A BRIEF NOTE ON ACCENTS:

A BRIEF NOTE ON ACCENTS:

W.S. Allen, in his “Vox Latina”, dismisses the idea that Latin had a pitch accent, despite the description of this accent in great detail by a number of Roman grammarians writing prior to the fourth century AD. Allen states that the accent is “a minor detail of the Greek”. This would be like saying that the musical accent of Italian was “ a minor detail of Italian”. In fact, the survival of the pitch accent, albeit in modified form, in Italian, Catalan and Sardinian, provides evidence that educated Romans adopted it into their Latin. Cicero himself speaks of the musicality of Latin, likening Spoken Latin to a form of singing. Further evidence exists in the adoption of the tonal accent into Hebrew recitiation. Indeed, the Jews adopted the Greek system, including the method for manually marking the tones. (Manuum variis motibus altitudinem, depressionem, flexus vocis significabant) Talmudic texts were printed with accents for this tonal singing, until well into the mediaeval period. This accent has similarities to the Greek accent , and probably developed in imitation of the Greek recitation of the Laws to a chanted tune.

Bennet, along with David (see below), both of whom I regard as authoritative on this matter, come down in favour of the "Greek" accent. Herman and Wright in “Vulgar Latin” also hold the view that the accent in Classical times was a tone accent (pg 36).

One major plank of the argument regarding Classical Latin and tone versus stress, (Vulgar Latin, J Herman) is defeated by Hungarian, which “has a very strong stress accent involving intensity, while at the same time a whole operating system of vowels based on distinctions in length”.

In other words, a clear strong stress accent and a vowel system based on phonological length distinctions are not ipso facto incompatible. Yet one hears this recited again and again by Classicists, educated linguists and laymen alike, so often has this notion been repeated, that is has taken on authority simply by dint of repition. I am not sure with which linguists this canard arose – for canard it surely is. There is no empirical scientific evidence for this opinion, only evidence that weighs against.

Classical Latin had both a stress accent, with tonal differentiation, and vowel length distinctions. Earlier Roman Grammarians assert quite explicitly that Latin used a tonal accent, similar to the Greek, and only from the fourth century onward to Roman grammarians talk about relative loudness, as opposed to pitch. (pg 36 Vulgar Latin, J. Herman & R. Wright, 2000, Penn State Press.)

The question of the nature of the Classical Latin accent was initially argued for cogently in English by Abbott, in his paper “The Accent in Vulgar and Formal Latin” (Classical Philology, II ppp 444 ff). Abbott held the view that the accent of the common people continued to be one of stress, but educated Romans developed an accent in which pitch predominated. This view is reasonable enough, when we consider to what extend Roman literature is based on the Greek. Also, educated Romans spoke Greek, with its pitch accent. This view is also supported by R.G. Kent ( Transactions of the American Philological Association, LI, pp19 ff), and Turner (Classical Review, 1912, pp147 ff).

Kent writes “In the middle of the second century BC the Greek teachers of the Roman youth set a fashion of speaking Latin with a pitch accent, for as Greeks they kept this peculiarity of their mother tongue when they learned Latin. From that time on, Latin was spoken with a pitch accent by the highly educated class, while the general populace retained the stress accent” (quoted on pg 55 of “Accentual Change and Language Contact” J. Salmons, 1992, Routledge.

Another recent study in support of the Pitch accent, is “The Non-European and Semitic Languages”, Saul Levin, SUNY Press, pg 236 ff

“ The ancient grammarians say clearly that the accent of Latin is either acute or circumflex, and they describe it just like Greek. In many details the distributions of acute and circumflex [between the Latin and Greek] agrees remarkably.”.

Levin continues to say “ Some in modern times have wrongly doubted, or rejected altogether, the testimony of the Roman Grammarians about accent. But since Latin literature conforms to the syllabification and vowel quantity of Greek, the literary language of Rome can hardly have failed to employ a pitch accent compatible with such versification and prose rhythm.” He then says even more emphatically, “ It will not do to dismiss the Latin pitch accent as an artificial imitation of Greek. The most classical Latin, the kind most thoroughly described in our sources, is the most thoroughly Hellenized. If Latin was ever free from Greek influence in some prehistoric time, that Latin is unknown to us, and to reconstruct it, be peeling off what we may label the literary, Hellenizing features, is a fantasy……..Admitting that there was a raised pitch does not conflict with the stress which undoubtedly was present in early Latin.”

See also the seminal work of J. Vendryes, “recherches sur l’histoire et les effets de l’intensite initiale en latin” (Paris 1902), which is quoted by Bennett.

“New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin” Andrew Sihler 1995, OUP , pg 241 also argues in favour of the pitched accent.

