North & Hillard Exercises 51 [A] & 52 [A]
Daniel Hoehr
Composition for The Middle Forms of Schools_. 8th edition (London:
Rivingtons, 1913) can be downloaded at http://www.textkit.com
Responsa mittenda sunt die Mercurii.
==================================================
Exercise 51 [A]
An old man used to complain to his wife in these words. He used to
say that he went to the fields every day, and returned home in the
evening tired with work; but that she sat at home idle. The wife
replied that she did not wish to be idle, and promised that she would
go to the fields the next day. The husband accordingly stayed at home
to prepare the supper, but not being skilled in^1 such things he
prepared nothing which they could^2 eat in the evening; and in the
morning he said he would rather work and eat than sleep and be hungry.
So he went to the fields himself.
_________________________________________________
^1 peritus with Gen ^2 Subj.
Vocabulary:
old man, senex, senis.
complain, queror, -i, questus.
wife, uxor, -oris.
field, ager, -ri, m.
sit, sedeo, -ere, sedi, sessum.
supper, cena.
be hungry, esurio, 4.
Exercise 52 [A]
It was told Philip that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men to
throw his treasures^1 into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
who saw him say he was like a madman.^2 He declared that the passes
had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would punish
the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum of^3
money for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
____________________________________________________
^1 thesaurus
^2 madman = furens (participle)
^3 a large sum of = multus
Vocabulary:
run out, procurro. Perf. -curri or -cucurri.
pass, saltus, -us, m; angustiae, f. pl
purposely, de industria.
abandon, relinquo.
guilty, nocens, -entis.
at the same time, simul.
kingdom, regnum.
forum, forum.
==================================================
Hoc conferte cum editione typographica.
Rolleston
Exercise 51 [A]
An old man used to complain to his wife in these words. He
used to say that he went to the fields every day, and returned
home in the evening tired with work; but that she sat at home
idle. The wife replied that she did not wish to be idle, and promised
that she would go to the fields the next day. The husband accordingly
stayed at home to prepare the supper, but not being skilled in such
things he prepared nothing which they could eat in the evening; and in
the morning he said he would rather work and eat than sleep and be
hungry. So he went to the fields himself.
Quidam senex uxori his verbis queri solitus est: se ire quotidie
ad agros et fessus labore redire domum; illam autem ignavam
domi sedere. Quae[1] invicem se ignavam nolle esse respondit,
et pollicita est se in agros postridie adituram. Propterea ille domi
manebat ut cenam pararet sed non[2] peritus nullum quod vesperi
edi potest paravit; et qui mane quam esurire dormireque laborare
edereque maluit. Quamobrem ipse in agros adiit.
Notes:
[1] An attempt to use a linking word to join sentences.
That's the sort of thing Latin authors do, isn't it?
[2] Negates "peritus".
Exercise 52 [A]
It was told Philip[1] that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men
to throw his treasures into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
who saw him say he was like a madman. He declared that the passes
had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would
punish the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum
of money for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
Romanos adesse Philipo relatum est. Exclamans se proditum
procucurrit in forum, atque alios qui in mare thesaura iacerent alios
qui naves urerent misit. Quem[2] furenti similem qui[3] viserunt
dicunt. Qui affirmavit de industria saltus ab ducibus suis relictos
et se poena nocentes affecturum. Simul promisit se multum
pro omni sui regni romano interfecto daturum.
Notes:
[1] "It was told old Philip" is, I guess, N&H's
antequated English. I've read it as "Philip was told".
[2] Another attempted use of a link-word. This attempt
may be less successful, if that's possible. The word
order is perturbed somewhat.
[3] Antecedent omitted.
Cheers,
R.
Daniel Hoehr
quite sloppy.
> Exercise 51 [A]
>
> An old man used to complain to his wife in these words. He used to
> say that he went to the fields every day, and returned home in the
> evening tired with work; but that she sat at home idle. The wife
> replied that she did not wish to be idle, and promised that she would
> go to the fields the next day. The husband accordingly stayed at home
> to prepare the supper, but not being skilled in^1 such things he
> prepared nothing which they could^2 eat in the evening; and in the
> morning he said he would rather work and eat than sleep and be hungry.
> So he went to the fields himself.
Quidam senex ad uxorem (?) his verbis quaeri solebat. Dicere solebat
se ad (in?) agros quotidiane ire atque vesperi domum redire labore
defessum; eam autem ignavam domi sedere. Uxor respondit se ignavam
esse nolle atque promisit se ad (in?) agros proximo die ituram esse.
