem / impulit in latus; ac venti velut agmine facto, / qua data porta, ruunt et terras turbine perflant. (Aeneid I.81-83)
- haec ubi dicta dedit, lacrimantem et multa volentem / dicere deseruit, tenuisque recessit in auras. (Aeneid II.790-791)

quod cum audīvisset, Salvius, “ego” inquit, “nōn Cogidubnus, aureōs tibi dedī (“cēna Salviī” Unit 3 150).
- quod cum animadvertisset Caesar, scaphas longarum navium, item speculatoria navigia militibus compleri iussit, et quos laborantes conspexerat, his subsidia submittebat. (DBG 4.26.4)
Belimicus hīs verbīs perturbātus, “nimium bibistī, mī amīce,” inquit (“Belimicus rēx” Unit 3 152).
- illi repentina re perturbati, etsi ab hoste ea dicebantur, tamen non neglegenda existimabant maximeque hac re permovebantur, quod civitatem ignobilem atque humilem Eburonum sua sponte populo Romano bellum facere ausam vix erat credendum. (DBG 5.28.2)
quae cum audīvisset, Haterius adeō gaudēbat ut dē tignō paene dēcideret (“polyspaston” Unit 3 198).
- quae cum adpropinquarent Britanniae et ex castris viderentur, tanta tempestas subito coorta est ut nulla earum cursum tenere posset, sed aliae eodem unde erant profectae referrentur, aliae ad inferiorem partem insulae, quae est propius solis occasum, magno suo cum periculo deicerentur;… (DBG 4.28.2)
hīs verbīs audītīs, praecō, quī Eryllum haudquāquam amābat, magnā vōce, “Eryllus!” inquit (“salūtātiō II” Unit 3 220).
- hīs dictīs impēnsō animum flammāvit amōre / spemque dedit dubiae mentī solvitque pudōrem (Aeneid IV.54-55).
- His animum arrecti dictis et fortis Achates / et pater Aeneas iamdudum erumpere nubem / ardebant. (Aeneid I.579-581)
- quam simul ac tālī persēnsit peste tenērī / cāra Iovis coniūnx nec fāmam obstāre furōrī / tālibus adgreditur Venerem Sāturnia dictīs: (Aeneid IV.90-93).
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).
quibus verbīs sollemnibus dictīs, Pōlla postēs iānuae oleō unguit fascinātiōnis āvertendae causā (“cōnfarreātiō III” Unit 4 71).
quibus audītīs, Salvius spērāre coepit sē ē manibus accūsātōrum ēlāpsūrum esse (“cognitiō” Unit 4 105).
- quibus auditis liberaliter pollicitus hortatusque, ut in ea sententia permanerent, eos domum remittit et cum iis una Commium, quem ipse Atrebatibus superatis regem ibi constituerat, cuius et virtutem et consilium probabat, et quem sibi fidelem esse arbitrabatur, cuiusque auctoritas in his regionibus magni habebatur, mittit. (DBG 4.20.6)

And from these I have other directions to research--uses of id quod in CLC, certain types of participles (like I worked on for my paper this summer). If only I had time to do such things.

Current Mood: creative

Tags:

Overwhelmed.

labore oppressa sum.

I grew the program here so that we now have a second teacher, and she's gonna be marvelous. She has one prep--all Latin 1--a perfect way to get her used to teaching. But I have Latin 1, Latin 2, Latin 2preAP, Latin 3preAP, and AP--with all the new Caesar.

The latter is kicking my Latin 4 students' collective butt. My two natural linguists (bilingual speakers) are enjoying it, but sadly class is mainly a mad dash through the Latin. Maybe if I didn't quiz two out of 5 days (one a passage quiz, which forces them to learn small sections cold and answer grammar questions, the other an in context vocab quiz which I make up quia for)... but if I didn't do that, they probably would prepare very little.

Of course, college Latin really is only interesting and exciting because we are INTERESTED in the topic. I, for instance, totally liked the Caesar class this summer. It was truly interesting to me, interesting because I wanted to see whether all the reading theory I say I try to teach works, whether I could build up reading fluency, etc. I wish I had had the SPQR app at the time because I could have made up flashcards for myself too.

<yawn>

My preps are all a jumble, one different class after another, with next to no time to really prep for them. I prep for AP at lunch, often making warm-ups and quia vocab just in time for class. I have the students run the quia vocab drill during passing time and the first minute or two of class. There is never enough time. And I have NO IDEA why AP thinks they made the amount of reading smaller. It doesn't seem like it.

I have so much to do, like writing their first test, plus website I need to be totally revising for my friend, not to mention just daily stuff (when did I last buy groceries? when did I last eat at home?). Yeah, I'm a bit stressed.

But with all that said, I'm enjoying Caesar, and I'm enjoying forcing myself to find a way to be a better teacher for my 3 Latin 2 classes. I've always liked Latin 2 the least--the weak students who weren't going to take more than the bare minimum required would just be struggling or causing disruptions because they don't understand, the stronger students causing disruptions because they are bored....