“ Roman Grammarians, down to the 4^th C AD, describe the Latin accent in terms only appropriate for a pitch accent. Scholars have been wary as taking this as cogent, however, as not only is the terminology of Roman Grammarians taken over entire from Greek, their statements are often cribbed from Greek sources. Some scholars protest, however, that ancient authorities could hardly have thus identified Greek and Latin accent had there not been at least an appreciable element of pitch in the latter….The familiarity of educated Romans with Greek accent in both practice and theory probably would not have caused them to adopt an element of accent wholly irrelevant for their natural speech, but could have made them more aware of an existing element of pitch, and even to a studied enhancement of it – Latin with a Greek accent, if you will, in oratory or recitations of poetry”

Pulgram 1975, pg 116, quoted in “From Latin to Spanish”, Paul M Lloyd, Diane Publishing, 1987, argues that speakers of Classical Latin adopted the Greek pitch accent, and certainly made an effort to adopt it on formal occasions, if not in general speech.

“A New Theory of the Greek Accent” A.P. David, Oxford University Press, 2006 pg 76-7 is the most recent, and authoritative of the new school of scholars who promote the view that the original statements of Quintillian, etc, are accurate descriptions of Latin as it was spoken. Here is Davis' argument:

“It is also possible that Greek forms with an acute on the antepenult are a product of the reflex described in Vendryes’ Law, if the Latin penult in these words was heard to be pronounced with a circumflex.

Might there have been such a contonation in Latin? A simple synchronic picture, which accords with the traditional account, emerges if we assume a contonation. We are informed by a recent commentator that “ Roman Grammarians, down to the 4^th century, describe L[atin] accent in terms appropriate only for a pitch accent” (quoting A.Sihler, see above, pg 241).

Modern scholars, however, tend to see a sort of ‘Greek envy’ in this native description and to be dismissive. But if we frame the new rule for Latin in terms of a recessive contonation, where the voice was required where possible to rise two morae before the ultima – without, in the case of this language, any stipulation as to the quantity of the ultima – the traditional stress rules for polysyllabic words in Latin automatically follow, if the combination of pitch and quantity worked in the way that I have described for Greek. A long penult, with two morae, containing the rise combined with the Latin version of the svarita, would produce a circumflex on the penult (amIcus); [circumflex on the capitalised I] while a short penult (of one mora) would cause the rise to revert back to one mora to the antepenult, producing the Latin acute with a deemphasised svarita (facilis).

In making an authoritative correction, Quintillian actually points to this recessive rule. Discussing errors in accentuation, he cites CethEgus [circumflex on the capitalised E] as properly having a flex on the penult (Institutio Oratorio 1.5):the common error was to pronounce the penult grace in this word instead of circumflex, which apparently rendered the penult short. (A circumflex requires two morae). He implies that this change in the quantity of the penult necessitates an acute first syllable (Cethegus) [with acute on the first e] – an erroneous pronunciation, but one which conforms to the proposed rule. The Latin accent was a recessive contonation, a rise and fall, where the rise occurred, wherever possible, on the second mora before the ultima.”

The most recent writer to put forward a theory on this subject, is A.P. David, who gives sound reasoning for dismissing W.S. Allen’s ill-supported view.

“A New Theory of the Greek Accent” A.P. David, Oxford University Press, 2006 pg 76-7

“It is also possible that Greek forms with an acute on the antepenult are a product of the reflex described in Vendryes’ Law, if the Latin penult in these words was heard to be pronounced with a circumflex.

Might there have been such a contonation in Latin? A simple synchronic picture, which accords with the traditional account, emerges if we assume a contonation. We are informed by a recent commentator that “ Roman Grammarians, down to the 4^th century, describe L[atin] accent in terms appropriate only for a pitch accent” (quoting A.Sihler, see above, pg 241).

Modern scholars, however, tend to see a sort of ‘Greek envy’ in this native description and to be dismissive. But if we frame the new rule for Latin in terms of a recessive contonation, where the voice was required where possible to rise two morae before the ultima – without, in the case of this language, any stipulation as to the quantity of the ultima – the traditional stress rules for polysyllabic words in Latin automatically follow, if the combination of pitch and quantity worked in the way that I have described for Greek. A long penult, with two morae, containing the rise combined with the Latin version of the svarita, would produce a circumflex on the penult (amîcus); [circumflex on the capitalised I] while a short penult (of one mora) would cause the rise to revert back to one mora to the antepenult, producing the Latin acute with a deemphasised svarita (facilis).

In making an authoritative correction, Quintillian actually points to this recessive rule. Discussing errors in accentuation, he cites Cethêgus [circumflex on the capitalised E] as properly having a flex on the penult (Institutio Oratorio 1.5):the common error was to pronounce the penult grace in this word instead of circumflex, which apparently rendered the penult short. (A circumflex requires two morae). He implies that this change in the quantity of the penult necessitates an acute first syllable (Cethegus) [with acute on the first e] – an erroneous pronunciation, but one which conforms to the proposed rule. The Latin accent was a recessive contonation, a rise and fall, where the rise occurred, wherever possible, on the second mora before the ultima.”