Maritus igitur domi mansit ut cenam pararet, sed non peritus huius
rerum nihil paravit quod vesperi edere possent; et matutino dixit se
potitus labore et edere quam dormire et esurire velle. Itaque ipse ad
(in?) agros iit.
> Exercise 52 [A]
>
> It was told Philip that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
> he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men to
> throw his treasures^1 into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
> who saw him say he was like a madman.^2 He declared that the passes
> had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would punish
> the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum of^3
> money for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
Philipus certior factus est Romanos adesse. Exclamans se proditum esse
in forum procurrere atque alios misit ut thesauros in mare iacerent et
alios ut naves incenderent. Is quasi furens dicitur ab illis qui eum
videbant. Affirmavit saltus de industria ab imperatoribus suis
relictos esse atque se nocentes puniturum esse. Simul promisit multam
pecuniam pro omne Romano interfecto in regno suo daturum esse.
DH
Johannes Patruus
****************************************************************
EXERCISE 51
An old man used to complain to his wife in these words. He used to
say that he went to the fields every day, and returned home in the
evening tired with work; but that she sat at home idle. The wife
replied that she did not wish to be idle, and promised that she would
go to the fields the next day. The husband accordingly stayed at home
to prepare the supper, but not being skilled in such things he
prepared nothing which they could eat in the evening; and in the
morning he said he would rather work and eat than sleep and be hungry.
So he went to the fields himself.
Senex uxori suae his verbis querebatur: (dicebat) se in agros quotidie
exire domumque vesperi regredi labore confectum: illam autem domi
sedere ignavam. (Ad haec) uxor respondit se ignavam esse nolle
promisitque se ipsam postero die in agros exituram esse. Vir igitur
domi manebat ut cenam pararet; sed haud talium rerum peritus nihil
paravit quod vesperi possent edere; et postridie dixit se laborare
atque edere malle quam dormire atque esurire. Itaque ipse in agros
exiit.
****************************************************************
EXERCISE 52
It was told Philip that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men to
throw his treasures into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
who saw him say he was like a madman. He declared that the passes
had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would punish
the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum of money
for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
Philippo nuntiatum est Romanos adesse. In forum igitur procurrit se
proditum esse exclamans misitque alios qui thesauros in mare
abjicerent, alios qui naves incenderent. Ii qui eum videbant dicunt
(eum) similem fuisse furenti. De industria saltus ab suis ducibus
desertos fuisse affirmabat atque se nocentes poena esse affecturum.
Simul pollicebatur se multam pecuniam daturum esse pro unoquoque
Romano intra regni sui fines interfecto.
****************************************************************
Johannes
Johannes Patruus
"Rolleston" <roll...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:q624e0dbq4ic4bre1...@4ax.com...
> My translations.
>
> Exercise 51 [A]
>
> An old man used to complain to his wife in these words. He
> used to say that he went to the fields every day, and returned
> home in the evening tired with work; but that she sat at home
> idle. The wife replied that she did not wish to be idle, and promised
> that she would go to the fields the next day. The husband accordingly
> stayed at home to prepare the supper, but not being skilled in such
> things he prepared nothing which they could eat in the evening; and in
> the morning he said he would rather work and eat than sleep and be
> hungry. So he went to the fields himself.
>
> Quidam senex uxori his verbis queri solitus est: se ire quotidie
> ad agros et fessus labore redire domum; illam autem ignavam
> domi sedere. Quae[1] invicem se ignavam nolle esse respondit,
> et pollicita est se in agros postridie adituram. Propterea ille domi
> manebat ut cenam pararet sed non[2] peritus nullum quod vesperi
> edi potest paravit; et qui mane quam esurire dormireque laborare
> edereque maluit. Quamobrem ipse in agros adiit.
>
> Notes:
>
> [1] An attempt to use a linking word to join sentences.
Although the Key has gone for "To which things" (ad haec), I guess you
could also say "To whom" - "Cui respondit uxor ..."
> That's the sort of thing Latin authors do, isn't it?
BA page 306 says that in Latin the relationships between sentences "are
generally made explicit by the use of connecting words or by subordinating
one sentence grammatically to another. When translating into Latin
therefore we must frequently introduce distinctive connecting words where
none is expressed in the English, or combine two or more English sentences
into a single Latin one." (These remarks are addressed to advanced
students about to tackle the continuous prose exercises which Mountford
added in 1938.)
> [2] Negates "peritus".