I'm glad to have a preAP Latin 2. I haven't decided how to really make it preAP, quite honestly, but it's nice to have all the smart kids together and thus feel like I'm teaching a group that really *gets* stuff and when they want MORE stuff I can give them more. I can do more oral work with them, I can require a greater demonstration of noun/adj agreement and such.

Anyway. I don't know if anyone really reads this. I really started this blog as a place to put some of the things/rants I used to have on some of the teaching lists--about metaphrasing or quizzing in context or stuff like that. I think of things now, but never have time to write. I shouldn't be writing now. I just wanted to say, I'm still here. I'm still thinking about better ways to teach Latin (or chastising myself for not using the better ways that I learn at Rusticatio in the summer).

More later. Maybe. About some fun little things in my room this year.

Tags:

ap,
caesar

So in our Caesar class, we're supposed to write papers (of course). We could pick from these sets of words to write about:

hostis/barbarus
iubeo/impero
existimo/arbitror/duco
inductus/permotus/adductus

I think I'm going to do the last, because CLC does use permotus/adductus. CLC doesn't use inductus, but then there were only a couple of instances of this in Caesar. I'm getting my first experience in using PHI and it's been interesting. I will go back to that because I think fully understanding participles is critical to reading Caesar well, and is something that CLC does extremely well, especially in the right hands.

Admittedly, I was first fascinated by the idea that barbarus is used differently when put in the mouth of a character as opposed to when Caesar is the narrator. What interested me was the idea of whether the CLC authors might be sensitive to the same thing. So I did a little research:

Graecus dīcit, “vōs Rōmānī estis barbarī. vōs semper pugnātis.” (Stage 10 model sentences 6)
tum Quīntus rhētorī et amīcīs argūmentum explicāvit. “nōs Rōmānī sumus fortissimī. nōs barbarōs ferōcissimōs superāmus.” (Stage 10 contrōversia lines 13-15)
Salvius: Cogidubnus, nōs suspictātus, ultiōnem petit. Memor, tibi necesse est mē adiuvāre. nōs enim Rōmānī sumus, Cogidubnus barbarus. (Stage 23 Britannia perdomita lines 8-9)
Salvius: rēx Cogidubne, quid fēcistī? tū quī barbarus es, haruspicem Rōmānum dēmovēre audēs? nimium audēs! (Stage 23 Britannia perdomita lines 29-30)
“quanta perfidia!” inquit [Agricola]. “quanta īnsānia! id quod mihi patefēcistī, vix intellegere possum. īnsānīvit Cogidubnus. īnsānīvērunt prīncipēs Rēgnēnsium. numquam nōs oportet barbarīs crēdere; tutius est eōs omnēs prō hostibus habēre.” (Stage 26 in prīncipiīs lines 11-14)
Cn. Iūlius Agricola Domitiānō Imperātōrī salūtem dīcit.
septimus annus est, domine, ex quō pater tuus, dīvus Vespasiānus, ad prōvinciam Britanniam mē mīsit, barbarōs superandī causā. (Stage 37 epistula lines 1-3)
[P. Cornēlius Fuscus, praefectus praetōriō, inquit:] “scīlicet Agricola putat sē ad Britanniam missum esse ut puerōs doceat, nōn ut barbarōs superet! revocandus est Agricola et pūniendus.” (37cōnsilium Domitiānī I 45-47)
“numquam dēsinit labor,” clāmāvit Memor. “quam fessus sum! cūr ad hunc populum barbarum umquam vēnī?” (Stage 21 Lūcius Marcius Memor lines 21-22)
quam aliī, mīrābile dictū, spectāculum splendidissimum vocābant. “Imperātor noster,” inquiunt, “pater vērus patriae, gentēs barbarās iam superāvit; Germānī per viās urbis iam in triumphō dūcuntur!” (Stage 35 ex urbe lines 13-16)

Only in #6, where Agricola is merely reporting back to Rome, is barbarus used neutrally. It is clearly a sign of being an "other" in #3, 4, and definitely an inferior one at that. In #5 we have an interesting case because Agricola has used both barbarus and hostis in the same sentence. Clearly anyone can be a hostis, civilized or not, but is a barbarus totally foreign? (Of course, Agricola is saying these things after hearing/reading Salvius's report, which is full of lies, thus why he has switched from his position of neutrality.) In #2, 6, and 7 they are represented as "other" but also as an enemy to be defeated, which is perhaps not really different from #3 & 4. But what of #1? This is the first instance in CLC in which we meet this word, and it is put in the mouth of a Greek and is used to describe a Roman and their warlike tendencies. (Funny thing coming from the people who gave us the Iliad and the Trojan Horse.) Yet if truly written with care, was this included to remind us that while the Romans felt civilized because of their ability to pacify and subsume other cultures, demonstrating the manly characteristics of virtus in fighting and perhaps virtus in restraint and desire for order as well (poorly put), that to other nations like the Greeks, they looked like bullies?