As a final point, I would like to note, that one reason why one seldom hears Latin declaimed with this accent, is that one seldom hears Classical Greek spoken with it, even though there is not even a sliver of doubt that Classical Greek was spoken with a pitch accent. Current practice, however, is not necessarily a guide to good practice, and I would advocate the use of the tonal accent, for purely pedagogical reasons – it makes Latin more intelligible, and also makes clearer distinctions between stressed and unstressed, unaccented and accented syllables, and long and short vowels.

In monosyllables, vowels that are long take the circumflex, and vowels that are short take the acute.

árs	flôs
fáx	spês
párs	môns

Polysyllables take the circumflex accent when the penult is long by nature (This simply means that it has a long vowel, see above), and the final vowel is short. A circumflex can only appear over a syllable with a long vowel.

jûrĭs lûcĕ mûsă spînă

The circumflex accent is thought to have has a slight up-down tone, the acute a straightforward upwards tone. Final unaccented syllables had a slight falling tone. (This is called the grave accent, but this is not written, it is simply understood to be there.)

These accents were applied by the Romans in imitation of the Greeks, and may have been used when reciting poetry and during orations.

Learning Latin

Learning Latin

by Alex Sheremet

"Wheelock's Latin" is perhaps the best conservative book of its type -- that is, it's the best of grammar-before-understanding Latin textbooks, and it shows. It thoroughly explains the grammar in ways most college textbooks don't, and it has plenty of selections from the original authors, which, if quickly understood, helps build enthusiasm: "Look, Mom! After 1/2 an hour of sweating, I finally understand these three sentences!" Moreover, there are additional readings in the back, in case you'd like to test (or brush up on) your knowledge of mechanical decoding.

But, that's where the fun ends. I used this book in a summer intensive course, and loved it. We finished most of in 8 weeks, and I, too, was pretty confident like the hypothetical student above. Soon, though, I noticed that learning Latin felt unnatural. After a semester of prose, we moved on to Ovid, and something became clear: I wasn't "reading," but decoding.. Wheelock and subsequent instruction trained me to do exactly that.

Decoding -- it's when a student looks at a sentence, and hunts: there's a noun, there's the adjective, but, they're in different cases; oh, the adjective probably goes with this noun, then. Verb, adverb, subject.. and, ECCE! Puzzle solved.

Is this reading? Why are students of German, or Russian (a more difficult language, by the way) able to build the kind of proficiency in 2 years that many 5-year students of Latin only daydream about? The difference is in the approach: German and Russian are taught as languages, while Latin is usually taught as a synthetic, mechanical puzzle. And, don't try to say that German and Russian are still spoken -- that's not an excuse, considering that it's possible to at least approximate Latin fluency by constructing artificial social situations: audio, continuous prose composition at very early levels and beyond, and exposure to low-level readings.

Wheelock does not help this problem. Instead, Wheelock does the following: he gives you a great grammatical introduction, and then throws sentences at you, which you either translate into English or into Latin. These exercises are graded by difficulty, but there's no continuous reading.. there's no introduction of "baby prose," of substantial narrative-nuggets that might get the student thinking in Latin, and thinking of Latin *as* Latin -- that is, as an individual language, one that should not be forced into an Anglicized word order, or puzzled out, piece by piece.

Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with the above if it's immediately followed by a different approach. But, Wheelock is not designed with an alternative in mind -- high schools and colleges start you with Wheelock, and then throw you into advanced prose or poetry. There is no side-step, or, even more helpful, a step back.

Students that are just starting out, like me, at one time, don't realize the following: they will never learn to read Latin properly with such an approach. Sure, they may learn to read Latin properly if they do something on their own *in conjunction* with typical formal instruction, but, I suspect the formal approach then becomes a burden, a distraction from the student's "real work."

Obviously, that's a problem.. the student never really gets used to Latin word order, among other things, because he's never around enough of it in quick, digestible chunks. Moreover, if he never practices generating Latin quickly and proficiently, there will always be a barrier between the original Latin text and his true abilities, especially in terms of reading speed. Although we have only a tiny portion of original Latin literature extant, it's pretty much inconceivable for a student to ever get through those works in his entire lifetime, if, that is, he never leaves the Wheelock approach.