Concerning "haud" in the Key, Footnote 1 on BA page 109 says, "'Haud' is
mostly used with 'scio'; and with adjectives and adverbs in the sense of
'far from,' when a negative idea is substituted for a positive, as 'haud
difficilis' for 'facilis', etc."
> Exercise 52 [A]
>
> It was told Philip[1] that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
> he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men
> to throw his treasures into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
> who saw him say he was like a madman. He declared that the passes
> had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would
> punish the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum
> of money for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
>
> Romanos adesse Philipo relatum est. Exclamans se proditum
> procucurrit in forum, atque alios qui in mare thesaura iacerent alios
> qui naves urerent misit. Quem[2] furenti similem qui[3] viserunt
> dicunt. Qui affirmavit de industria saltus ab ducibus suis relictos
> et se poena nocentes affecturum. Simul promisit se multum
> pro omni sui regni romano interfecto daturum.
>
> Notes:
>
> [1] "It was told old Philip" is, I guess, N&H's
> antequated English. I've read it as "Philip was told".
Some of the English in BA, before our Sir James got at it, borders on the
unintelligible!
> [2] Another attempted use of a link-word. This attempt
> may be less successful, if that's possible. The word
> order is perturbed somewhat.
Considering it in the light of the paraphrase "Quem furenti similem
fuisse, spectatores dicunt", suggests to me that your link and basic word
order are OK, and there's nothing in the previous sentence that "quem"
could refer to apart from "he" (Philip).
> [3] Antecedent omitted.
In view of the position of the "qui" in the sentence, and the fact that
this sentence has a different subject from the preceding one, I wonder if
the unprepared reader would correctly identify the intended referent.
Dicere nequeo!
Johannes
Rolleston
>"Rolleston" <roll...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:q624e0dbq4ic4bre1...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Quidam senex uxori his verbis queri solitus est: se ire quotidie
>> ad agros et fessus labore redire domum; illam autem ignavam
>> domi sedere. Quae[1] invicem se ignavam nolle esse respondit,
>> et pollicita est se in agros postridie adituram. Propterea ille domi
>> manebat ut cenam pararet sed non[2] peritus nullum quod vesperi
>> edi potest paravit; et qui mane quam esurire dormireque laborare
>> edereque maluit. Quamobrem ipse in agros adiit.
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> [1] An attempt to use a linking word to join sentences.
>
>Although the Key has gone for "To which things" (ad haec), I guess you
>could also say "To whom" - "Cui respondit uxor ..."
Yes, an improvement on my effort. There are
a few too many nominatives in my translation.
>> That's the sort of thing Latin authors do, isn't it?
>
>BA page 306 says that in Latin the relationships between sentences "are
>generally made explicit by the use of connecting words or by subordinating
>one sentence grammatically to another. When translating into Latin
>therefore we must frequently introduce distinctive connecting words where
>none is expressed in the English, or combine two or more English sentences
>into a single Latin one." (These remarks are addressed to advanced
>students about to tackle the continuous prose exercises which Mountford
>added in 1938.)
I wouldn't like to say I'm an advanced student. Far from it. It's
horrifying to think that we've only made it through approx. one
fifth of the book. Best not to dwell on that thought.
>> [2] Negates "peritus".
>
>Concerning "haud" in the Key, Footnote 1 on BA page 109 says, "'Haud' is
>mostly used with 'scio'; and with adjectives and adverbs in the sense of
>'far from,' when a negative idea is substituted for a positive, as 'haud
>difficilis' for 'facilis', etc."
And "non" is acceptable too?
>> Exercise 52 [A]
>>
>> It was told Philip[1] that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
>> he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men
>> to throw his treasures into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
>> who saw him say he was like a madman. He declared that the passes
>> had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would
>> punish the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum
>> of money for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
>>
>> Romanos adesse Philipo relatum est. Exclamans se proditum
>> procucurrit in forum, atque alios qui in mare thesaura iacerent alios
>> qui naves urerent misit. Quem[2] furenti similem qui[3] viserunt
>> dicunt. Qui affirmavit de industria saltus ab ducibus suis relictos
>> et se poena nocentes affecturum. Simul promisit se multum
>> pro omni sui regni romano interfecto daturum.
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> [1] "It was told old Philip" is, I guess, N&H's
>> antequated English. I've read it as "Philip was told".
>
>Some of the English in BA, before our Sir James got at it, borders on the
>unintelligible!
The result of overexposure to the mangliness* of Latin, p'raps.
