ginlindzey

My son likes to play Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and honestly I like this game the most of all the ones he plays. The backgrounds are beautifully drawn, storyline isn't bad, the quests are varied, creatures fun, and the music is pleasant enough. Oh, and there's no cussing. My son, who is autistic, constantly demands for me to watch, even though usually I'm usually working on something or grading something while he's playing. At least I'm hanging in the room and we are discussing what's going on in the storyline.

So earlier today I was reading through the early years of this blog, tagging entries as I look for things I've written in the past regarding reading methodologies, and decided that I needed a break. I had read several posts that talked about playing cards so I guess it was on the mind. Thus I grabbed my son's RWBY deck, shuffled (miscere, pontem facere, miscere, pontem facere), then counted out cards in Latin as I set up a round of solitaire the old fashioned way. So I'm working on *thinking* in Latin, and look up occasionally to watch what Link is doing on the screen, and reply to my son's comments and questions... but I'm doing it in Latin. He knows a few Latin phrases and in fact likes to bark "tace, ancilla!" at me.  So I'm having fun, counting monstra which are being killed, gemmae collected, etc.  He's alternating between "tace, ancilla" and "mom, stop" but I'm having fun and he's not really irritated with me.

Then he gets to this screen where Link's in wolf mode (lupus) and is picked up by an avis monstruosa and flies over river where all of these balloon fruit are flying which need to be popped to score points. And I thought to myself, hey, I'm supposed to be finding activities that would be high interest for students--why not find a way to use games? In particular, I was thinking earlier today that I need to find engaging homework activities since we are moving to block scheduling next year. (That is, I want them to have a reason to engage in the language every day.)  I had been brainstorming about how to motivate students to use Latin outside of class. We use Google Classroom to tremendous effect this past year and I had been thinking I would just make it work even better this coming year by posting things of high interest with maybe some sort of google doc/survey/quiz thingy that could be entered online.



So consider the above videoclip from the game which I found on YouTube (because, ya know, everything's on YouTube). I was thinking about teaching numbers which I like to do early in the year. It's always something easy to circle in with other things. Numbers take practice and you need things to count.  Why not count these fraga (strawberries), melones cantalupenses, & melones aquosi? Link also goes through several waterfalls (cataractae)--count them too.  Challenge students to find other game clips to post back to the Google Classroom page to challenge others to count items.  Later on, when more vocab /structures are acquired, this videoclip could be viewed again to discuss colors or to do a movie talk or something.

Games!  Why not/quidni? And let's be honest--where else outside of the writings of Romans would you find as much killing as there is in video games? Finally, a place to put all of the killing and weapon vocabulary to use. I was having so much fun saying things to my son like, " tu monstrum necavisti et, ecce, SAGITTAE!" because, ya know, he killed this monster and then a bundle of arrows appeared. Link had to quest to acquire the gladius domini (master sword, for those who don't play the game). Midna appears first as Link's umbra before taking shape. And, heck, did I mention Link turns into a wolf? How Roman is that?!

Anyway, just some random thoughts.

[This was first posted to the Cambridge Latin Course list. FYI]

So I probably only have a couple more of these grammar quests to go after this one. I know we have gotten several new members to the CLC list since I began, so let me reiterate that I’m not doing this because I think CLC needs to “teach more grammar,” but rather that all the grammar we need is really included in CLC.  CLC is our toolbox, we are the master craftsmen/women.  I have taught from CLC for over 15 years now and I am still learning nuances about the Latin language from the text—I am still discovering new tools down at the bottom of the box.  I am clarifying my own understanding of some constructions, and perhaps I am suggesting that some grammar constructs at least be mentioned in the Language Information section at the back of the textbook. But most of all, *I* want to get really good at using those tools myself, in the spoken Latin that I use in class or may write in a story or whatever. (In my opinion there’s nothing worse than seeing teacher-written stories with bad grammar or phrasing! But I’m sure none of us has ever done that!!!!)

For me, it’s not about identifying grammar.  And early on in Latin 1 I may not even use such terms as “direct object” because I know that too many kids turn off their brains because they hear “grammar” and assume they are bad at grammar. However, I would like for my students to have a clear understanding of constructions, whether I call it by grammatical terms or not, so that when they see it in context they can move smoothly through a sentence.  I teach a lot of phrasing, a lot of reading-in-word-order techniques, etc. We do not decode, we do not hunt the verb. We learn to build expectations which help us to disambiguate function/cases more easily.  That is, in a sentence like mīlites Agricolam castra intrantem vīdērunt, not only do we see Agricolam castra intrantem as a unit, but that castra has to be accusative because it is with the present participle and nested inside the noun/participle unit. Nominative is never an option. But I digress…

***

There are only a handful of examples of what we should call the Genitive of Indefinite Price or Value in the text through Stage 40. I don’t believe it’s ever addressed in an About the Language section (doesn’t warrant it), but it is in the Language Information section for Units 3 & 4 as the last item under the uses of cases for the genitive:

4. Another use is the genitive of indefinite price or value:
id minimī momentī est.
That is of very little importance.

I had been thinking that perhaps other phrases fell under the concept of “indefinite price or value” so I wanted more information.  So here is what the grammarians say:

Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar talks about it under the Genitive of Quality, which we (or CLC) called Description:
345. The Genitive is used to denote Quality, but only when the quality is modified by an adjective:
·         vir summae virtūtis, a man of the highest courage. [But not vir virtūtis.]
·         magnae est deliberātiōnis, it is an affair of great deliberation.
·         magnī formica labōris, the ant [a creature] of great toil
·         ille autem suī iūdicī, but he [a man] of independent (his own) judgement
417. Certain adjectives of quantity are used in the Genitive to denote indefinite value. Such are magnī, parvī, tantī, quantī…

[Bennett’s New Latin Grammar doesn’t even mention it or have any examples like it. I suppose that’s because it considers it to be under the umbrella of the Genitive of Quantity (CLC’s Genitive of Description).]

Gildersleeve and Lodge, Genitive with Verbs of Rating & Buying, p 243ff
379. Verbs of Rating and Buying are construed with the Genitive of the general value or cost, and the Ablative of the particular value or cost.
Verbs of Rating are: aestimāre, exīstimāre (rare), to value; putāre, to reckon; dūcere (rare in Cicero), to take; habēre, to hold; pendere (mostly in Comedy), to weigh; facere, to make, put; esse, to be (worth); fierī, to be considered.
Verbs of Buying are: emere, to buy; vēndere, to sell; vēnīre, to be for sale; stāre and cōnstāre, to cost, to come to; prōstāre, licēre, to be exposed, left (for sale); condūcere, to hire; locāre, to let.
380. 1. Verbs of Rating take:
magnī, much; plūris, more; plūrimī, maximī, most
parvī, little; minōris, less; minimī, least
tantī, tantīdem, so much; quantī (and compounds), how much; nihilī, naught
Equivalents of nihilī, nothing, are floccī, a lock of wool, naucī, a trifle, assis, a copper, pilī…and so also huius, that (a snap of the finger), all usually with the negative.
Remarks: tantī is often used in the sense of operae pretium est = it is worth while.

Hale and Buck, Genitive of Value or Price, p 189
356. Indefinite Value or Price* may be expressed by the Genitive of:
1.      Certain Adjectives, especially tantī, quantī, magnī, parvī; plūris, minōris; plūrimī, maximī, minimī.
2.      Certain Substantives not used with serious meaning, especially nihilī, zero¸naucī, a peascod, assis, a copper, floccī, a straw, pilī, a hair, huius, that much (snap of the finger).
haec nōlī putāre parvī, don’t reckon these things of small account; nōlī spectāre quantī homō sit; parvī enim pretī est quī tam nihilī est, don’t consider how much the fellow is worth, for he is of little value who is so worthless; (Note the parallel expressions parvī pretī, quantī, and nihilī.); nōn habeō naucī Marsum augurem, I don’t care a peascod for a Marsian augur.
* The principal verbs with which the construction is used are est, aestimō and exīstimō, putō, habeō, dūcō, faciō, pendō, emō, redimō, vēndō, and vēneō. Aestimō with this construction is rare before Cicero; exīstimō is always rare with it.

***
The following are all of the examples of the Genitive of Indefinite Price/Value which I could find through Stage 40. I have left highlights in (as I did above) so you can see the notes I made to myself.

·         18  praesidium tuum operāsque tuās floccī nōn faciō.
*first use “I don’t give a hoot about”
·         19  uxōrem fīliamque floccī nōn facis.
·         21  Britannōs etiam minōris pretiī habeō.
* “I care even less about”
·         21  “es homō magnae stultitiae,” respondit Memor. “aegrōtōs floccī nōn faciō.”
·         22  id minimī mōmentī est, quod in tenebrīs sumus.
*that seems very similar to Latrō being minimae prūdentiae earlier in the stage; it looks like Gen of Description—is there overlap??
·         22  Vilbia, tamen, quae pulchrae et obstināta erat, patrem floccī nōn faciēbat.
·         22  Vilbiam floccī nōn faciō.
·         33  illum psittacum Domitiānī floccī nōn faciō.
·         36  ignōscās petimus, Vacerra: tantī / nōn est, ut placeam tibī, perīre.
·         38  scīlicet dīvitiīs Sparsī corrupta es; amōrem meum floccī nōn facis.

There are ten examples here; 7 are floccī nōn faciō which we are told is the equivalent of “I don’t give a hoot.” I confess, depending upon the class (and especially when the phrase occurs in a story we read in Latin 3) that I sometimes say it means “I don’t give a rat’s ass.”  Before you think me too crude (for school as a professional), I use that phrase because it makes as much sense as “I don’t make (anything) of a lock of wool.” It’s a fun phrase, floccī nōn faciō, and honestly understanding the grammar of it does absolutely nothing for me thus I doubt I would mention it to students unless asked, and even then I’m not sure it’s worth explaining.