Instead, I'd recommend Orberg's "Lingua Latina." It's an excellent book designed for Latin fluency, if used in conjunction with other materials. It's all written in Latin, as one continuous narrative broken into different scenes and chapters. Although it starts out very simple, it moves up to real sophistication, but slowly enough that, with a little patience and review, the student is reading the final chapters (which approximate unadapted Latin, by the way) at a respectable speed, and only sometimes hunting for objects, subjects, etc., in some of the more difficult or unclear sentences. At the end of the first chapter, you will have done several pages of solid reading, which might be more reading than in all of Wheelock's chapters combined. Interestingly, your reading speed, while it will decrease as you move on to the harder stuff, won't decrease significantly. And eventually, you can get it back, and move beyond your initial stages.

I'd also recommend Adler's "Practical Latin Grammar," which is out of print, but nonetheless available on Google Books. Adler's textbook is especially good as a supplement to "Lingua Latina," since it eventually covers every important point of grammar, including complex subordination. It's focused on *conversational* Latin, which forces the student to generate and verbalize good Latin sentences from the very beginning. The entire book has been rendered into audio on Evan Millner's "Latinum Podcast" site, which -- at least a few hundred hours worth, if not more -- is available for free. In this way, you're doing two things: you're practicing complex prose with proper reading skills with Orberg's book, and practicing listening and speaking Latin with Adler and Millner.

An article criticizing the typical Latin-teaching approaches mentioned something interesting and revealing: in the Renaissance, students were first taught conversational Latin for five or six years before ever cracking open some Caesar or Cicero. And only years later, perhaps, did they ever touch poetry. Doesn't this seem sensible? To truly understand a language, or even to simply be competent enough to read at a decent speed, from the start of a sentence to the end, without juggling endless case endings and objects in your mind, requires this kind of approach. Sure, if you're doing Latin academically, there may be no time -- you're expected to have decoded at least a couple of hundred of pages of Latin by the time you hit your Ph.D. stage, in some schools. But, if you're interested in doing well and improving every day, and visibly, for that matter, forget about Latin literature for as long as you can tolerate it, and start with the basics: easy reading, and conversation.

And it's not all bad: I'm glad I did Wheelock, because "Lingua Latina" was much easier for me, given the vocabulary and abstract grammatical knowledge I had. So, if you're completing Wheelock now, or about to start it, consider it preparation for what comes ahead.

For more information, read William Dowling's homepage -- a fluent reader of Latin, he first turned me on to this "natural method" of language acquisition. He doesn't accept e-mails, but you can write some snail mail to him, as I did:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~wcd/Latin.htm

by Alex Sheremet

Latin is extremely useful.

Latin is extremely useful. One major advantage it has, its its grammatical regularity, and its clarity and beauty. Also, the reason it has survived so long, is that a great literature exists written in it, and learning Latin to have access to this literature is well worth the effort.
Thousands of people allover the world learn Latin, even people who have to struggle to do so in places where there are no formal Latin programmes. Many use the Latinum podcast’s free lessons.
The Latinum podcast now has over 50 lessons online, each lesson is composed of several individual episodes comprising:
a. grammar
b. English-Latin conversational dialogue (question and answer)
c. Repetition of the same short dialogues in Latin only, first with pauses, then again more quickly.

There are already thousands of regular users of the lessons, located all over the world. The clickable map on Latinum’s home page gives an insight into where in the world people are studying and listening to Latin.

If you cannot attend an actual Latin class, (and even if you can) then Latinum’s lessons, and extensive vocabulary learning resources, classical text readings, etc, will be an invaluable resource.
Many established Latin programmes, including schools and universities, are also now directing their students to it.
With over 1,300,000 lessons downloaded to date, this is the largest single Latin programme available.
http://latinum.mypodcast.com

Also, if you want to build up your vocabulary and you are a visual learner, then there is an ever growing resource of visual learning aids on Schola.
http://schola.ning.com

You need to sign in, and visit the photographiae section.

Here you will find over 2 800 photographs of objects, with the latin word for the object written on it.
Some also have basic phrases, introducing related verbs. Everyday objects are included as well, such as furniture, crockery and cutlery, transport, boats, etc.
There are also images related to learning greetings and salutations.

This resource is constantly expanding, and anyone serious about learning Latin will find it useful

All of the above resources are free of charge

My 12 year old son started Latin this year

Dear Evan,

My 12 year old son started Latin this year and I’d like to join him on his journey – most likely he’ll be helping me rather than me helping him. I started downloading your Latinum podcasts in the hope they also will help get me started.

The “My first/second/third/fourth Latin Lesson” series was an excellent help and I understood everything. I also find the vocab podcasts extremely helpful and enjoyable to listen to. However, the jump in level between these and the grammar, even the first Adler lesson, Pensum Alterum, I couldn’t cope with!

For me, the material went from simple English examples straight into “words whose genitive end in i” – which, when it comes to Latin, says very little to me. I speak fluent German and am very familiar with cases. Despite this, I’m having a lot of difficulty finding a way to get from “Venus Martium amat” to the first Latin declension, with five or six cases, of words whose genitive ends in i. In Latin, I don’t have enough base knowledge to be able to link things together, but I also don’t know what knowledge is missing!