>> [2] Another attempted use of a link-word. This attempt
>> may be less successful, if that's possible. The word
>> order is perturbed somewhat.
>
>Considering it in the light of the paraphrase "Quem furenti similem
>fuisse, spectatores dicunt", suggests to me that your link and basic word
>order are OK, and there's nothing in the previous sentence that "quem"
>could refer to apart from "he" (Philip).
>
>> [3] Antecedent omitted.
>
>In view of the position of the "qui" in the sentence, and the fact that
>this sentence has a different subject from the preceding one, I wonder if
>the unprepared reader would correctly identify the intended referent.
I do wonder which other referent(s) might exist in that
capacious mind of yours. I must say, I feel very uncertain
about indefinite pronouns. Is the "qui" referred to of that
species? Would you say that an indefinite prounoun is a
relative pronoun with an unspecified or underspecified
antecedent?
>Dicere nequeo!
How fortunate we are, then, that you have fingers and
a keyboard! (I assume you don't type with your nose -
a very messy business if one has a drippy cold.)
>Johannes
Thanks ever so much for your very helpful comments.
R.
* New to Google!
Rolleston
>Quidam senex ad uxorem (?) his verbis quaeri solebat.
You got caught out too! The dastardly duo strike again. The
simple imperfect of habitual action would seem to suffice, if
the key is to be believed.
quaeri - to seek, demand, strive for, etc.
queri - to complain, protest, grumble, etc.
I've searched for "queror" with "ad", but without success.
> Dicere solebat se ad (in?) agros quotidiane ire atque vesperi domum
>redire labore defessum; eam autem ignavam domi sedere.
Did N&H give you permission to use "quotidiane"?
>Uxor respondit se ignavam
>esse nolle atque promisit se ad (in?) agros proximo die ituram esse.
>Maritus igitur domi mansit ut cenam pararet, sed non peritus huius
>rerum nihil paravit quod vesperi edere possent;
"nihil" or "nullum"...which to choose? and why?
>et matutino dixit se
>potitus labore et edere quam dormire et esurire velle. Itaque ipse ad
>(in?) agros iit.
Not quite sure what "potitus" is doing in there.
>> Exercise 52 [A]
>>
>> It was told Philip that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
>> he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men to
>> throw his treasures^1 into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
>> who saw him say he was like a madman.^2 He declared that the passes
>> had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would punish
>> the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum of^3
>> money for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
>
>Philipus certior factus est Romanos adesse.
"Certior factus" here, "certiores facti" there, it's all getting a bit
repetitive, isn't it? One must guard against overusing these
constructions outside of the N&H exercises. Another thing not
to be overused is the "iri" + supine construction, which does
not appear to be all that common in real Latin (that is not
to say that it is not found at all).
> Exclamans se proditum esse
>in forum procurrere atque alios misit ut thesauros in mare iacerent et
>alios ut naves incenderent.
The "et" is unnecessary.
>Is quasi furens dicitur ab illis qui eum
>videbant.
I was tempted to use "quasi". I can't say whether it's fine or not.
There is possible ambiguity - isn't there always? - in that your
sentence might be read as "He was almost said to be mad...".
Not quite sure about that.
>Affirmavit saltus de industria ab imperatoribus suis
>relictos esse atque se nocentes puniturum esse. Simul promisit multam
>pecuniam pro omne Romano interfecto in regno suo daturum esse.
A "se" is missing in your final sentence.
Cheers,
R.
Daniel Hoehr
Rolleston wrote:
> Daniel Hoehr wrote:
>
>>Quidam senex ad uxorem (?) his verbis quaeri solebat.
>
>
> You got caught out too! The dastardly duo strike again. The
> simple imperfect of habitual action would seem to suffice, if
> the key is to be believed.
I seem to remember I once used an imperfect to express habitual
action. The key used "soleo" then.
It's like using "ad" for "to" and the key has "in". Next week you use
"in" and the key has "ad"......
It's all part of the game.
On a serious note, I wasn't happy with me using "soleo". because it
sounded off, especially when repeated in the follwing sentence.
> quaeri - to seek, demand, strive for, etc.
> queri - to complain, protest, grumble, etc.
Me asinum!
> I've searched for "queror" with "ad", but without success.
The "ad" was pure guesswork. I had no idea what to do, so I thought
I'd use "ad" rather than writing nothing, which would have been the
second option.
>>Dicere solebat se ad (in?) agros quotidiane ire atque vesperi domum
>>redire labore defessum; eam autem ignavam domi sedere.
