Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corrections for Latina Christiana

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Corrections for Latina Christiana

    Latina Christiana II, Teacher Manual, page 40, B3, occupabant should be occupabunt.

    #2
    Thanks for correction

    Dear POBrien,
    Thanks for the correction for occupabant to occupabunt. You are ahead of our group; I hope you will continue to post corrections. They will benefit us greatly.

    Comment


      #3
      After going through several posts, I have realized that perhaps POBrien works with Memoria Press and is not going to be giving corrections as he moves through Latina Christiana II. My excitement is dashed! I guess our group will have to discover the errors ourselves which always causes us loss of time struggling through, wondering if it's our misunderstanding or an error in the text. Maybe someone brighter than I could come up with a format so we could do a simple search for a particular lesson to see if anyone else "out there" has found what appears to be an error. That would save us time and the problem could be resolved during that class time.

      Comment


        #4
        corrections to Latin books

        I will continue to reply to all posts in this forum that relate to errors. Another person has been taking care of keeping the corrections page up to date, and will presumably continue to do so. Paul OBrien.

        Comment


          #5
          another question on Latina Christiana II

          So I have another question on page 40 of the teacher manual of L. C. II.

          "The teacher was waiting for the students." It would seem to me that 'for the students' indicates dative, but the answer was given in accusative. I can only guess that something tricky is happening with the verb "exspecto," but what?

          Any ideas? Christine

          Comment


            #6
            exspecto

            Exspecto is just an ordinary transitive verb. It is the same as 'await' in English. English has a large number of phrasal verbs that include what would otherwise be a preposition: 'wait for', 'look up', 'drop out', and so on. In verbs of this type, the particle is actually part of the verb, not a preposition. You should think of 'wait for' as the whole verb. In other words, in the sentence 'I am waiting for a bus', the verb is 'am waiting for' and the direct object is 'a bus'. Here, 'for a bus' is not a prepositional phrase. Latin does not have phrasal verbs like this, and many ordinary transitive Latin verbs are translated into English with phrasal verbs such as 'wait for', 'look for', and so on. But these phrasal verbs are really just transitive verbs as well, even though they are composed of two elements. Paul OBrien.

            Comment


              #7
              Logic II problems

              We are struggling with the answers in Chapters 7 and 8 because the directions say that to make an invalid statement valid, you must negate (or affirm) either one or both of the major premise alternants (not both) or negate the entire minor premise and ultimately leave the conclusion unchanged. In trying to follow these directions, we are left confused (and I might say discouraged and a little angry) because the answer book doesn't do that almost every time. (For Chapter 8, the only time it was done for an invalid syllogism was in the last example - #8) Can you please explain to us where we or you are going wrong? Also, on pg.74 in the chart, there is an important, misleading misprint: Under Ponendo Tollens, affirming the first alternant, the form should say "Therefore, not Q" as opposed to "Therefore, not P." I would also recommend numbering the examples so that when we do look up the confusing answers that don't follow the directions (!), we can t least match them up with the correct examples. And in chapter 7, it would be really nice if you could give us an example of how to do the exercise as you did in chapter 8, Day 2. Has anybody else had these problems? We are very confused and sad. Please send us a response ...

              Comment

              Working...
              X