Your help would be greatly appreciated! What do I need to do to make the jump – I’m a little frustrated at the moment, but I don’t give up easily.

If the upload times of the podcasts are anything to go by, then you also work till the wee hours on a regular basis - hope you find time to answer.

Thanks for your help,

Adler is divided into three sections - each lesson has part a b and c.
Part A is almost exclusively grammar. In the first parts of the first episodes, I do go into great detail about nouns, far more detail than is necessary in the beginning, perhaps.

If you look here http://www.e.millner.btinternet.co.uk/languages/Latingrammar.html
I have made some grammar tables that might be useful, especially if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, where I have made some tables that I personally found very useful, but have yet to see presented in this form in any grammar textbook.

Let me know if these tables are useful, or clear enough. Perhaps I should link them more explicitly to the Latinum podcast's main page.

Part b , as you will have realised, is English-Latin, with no grammar, and part c repeats the material with no English.

You will be able to pick the language up intuitively, more or less from listening to parts b and c. . Adler's method is actually designed for this. The grammar in Adler is descriptive grammar, describing forms that you are learning intuitively through use. In that sense, it is less important than in some textbooks, where the learning is generated through grammatical rules. If you download Adler's German-English textbook, which is still in print, (Do a google search for Ollendorff Adler German) and compare them, you might find this useful, as the two books follow a similar structure.

I would select the English-Latin part b episodes, and learn those, then the part c. Only after youhave covered a few episodes in this way, would I then go back and do the grammar sections for the earlier episodes. Then, I would return and study the grammar with him in detail, which will make more sense as you will have some language structures in your head to relate to.

I would also download the textbook, and the answer key print up a chapter at a time....ask him the Latin questions, and have him respond.

Then, have him ask you. Keep the learning as active and conversational as possible.
The written text may also be easier for you to interpret to him, in terms of grammar.

You may also ask him to write out some of the translation exercises, after he has learned the lesson.

Hope this helps.

Evan.

SCHOLA

SCHOLA

Red social para comunicarse en latín.

http://pacifica.typepad.com/

From the Pacifica Weblog, On Latin....

The answers to some of these questions lie beyond the ken of mortals, but some I can divulge. I don’t speak Russian, though I’ve been known to dream in it, and I don’t know if my monastic friend speaks, dreams in, or otherwise has an intimate relationship with English. This was not an issue, though, because we typed, of course, in Latin.

It’s true: there are places where conversations happen entirely in that time-tested tongue. Through a website called Schola, for instance, I am in touch with ordinary persons from such locales as Portugal, Poland, Israel, Montenegro, France, Australia, the Ukraine, Germany, Scotland, Singapore, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Spain, Bulgaria, Russia, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, Alberta, the Philippines, and—brace yourself—the San Fernando Valley, all united by the fact that we use Latin for actual communication.

This is not just something to do. It is exhilarating. Would I could convey the bliss and beauty of two humans with mismated native tongues, conversing in a third! We’re talking something between a first kiss and first tracks on an Alpine slope, more electric than Circuit City struck by lightning and a Prius at the same time, and more breathtaking than a knee to the diaphragm of a winded asthmatic, underwater. For me, besides purveying these intrinsic thrills, it evokes my European childhood, when I often plied this practice on the playground. But, nostalgia and overstuffed metaphors aside, the accomplishment feels tremendous. I don’t like to toss around citizen-of-the-world palaver, but, baby, this is its quintessence! And it’s never too late to take the oath: I know of multiple first-time Latin learners in their sixties and beyond.

Nor is this pleasure limited to electronic realms. This summer I will travel, in the corporeal world, to Rusticatio Virginiana, a week-long retreat at a villa formerly in the Washington family, where one speaks only Latin. Doing everything from trail-tromping to wine-tasting, from disputing Ovid and Catullus in many-hour sessions to sitting on the porch shooting the West Virginia breeze, we will be using only that ancient harp-song, Latin—and having the time of our lives doing it! The chef, by the way, one Andrew Gollan, is a Latin teacher at Santa Monica High School. (Even the carrots are cooked Latine modo.) What’s more, Rusticatio Virginiana is but one of many such shindigs across the country, and far more across the world, some of which last as many as eight weeks, and many of which are difficult to get into because the demand is so immense.

While all this may convince you that there are still whackos who use Latin of their own free will, it may not yet convince you that it is worthwhile for you to become one. It is difficult, after all, to convince intelligent persons to become whackos—an impasse encountered time and again by the Apostle Paul, and spoken of by him in about the same terms (see 1 Corinthians 1:18-25). But I think you may find, as did many of his listeners, that the thing you considered folly is perhaps not so crazy after all.