>
> Did N&H give you permission to use "quotidiane"?
No, but I can't see anything wrong with it. That begs the question
whether there is a difference between "quotidie" and "quotidiane".
>>Uxor respondit se ignavam
>>esse nolle atque promisit se ad (in?) agros proximo die ituram esse.
>>Maritus igitur domi mansit ut cenam pararet, sed non peritus huius
>>rerum nihil paravit quod vesperi edere possent;
>
> "nihil" or "nullum"...which to choose? and why?
"nullum" did not even occur to me, probably because I was in a real
hurry and did not consider any alternatives. This time I went for the
first thing that came to my mind. According to Menge (s.v. "nullus"),.
nullus = nemo, nulum = nihil.
>>et matutino dixit se
>>potitus labore et edere quam dormire et esurire velle. Itaque ipse ad
>>(in?) agros iit.
>
> Not quite sure what "potitus" is doing in there.
Typo. I wrote "potius" in my notebook.
>>>Exercise 52 [A]
>>>
>>> It was told Philip that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
>>>he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men to
>>>throw his treasures^1 into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
>>>who saw him say he was like a madman.^2 He declared that the passes
>>>had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would punish
>>>the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum of^3
>>>money for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
>>
>>Philipus certior factus est Romanos adesse.
>
> "Certior factus" here, "certiores facti" there, it's all getting a bit
> repetitive, isn't it?
Yes, I suppose so. It's the language student being proud of knowing an
idiomatic expression and so the tendency to overuse it is a natural
consequence. I see that every day.
> One must guard against overusing these
> constructions outside of the N&H exercises. Another thing not
> to be overused is the "iri" + supine construction, which does
> not appear to be all that common in real Latin (that is not
> to say that it is not found at all).
Those are "fore ut" moments then, aren't they?
>>Exclamans se proditum esse
>>in forum procurrere atque alios misit ut thesauros in mare iacerent et
>>alios ut naves incenderent.
>
> The "et" is unnecessary.
The phrase is "alii ...... alii", isn't it?
>>Is quasi furens dicitur ab illis qui eum
>>videbant.
>
> I was tempted to use "quasi". I can't say whether it's fine or not.
> There is possible ambiguity - isn't there always? - in that your
> sentence might be read as "He was almost said to be mad...".
>
> Not quite sure about that.
On the other hand I daresay that the idea to use the personal passive
here is a good one. It would be even better if the proper tense were
used and that begs the question whether it would be "dicebatur" or
"dictus est". Maybe this would be an option:
Is similis furens dicebatur ab illis qui eum videbant.
>>Affirmavit saltus de industria ab imperatoribus suis
>>relictos esse atque se nocentes puniturum esse. Simul promisit multam
>>pecuniam pro omne Romano interfecto in regno suo daturum esse.
>
> A "se" is missing in your final sentence.
Oh well, what's a missing "se" amongst friend?
> Cheers,
>
> R.
DH
--
"George is not mentally unbalanced, at all.
He receives alleged locutions." -- Joseph Geloso
Daniel Hoehr
Johannes Patruus wrote:
> Latin answers from the Key.
Thanks for typing up the answers!
DH
Daniel Hoehr
Rolleston wrote:
> My translations.
>
> Exercise 51 [A]
> Quidam senex uxori his verbis queri solitus est:
How does the inquisitive student find out that "complain to someone"
is "queri alicui"?
> se ire quotidie
> ad agros et fessus labore redire domum;
fessum
> illam autem ignavam
> domi sedere. Quae[1] invicem se ignavam nolle esse respondit,
> et pollicita est se in agros postridie adituram.
Isn't "adeo" a tad to military here? L&S isn't available at the
moment, but according to Menge it is more along the lines of "to
attack", "approach" but also "visit". "Go out into the fields" (sounds
like Gary Moore, btw) seems to be best rendered by "exeo . . . in".
> Propterea ille domi
> manebat ut cenam pararet sed non[2] peritus nullum
nullum: OK it seems (according to Menge nihil = nullum)
"in such things" is missing.
> quod vesperi
> edi potest paravit;
I like the passive infinitive: "that can be eaten in the evening"
> et qui mane quam esurire dormireque laborare
> edereque maluit. Quamobrem ipse in agros adiit.
I think "malle" is a good option.
> Exercise 52 [A]
> Romanos adesse Philipo relatum est. Exclamans se proditum
> procucurrit in forum, atque alios qui in mare thesaura
"thesaurus" is masculine; "thesauros".