In Stage 21 we do have Memor say, “Britannōs etiam minōris pretiī habeo.” The book gives “I care even less about,” which is fine, but it is also, I believe, the only example of pretium in the stage and it is a vocabulary item. So for me, this is the sentence that I want to use on the vocabulary quiz, so I explain the phrase more fully as “I hold of less value/worth.” I have never explained the type of genitive, and probably still won’t, because “of” serves so well. Then again, it wouldn’t hurt to mention our idiom of something to be “of value” and note that it’s not really possession.  Unless you want to say that it possesses value… so maybe.

In Stage 22 we get another great phrase which I wish showed up more: id minimī mōmentī est, quod in tenebrīs sumus. (Like it is truly of the least importance that Gutta has a beard when dressing up as Vilbia!)  I had made a note to myself (see above) about this being so similar to the Genitive of Description (vir minimae prūdentiae) and I probably just considered it as such and never thought twice about it. Of course, now I can see how it is a Genitive of Indefinite Price or Value AND why I thought it was like Genitive of Description (see grammarians above—especially Allen and Greenough plus Bennett). And maybe, since it is Stage 22 where the About the Language section explains Genitive of Description and Partitive Genitives (without calling it that), it would be worth a discussion of the other types of genitives seen so far (not necessarily by name). I can see throwing id minimī mōmentī est and Britannōs etiam minōris pretiī habeō and maybe even floccī nōn faciō up on the screen to see what they would make of them. It is certainly important that they think more broadly about how ideas are expressed in different languages, and this might lead to an interesting discussion.

Or if the discussion isn’t worth the time, you can start working certain expressions into your oral Latin more in class. For instance, I have decided that I’m going to start using id minimī mōmentī est more myself, like when students whine about too many tests on the same day or too much homework from other classes—“id minimī mōmentī est!” And I’m guessing I could use the opposite to say something is very important: id maximī mōmentī est. (But I perhaps I should check to see if that was really used….)

In Stage 36 we get the important one: tantī / nōn est, ut placeam tibī, perīre. I feel like my students and I move through some of the longer epigrams, like this one, too quickly.  Looking at it now makes me realize that this would be an ideal time to pause and discuss the different ways tantum is used—tantum = only, tantus, a, um + ut = so great that (result clause), and now here, tantī est = it is worthwhile (it is of such great value).  (Hmmm… are there others we could include here?) In any event, tantī est is, no pun intended, worthwhile for students to know. So even if we don’t explain what’s going on with the grammar, just having the discussion and maybe, like with id minimī mōmentī est, working it into our oral repertoire will help students to internalize the idiom.

Now, in all honesty, I had been thinking that the following were Genitive of Indefinite Price/Value in one way or another, but realize now that the genitive is functioning differently. Here are first two:

·         30  prō agellō tuō igitur sēstertium vīciēns tibi offerō.
·         30  mē iuvat igitur sēstertium tantum trīciēns ā tē accipere.

The phrases sēstertium vīciēns (2 million) and sēstertium trīciēns (3 million) are simply glossed in the text.  I was thinking that sēstertium was a genitive at first, then realize that it was an accusative, and then was really confused. Luckily, Anne Mahoney from the Latin Best Practices list gave me the answer:

A sestertius is a coin, worth 2 1/2 asses (and the abbreviation HS is
IIS, II et Semis, with a horizontal line through the middle, like the
extra horizontal line in the E for "euro").

Sestertium is the genitive plural (the really old form, like deum rather
than deorum), and mille is understood. So you'd expect "tria millia
sestertium" = 3,000 HS (tria millia sestertiorum), but you actually have
"tria sestertium" -- but that looks funny, so the Romans started making
"sestertia" agree with "tria," giving us a new word "sestertium," neuter
singular, meaning a thousand sestertii.

But THEN, when you use a number ADVERB instead of a regular adjective,
the rule is that it's not 1,000 but 100,000 that's understood. So "ter
sestertium" (*or* "ter sestertia") = ter centena milia sestertiorum =
300,000 HS. And vicies sestertium = 20 x 100 x 1000 HS = 2,000,000
(that is, two million, not twenty million).

Why the adverbs go with hundred-thousands is NOT OBVIOUS AT ALL. This
is one of those points that argues against the view of the Romans as
"logical" and "hyper-rational"!!!

For reference, Allen and Greenough sections 633-634 and the Vicipaedia
article Sestertius, https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestertius (the
English one doesn't go into this).

FINE.  I am happy to accept the glossed meaning and move on. I will never think twice about these two again!

The other set of genitives that I thought might have been Genitive of Indefinite Price/Value were these:

·         24  “cibum sex diērum tantum parāvī,” inquit susurrāns.
·         24  mox regressus, cibum sex diērum Quīntō et Dumnorigī trādidit.
·         37  mīsitne tribūtum septem annōrum ad aerārium? minimē!

I thought, you know, that cibum sex diērum was literally “food of six days worth” or something, thus it’s a value thing.  Now, of course, I realize it’s another type of Genitive most likely, one I will be writing about tomorrow: the Objective Genitive, which often uses the word “for” and NOT “of”—food for 6 days.  But more on that later. I’m just happy that I understand these three phrases more clearly for what they are and the Genitive of Indefinite Price or Value for what it is.