To this end, on to the next post and the next conversation. Valete, amici amicaeque!

P.S. You can view my Latin comment on John 2:4 at http://schola.ning.com/group/rerumdivinarumhumanarumque/forum/topic/show?id=1987911%3ATopic%3A2563. Maneuver freely from there! Clicking “Index” at the top left will take you to the main page; at “Laternae Magicae” you can see some of the thousands of Latin videos to be found on the internet, though my recommended source for such is http://eclassics.ning.com/, which has English to help you navigate the site. Also, if you peruse the “Circulus” at the Schola site, you may recognize among the membership some of our own Latin 2 and 3 students!)

Rein lateinischsprachiges Forum:

Rein lateinischsprachiges Forum:
http://schola.ning.com/

Template for running a Latin Classroom

This collection of phrases grew from a set originally written by Bob Patrick, written to facilitate the management of a classroom in Latin.

The extensive additions to Bob's original list are all culled from Adler’s “A Practical Grammar of the Latin Language for Speaking and Writing Latin” –Evan Millner.

Taking the Register

Salvete discipuli!

A: Salve tu quoque magister!

Quid agitis hodie? Agitisne bene?

Roll call: Discipuli, nomina vestra voco (vocabo).

Quis homo es? Who are you? A: Ego sum ……

Respondete “adsum” vel “ecce me!”

Anne est intus Marcus? Is Mark here today?

Non dubito, quIn domi sit. I don’t doubt but that he is home.

Abiit Marco. Marco has left.

Ubi est ………….? Abestne? Another student answers: abest.

Ubi sunt x et y? Cur in foro sunt? Cur non veniunt? In foro sunt quod…..

Si veniet, cum eo colloquar. (When he comes, I’ll speak to him)

Eccum adest! Here he is.

En hic est ille! Here he is.

Eccos adsunt Here they are.

En hic sunt illi Here they are

Equis aegrotus est? (A: Nemo est aegrotus)

Adestne Michael scholae? A: adest vel interest

Quem te appellem? What shall I call you?

Lateness:

Unde venis? A: Venio ex hortulo/lavatorio

Fuistine in hortulo? Fuistine in lavatorio?

Suntne pueri tardi? (are boys late?)

Venient! (They’ll come)

Ubi heri eras? (where were you yesterday?) Erasne domi? (A: ego domi eram)

In scholam venire neglexisti! You were playing truant.

Starting the lesson

Open, close door: _________, claude (aperi) januam, quaeso.

Books, paper, pencils, pens, notebooks, turning to pages, etc.

1. Discipuli, extrahite libros (chartas, graphides, pennas, libellos).

2. Aperite libros ad paginam primam/alteram/ ducentessimam tricessimam secundam—being page1/2/ 232).

3. Vertite paginam et legite versum primum per decimum (turn the page and read

lines 1-10. Again, line numbers are ordinal.)

4. Post legendum, scribite breviarium de fabula in libello (after reading, write a

summary in your notebook).

5. Claudite libros.

6. Vertite libros in mensa. (Turn your books over on the desk—for when you

want them to refer back to the page momentarily.)

7. Deponite libros (pennas, graphides, libellos, chartas) in mensa (sarcina).

Giving Dictation:

Discipuli, scribite.

Scribe sententias perfectas.

Translation

Discipuli, Redde sententias Latinas Anglice

Classroom communications:

Num intelligis, quid dicam? A: minus comprehendo (I don’t)

Pro deorum atque hominum fidem! What the …is going on here!!!!

Quid discipuli clamant!

Discipuli, nolite loqui.

Laborandum est nobis / Nos oportet laborare /necesse est laboremus.

Discipulus, tacite! Discipulus, nolite susurrare!

Discipuli, lege fabulam et responde.

Discipuli, lege fabulam, et scribe responsa.

Discipuli, Scribe sententias perfectas (complete sentences).

Discipulus, nescio quid dicas! ( I can’t hear you)

Responde, discipule!

Bene respondes, discipule!

Discipulus, claude januam!

Discipulus, noli fenestram claudere!

Aperi fenestram!

Tabulam spectate! (Look at this picture)

Spectasne magistrum?

Quid agitis?

Quid ais? (What are you saying?)

Quo ambulas?

Ad stirpiculum ambulo……

Spectaa!

Nonne magistrum tuum times?

Nonne discipuli libros habent?

Cupitisne audite?

Attendite! (pay attention)

Moneminine?

Quicunque peritus est, laudatur!

Qui sollertes atque studiosi sunt, praemiis ornantur!

Tu ornaris praemio! (when giving a reward)

Audisne, quod praeceptor tibi dicat? A: Audio!