> iacerent alios
> qui naves urerent misit. Quem[2] furenti similem qui[3] viserunt
> dicunt.
Why "furenti"?
> Qui affirmavit de industria saltus ab ducibus suis relictos
> et se poena nocentes affecturum. Simul promisit se multum
> pro omni sui regni romano interfecto daturum.
>
> Notes:
>
> [1] "It was told old Philip" is, I guess, N&H's
> antequated English. I've read it as "Philip was told".
Good to know I wasn't the only one who thought that was a bit funny.
Edward Casey
"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2ki2heF...@uni-berlin.de...
It looks like the forms (adverbs) "cottidie(quotidie), cottidio
(quotidio), quotidiano, etc. are all attested. Quotidiane might be new
with you. I don't have time to google it right now.
Daniel Hoehr
Edward Casey wrote:
> "Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:2ki2heF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>Rolleston wrote:
>>>Did N&H give you permission to use "quotidiane"?
>>
>>No, but I can't see anything wrong with it. That begs the question
>>whether there is a difference between "quotidie" and "quotidiane".
>
>
> It looks like the forms (adverbs) "cottidie(quotidie), cottidio
> (quotidio), quotidiano, etc. are all attested. Quotidiane might be new
> with you. I don't have time to google it right now.
"Quotidiane" is well attested. Google:
Proventus 1 - 100 inter 139,000 circiter.
The only slight draw-back is that the examples seem to be Italian.....
I just thought if there is an adjective "quotidianus,- -a, -um", there
must also be an adverb "quotidiane". I checked Whitaker Words and the
result seemed to confirm this:
http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?quotidiane
DH
Daniel Hoehr
Daniel Hoehr schrieb:
> Rolleston wrote:
> > Daniel Hoehr wrote:
> >>Dicere solebat se ad (in?) agros quotidiane ire atque vesperi domum
> >>redire labore defessum; eam autem ignavam domi sedere.
> >
> > Did N&H give you permission to use "quotidiane"?
>
> No, but I can't see anything wrong with it. That begs the question
> whether there is a difference between "quotidie" and "quotidiane".
There is. "quotidie" is Latin.
DH
Rolleston
>I just thought if there is an adjective "quotidianus,- -a, -um", there
>must also be an adverb "quotidiane". I checked Whitaker Words and the
>result seemed to confirm this:
>
>http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?quotidiane
Words says "-ly; -ily; Converting ADJ to ADV".
That shows it's guessing, I think. Compare with this:
http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?plane
R.
Daniel Hoehr
> EXERCISE 52
>
> It was told Philip that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
> he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men to
> throw his treasures into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
> who saw him say he was like a madman. He declared that the passes
> had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would punish
> the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum of money
> for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
>
>
> Philippo nuntiatum est Romanos adesse. In forum igitur procurrit se
> proditum esse exclamans misitque alios qui thesauros in mare
> abjicerent, alios qui naves incenderent. Ii qui eum videbant dicunt
> (eum) similem fuisse furenti.
"furenti"? Shouldn't that be "furentem"?
DH
Rolleston
"Similis" can take a noun X in the dative case: "Similar to X"
R.
Daniel Hoehr
OK!
Thank you.
> R.
DH
Daniel Hoehr
> EXERCISE 52
>
> It was told Philip that the Romans were at hand. Crying out that
> he had been betrayed he ran out into the forum, and sent some men to
> throw his treasures into the sea and others to burn the ships. Men
> who saw him say he was like a madman. He declared that the passes
> had been purposely abandoned by his generals, and that he would punish
> the guilty. At the same time he promised to give a large sum of money
> for every Roman killed in his kingdom.
>
>
> Philippo nuntiatum est Romanos adesse. In forum igitur procurrit se
> proditum esse exclamans misitque alios qui thesauros in mare
> abjicerent, alios qui naves incenderent. Ii qui eum videbant dicunt
> (eum) similem fuisse furenti. De industria saltus ab suis ducibus
> desertos fuisse affirmabat
"desertos fuisse"???
Is that infinitive pluperfect passive?
Wouldn't "desertos esse" do here?
(Sorry for dealing with that so late, but I really haven't had any
time to go through the key's answers properly)
DH
Johannes Patruus
I don't see how "desertos esse" could be wrong.
This issue is one I've come across before, but I'm unable to find an
explanation. I have a distinct memory that it was once discussed in this
NG, but for the life of me I can't track down the thread.
Johannes