Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Errata for Second Form Latin Review answer key?

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

    #16
    Oh my! Apologies for the late reply, I was out sick a few days. I'll walk through everything here and see what needs attention.

    - Jon

    Comment


      #17
      Alright! I've submitted an updated errata page (or, rather, pages!) that will be uploaded to the website in due course. Unless noted below, all your recommendations are correct and are now accounted for!

      General comment: many of the answers in form drills lack both English translations for verbs like jacio and vivo. Here are the specific instances (those that actually have the whole translation are described separately):Unit III, Section IV, Drill A #’s 1, 2, 5, 7, 8; Drill B #’s 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Drill C #’s 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Unit IV, Section IV, Drill B #’s 6-10; Drill C #’s 1-5. When a word has multiple possible translations, we don't always use every possibility in the key. It's usually clear enough from one that its other definitions are also correct, except in the case where a word's multiple definitions are in fact quide different from one another.

      The use of "uninjured" as an adjective for an army seems odd (“uninjured” is more commonly used with an individual rather than a group); we chose "whole" instead as the translation for integri. I don't know, I rather prefer "uninjured" in this context. The "whole"-ness of integer has more of a "whole as opposed to broken" than a "whole as opposed to partial" sense to it, and "the whole army" implies the latter more than the former in my eyes. I think we can chalk this up to subjectivity, in which case I prefer to keep it as it is; as much as possible, the errata should contain definite errors and inconsistencies.

      Unit V, Section III (Vocabulary), general comment is that it’d be great to have the feminine forms of Galla, barbara, Christiana, and Romana alongside the masculine forms. Since these feminine forms aren't listed as discrete vocabulary words in the 2FL index, I don't think this is the place for them. If I recall correctly, it's in 3FL that these seeming masculine-feminine noun pairs are attended to properly, so I prefer to leave them for that occasion.

      Question C should be “Who is frightening the shepherds?” rather than “Who was frightening the shepherds?” to match the tense of terrentur. [AND] Unit V, Section VI, #4, to be really picky, Question C could be “Who was being praised in this sentence?” rather than “Who was praised in the sentence?” just because it is an imperfect passive tense. Agreed on both points. However, since it's more a matter of making the style consistent and does not change the content of the answers I have not added it to the errata, though the next reprint will include the amended questions.

      Thank you very much for such exact recording of these errors! Errata submissions are usually quite piecemeal and often make me do some hunting for the error in question (remember, folks, tell me the book and page number!); getting a comprehensive list like this, complete with locations in the book, made this a very quick errata update indeed!

      - Jon

      Comment


        #18
        Glad to have helped. I've published enough books of my own to appreciate how errors creep in even though you've looked through the material a dozen times! And thanks for the explanations--it's increasingly helpful to have a broader context for understanding the subtleties of translation.

        Comment

        Working...
        X