Cujus liber est hoc? Cujus est hic liber? A: Meus est

Num loqueris prius quam audis?

Auscultasne quum ego loquor?

Concludisne? (are you finishing up your work?)

Nemo punitus est (I’m not punishing anyone)

An vidistis librum etc meum?

Nunc est tibi laborandum!

Hic est liber tuus!

Non intelligo quid dicas.

Poenitet me (te/eum) ! (I’m sorry)

Pudet nos (vos/eos) ! (We’re ashamed)

Fallit me (I don’t know/remember)

Quomodo scribitus hocce vocabulum? (how is this word written?)

A: Scribitur hoc pacto.

Quomodo scribitus nomen ejus?

Scribitur litteraa Z… (It is written with a Z)

Opus est, ut sedeas quietus / Necesse est tibi sedere quiete

Scholam habere de aliquaa re.

Absolvistine tua pensa imperaata? (have you written your exercises?) A: Nondum absolve.

Quem quaeritis? (who are you looking for?)

Respondeasne, cum interrogaris? (Do you answer when you are asked?)

Quem librum habes? (which book have you got)

Habesne chartam, quae tibi opus est?

Quo curris? Where are you running to?

Cur eum offendis? (why are you pushing him?)

Obliviscerisne aliquid? A: Obliviscor vero meam pennam/chartam/librum

Num quid vis? / Num quid imperas? (Do you want something?)

Valde mihi probatur! Perplacet! (I like it)

Maxime oportet. (by all means)

Ordo te vocat! Ordo eum vocat! It is your turn/his turn

Vir vere doctus!

Verumne est? Estne verum?

Non verum est. Falsum est.

AmIsitne aliquid de minibus? A: DimIsit vero pennam de minibus.

Jussi eum facere hoc.

Hoc est mihi jucundum! Optime est! Gaudeo hoc!

Verba tua non intelligo, propterea, quod nImis celeriter loqueris!

Sis tam benignus, ut aliquanto lentius loquaris?

Visne esse tam beignus, ut mihi librum des?

Potesne respondere lente? A: possum

Procede lente! Festina lente! Walk slowly!

Reminiscerisne hoc? Do you remember that?

Quid recordaris? What do you remember?

Quomodo te geris? How do you behave?

Bene geris!

Te pro cive geris! You behave like a citizen!

Praebuis te virum! You’ve shown yourself to be a man.

Praestitis te doctum! You have shown yourself to be a scholar!

Non possum. I can’t

Non nolo. I don’t want to.

Ibisne intro? Will you go in?

Visne me assidere? Will you sit next to me?

Placetne tibi assidere in sellaa? Will you please sit down!

Visne pergere, ut coepisti? Will you carry on as you started?

Clara voce loqui pergas oportet! You must keep on speaking out loud.

Mihi opus est, ut lavem ( I need the bathroom)

Si abis, bene est. If you go, that’s OK.

Quam primum potes redeas quaeso. Come back as soon as possible

Quomodo te habes? How are you?

A: Ego me admodum bene habeo.

Parasne te ad dicendum? Are you preparing to speak?

Sero est. Its late

Utcunque sese res habet, tua est culpa. However that may be, you are at fault.

Non dissentio I agree

Faterisne illud esse vitium? Do you admit that to be a fault? A: Fateor.

Facere non possum I cant do it

Animadvertistine quod ille fecerit? Did you notice what he did? A: Animadverti

Quam rem agis? What are you driving at?

Itane? Is it so?

Quid nunc? What now?

Quid coeptas, Marco? What are you after, mark?

Tune negas? Do you deny it? Nego hercle vero!

Non opus est? Isn’t it necessary? A: Non hercle, vero.

Satin salve, dic mihi? A: Recte

Quid est? What is it? A:nihil, recte perge (nothing)

Ego tibi irascerer? Could I be angry with you? Scilicet! Heaven Forbid

Num pennam habet, an non?

Sunt haec tua verba, necne? Are these your own words?

Dicam hiuc, an non dicam? Shall I tell him, or shall I not tell him?

Hoc ne feceris. Do not do this.

Ne desperemus. Let us not give up.

Stat mihi facere hoc I’ve decided to do this

Gratissimum mihi facies, hoc si beneficium mihi tribuas. You’d oblige me a lot if you’d do me this favour.

Facerem hoc, si fieri posset. I’d do it, if it were possible.

Si ego essem, qui tu es…..If I were in your place…

Vellem, ut illud fecisses. I wish you had done it.

Fecitne verba discipulus? Did the student speak?

Res ad te spectat. This concerns you.

Quid hoc ad rem? What has that got to do with this? (stay on topic)

Hoc comprehendi non potest.

Hoc in intelligentiam non cadit. That’s unintelligible.

Quid succenses? What are you angry about?

Quid est hoc Latine?