In #8 and 9, the word is used adjectivally--does that make a difference? Certainly we have the same inferiority feel in #8 as we see in #3 & 4. And #9 is more like 2, 6, & 7.

We have not talked much about hostis in the Caesar class (yet?), but perhaps it would be worth searching PHI to see... Here are the CLC instances of hostis:

adsunt mīlitēs, ab hostibus vulnerātī. (Stage 21 Lūcius Marcius Memor lines 18-19)
Vilbia: minimē! est vir maximae virtūtis. ōlim tria mīlia hostium occīdit. (Stage 22 Vilbia lines 19-20)
“venēnum,” inquit [vir callidissimus], “Belimicō, hostī īnfestō, aptissimum est.” (28 in aulā Salviī line 21)
intereā dux hostium, Lūcius Flāvius Silva, rūpem castellīs multīs circumvēnit. (29 Masada I lines 32-33)
“multī hostēs periērunt. paucī effūgērunt.” Agricola dīcit multōs hostēs periisse, paucōs effūgisse. (37 model sentences 2)
hostēs, adventū nostrō cognitō, prope montem Graupium sē ad proelium īnstrūxērunt. spē glōriae adductī, victōriam nōmine tuō dignam rettulērunt. nōn satis cōnstat quot hostēs perierint; scio tamen paucissimōs effūgisse. (37 epistula 9-13)
tum Messālīnus, simulatque haec Epaphrodītī verba audīvit, occāsiōne ūsus, “satis cōnstat,” inquit, “nūllōs hostēs ferōciōrēs Germānīs esse, nūllum ducem Domitiānō Augustō esse meliōrem.” (37 cōnsilium Domitiānī II 12-16)

In none of these does there seem to be any connotation or judgment when using the word hostis. (I'm assuming we'll find the same in Caesar.) An enemy is an enemy--the one you want dead. In the case of #3, this is about Belimicus, the British chieftain of the Cantiaci, who had been helping Salvius achieve his domination of the local British tribes. But once Belimicus wanted too much, he became a hostis too. And I'm sure in Salvius' mind he will always be barbarus--whether amicus or inimicus.

Hmmmmm. Why isn't inimicus a word we are checking??? Well that thought is for another time.

Tags:

OK, so day 2 of Andrew Riggsby's Caesar course at UT is done. And I've been biking to class so I'm totally wiped out now. But while riding I'm filtering through lots of thoughts, of things I want to do with my AP class, materials I want to make, details I want to pay even closer attention to in CLC, etc. I haven't organized my thoughts though I've been trying to. Perhaps it would be better if I just ramble on a bit.

First, I am keenly aware of how much I've grown as a reader of Latin. The class has mixed abilities, though a pretty able group. The things that get missed and are tripping people up are the same sorts of things I had problems with as an undergrad all those years ago. I swear that Dexter Hoyos's book _Latin: How to Read it Fluently_ (http://www.canepress.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=186) made such an extraordinary difference in my ability to read Latin, truly READ Latin. I am totally enjoying watching Caesar's Latin just unfold before me. There are some new patterns and idioms to learn, to be sure. There are things that perhaps I should l know (and perhaps once knew) that I'm picking up. But for the most part, this is enjoyable.

Second, I am once again reassured that I couldn't have a better textbook for my students than the Cambridge Latin Course. Both vocabulary choices, phrasing, the approach to teaching participles, the introduction of qui connectives, etc, all seems geared towards Caesar. And perhaps it was--I'm sure Caesar and Vergil were probably the authors for A & O levels in England back in the day.

Third, understanding, as I do from Hoyos, that things in a narrative happen in the order presented. We had a perfect sentence today that illustrated this and it totally made sense to me:

Helvetii ea spe deiecti navibus iunctis ratibusque compluribus factis, alii vadis Rhodani, qua minima altitudo fluminis erat, non numquam interdiu, saepius noctu si perrumpere possent conati, operis munitione et militum concursu et telis repulsi, hoc conatu destiterunt.

Who cares how long it took to get the main verb? Who cares how many participles there were? But everything happened in that order and it should and can be read that way. What I did learn today was that ea spe is an ablative of separation with deiecti. I should have probably known that or figured it out. It's certainly in CLC enough. I think I'll hunt it down now and see how it is used and defined first. I've always said "dejected by this hope" but knew that sounded awkward. Duh. But even "dejected/downcase from this hope" still sounds off. I *understand* what it means, I'm just not coming up with the best English. But that's the fault of English, not the Latin.

I guess I better start doing my homework soon. Must set up our FB study group first. At least I feel like I've finally recovered from my ride home!

Tags:

Syndicate

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Style Credit

Style: Elegant Notebook for Gold Leaf by rosecarmine
Resources: Yusuke Kamiyamane and Atle Mo