Quid significant hoc Anglice?

Satin hoc tibi expolratum ‘st? Are you sure of that? A: Exploratum habeo.

Aequo sis animo! Be patient.

Expecta! Wait!

Attendite! Adestote animis! Pay attention!

Da mihi hoc! Give it to me!

Ediscendum est tibi pensum vicesimum. You have to learn lesson 20.

Adjuvabo te facere hoc. I’ll help you

Adjuvabone te in laborando? Shall I help you?

Queaso mihi des librum. Please hand the book over.

Pulsantur fores. Someone is knocking at the door.

Quid rides? What are you laughing at?

Tune s, qui rides? Is it you who is laughing?

Nescio quod faciam. I don’t know what to do.

Num hi libri tui sunt? Are these your books?

Praeter speciem stultus es. You’re more stupid than you appear.

Te et moneo et hortor!

Quam pulcher liber!

Quam bonus es!

Quam es erga me benevolus!

Quanti est sapere! How valuable knowledge is!

Dicere aggredior! Attendite! I’m starting to speak. Pay attention.

Quantum differt! What a difference!

Manum de tabula! Hands off the picture!

Honoris mea causaa. Out of respect for me

Te vehementer etiam atque etiam rogo. I earnestly ask you.

Giving a test:

Discipuli, scribite probationem (begin/write the test).

Discipuli, nolite loqui (susurrare).

Quis perfectus est? Quis non perfectus est?

Post probationem scripsistis, deponite in mensa mea.

Fer(te) mihi probationem.

Post probationem scripsistis, vertite in mensa.

Affer mihi libros. (bring me your books)

Analysing a sentence

“Pater meus rosam pulchram in horto suo habet.”

Quis rosam habet? Pater meus rosam habet!

Qualem rosam habet? Pulchram habet pater meus rosam!

Quid in horto suo habet? Rosam in horto suo habet!

Ubi rosam habet? In horto suo rosam habet!

Quid facit pater?

Quo facit?

Cur facit?

Describing a picture/etc

Quid in picturaa videtis?

Quid, pueri (puellasque) in picturaa videtis

Novam picturam hodie habemus.

Picturam novam hodie spectate!

In picturaa nostraa tabernam videmus.

Taberna in hac pictura videtur.

In pictura est taberna. Picturam spectaate!

Nonne tabernam spectas? Quis tabernam non videt?

Quid pictura ostendat? Ubi est taberna? Quid ‘head’ latine apellamus?

Explaining cases intuitively:

Mensa hic posita est.

Tango mensam. Mensam habeo. Habesne mensam? Mensam habeo! Estne tibi mensa? Est mihi mensa!

Mensa longa est. Mensa lignea est. Color mensa niger est.

Ego mensam tango. Ego mensam longam tango. Etc. Thousands of examples to be found in Adler….

Introducing tenses:

Olim, Londini habitabam. Nunc, Eboraci habito. Mox Cantabrigiae habitabo.

Introducing paradigms:

Use types of words as paradigms. Do not use the actual grammatical names of things until the students are fully familiar with the Latin forms.

Accusative Case of Latin

ACCUSATIVE CASE of Latin

SINGULAR	PLURAL
MUSAM	MUSAS
DOMINUM	DOMINOS
DEUM	DEOS
REGNUM	REGNA
HONOREM	HONORES
SERMONEM	SERMONES
MILITEM	MILITES
TURREM	TURRES
LAPIDEM	LAPIDES
PATREM	PATRES
CARMEN	CARMINA
ANIMAL	ANIMALIA
ITER	ITINERA
OPUS	OPERA
CAPUT	CAPITA
POEMA	POEMATA
SEDILE	SEDILIA
FRUCTUM	FRUCTUS
CORNU	CORNUA
DOMUM	DOMOS/US
REM	RES
DIEM	DIES

Genitive Case of Latin

GENITIVE CASE of Latin

SINGULAR	PLURAL
MUSAE	MUSARUM
DOMINI	DOMINORUM
MAGISTRI	MAGISTRORUM
GENERI	GENERORUM
DEI	DEORUM
REI	REGNORUM
HONORIS	HONORUM
SERMONIS	SERMONUM
NUBIS	NUBIUM
MILITIS	MILITUM
TURRIS	TURRIUM
LAPIDIS	LAPIDUM
PATRIS	PATRUM
ANIMALIS	ANIMALIUM
CARMINIS	CARMINUM
ITINERIS	ITINERUM
OPERIS	OPERUM
CAPITIS	CAPITUM
POEMATIS	POEMATUM
SEDILIS	SEDILIUM
FRUCTUS	FRUCTUUM
CORNU	CORNUUM
DOMUS	DOMUUM /DOMORUM
REI	RERUM
DIEI	DIERUM