Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Errata for Second Form Latin Review answer key?

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

  • kraigb
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Christianson
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Christianson
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • kraigb
    replied
    Yes, that answers our questions. Thank you!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bonnie
    replied
    Ab hostibus imperatorem milites integri cum clamore vexerunt aegrum.

    You are right, that is a wide separation between imperatorem and aegrum. This separation is a literary device to call attention to the adjective-noun phrase; it also throws some emphasis on aegrum standing in final position. (And it highlights the answer to the question: Why in the world would they be carrying the commander? Because he is ill/sick.)

    The fact that the noun and adjective enclose the other words implies a clear word group of connected ideas. This word order logically implies that the shout/shouting is done by the soldiers. If the enemy were the ones shouting, it would be illogical to enclose cum clamore between milites and vexerunt. No Roman author would make the reader guess about that. Consequently, Ab hostibus is not an ablative of agent, as there is no action being performed by the enemy.The carrying is away from the enemy, not by the enemy.

    Did I answer your questions?

    Bonnie

    Leave a comment:


  • kraigb
    replied
    Sure: Ab hostibus imperatorem milites integri cum clamore vexerunt aegrum.

    We were also wondering about the placement of aegrum at the very end of the sentence, and if that was just there as a challenge or if this is a style one might come across in other literature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bonnie
    replied
    Would you mind posting the Latin sentence. I don't have it in front of me.
    Bonnie

    Leave a comment:


  • kraigb
    replied
    One more question on the Honors Translation #4 at the very end. There are two prepositional phrases, ab hostibus and cum clamore. It seemed to us that ab hostibus could be either "from the army" as the answer key uses, but also "by the army," in which case it's unclear who, exactly, may be doing the shouting. Are the uninjured soldiers shouting as they carry the commander from the enemy, or might they be carrying the command while the enemy is giving a shout themselves? Could a translation be, say, "With a shout by the enemy, the uninjured soldiers carried the sick commander," or even "With a shout from the enemy..."? Again, I suspect there's context and usage that could inform the specific choices in the translation, but I wanted to know if there are any other clues in the sentence itself that would favor one translation over another.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraigb
    replied
    Excellent--thanks for the cultural and literary context for those bits; we've suspected that such is the case. We very much enjoy learning those details!

    And for my own context, I've spent over 20 years at Microsoft doing technical writing and editing including authoring some 6000 pages of technical programming books. I guess it shows.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bonnie
    replied
    I just intended to add that your and your family's attention to detail and care for the language will repay you richly in the long run in your Latin study!

    Bonnie

    Leave a comment:


  • Bonnie
    replied
    That is a lot of proofreading. Good job. I just wanted to offer a quick note on a few items:

    Unit II, Section IV, #4: I don't have the Forms sentence in front of me, but integri is frequently used for uninjured soldiers or army units. Caesar uses it in the plural to refer to soldiers or units who have not been in the fight yet, or fresh units whose men are uninjured, unwounded. This word does not mean whole in referring to an army. (Caesar uses it once or twice to refer to something like part of a bridge being whole.)

    Unit III, Section II (vocabulary): Veho can also mean carry (although I take your point that this meaning was not listed).


    Unit V, Section III (Vocabulary): As far as listing the feminine forms Galla, barbara, Christiana, and Romana, I would just say that these feminine forms are quite rare in authentic literature. You can read the entire Gallic War and never see the word Galla or barbara. Much more prevalent in literature are the masculine singular forms, as well as the masculine plural which is used for a mixed group of people, men and women.

    Bonnie




    Leave a comment:


  • kraigb
    replied
    OK, Jon, we have a pretty lengthy list of added errata for the 2nd Form Review Answer Key. I've attached a Word doc if that's more useful. Some of these are more comments/suggestions than corrections, and I'll admit that a number are really picky.
    • 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.
    • Unit I, Section IV, #3, dictionary form for cultrum should be culter cultri rather than culter cultris
    • Unit II, Section IV, #3, first words in the translation should be "On account of" (for propter) rather than "Because of" (ob).
    • Unit II, Section IV, #4:
      • Translation should have "will work with you all" (vobis) rather than "will work with us" (nobis).
      • 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.
    • Unit III, Section II (vocabulary)
      • For "to know", Latin should be scio scire rather than sentio sentire.
      • For "to fix, fasten", Latin should be figo figere not fingo fingere
      • English "to say, tell" should be "to say, speak".
      • English “to carry, convey, transport” for veho vehere doesn’t match our edition of the 2nd Form text, which has only “to convey, transport” (unless this is an edit in the current editions)
    • Unit III, Section IV:
      • Drill B, #10: English for vehemus should be "we will convey/transport" rather than "we will carry" (which would be portamus)
      • Drill C, #1: English for sentiebam should be "I was feeling" rather than "I feel" (sentio)
      • Drill C, #6: English for invenient should be "they will discover, find out" rather than "they will come" (venient)
      • Drill C, #8: English for vehebas should be “you were conveying/transporting” rather than “you were carrying” (portabas)
      • Drill C, #10: English for nescit should be "hsi does not know" rather than "hsi knows" (scit)
    • Unit IV, Section II (Vocabulary), English "to desire" should be "to desire, wish for"
    • Unit V is missing a Section II, which should be Vocabulary, but that section is labeled Section III. Accordingly, all the sections that follow are also mislabeled.
    • 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.
    • Unit V, Section III (Vocabulary), Worksheet 2:
      • Latin for "battle" (Worksheet 2) should be proelium -i n. rather than bellium -i n. (war)
      • English for amor amoris should be “love, passion” not just “love”
      • English for saeculum is “age, time period” not “age, time, period” (which has an errant comma after time)
    • Unit V, Section III (Vocabulary), Worksheet 3:
      • English for labor laboris should be “work, toil” not just “work”
      • English "gain, corn" (Worksheet 3) should be "grain, corn"
      • Gender for gaudium -i should be n. not m.
    • Unit V, Section IV, Worksheet 5, the headings in the tables are both inconsistent and incorrect. They should all say “Present,” “Imperfect,” and “Future” reflecting the instructions to conjugate verbs in the present passive. All of the tables incorrectly have “Future Perfect” in the third box, and the middle boxes for fugio and invenio (on the lower half of the page) are incorrectly labeled “Pluperfect”.
    • Unit V, Section IV, Worksheet 6, Future for vinco should be vincentur not vincebuntur.
    • Unit V, Section V, #8, Latin for "hsi is constructing" should be struit rather than munit (hsi is fortifying/protecting)
    • Unit V, Section VI, #2
      • The details for terrentur should be “3rd pl. pres. pass. ind.” rather than “3rd sing. …”
      • Question C should be “Who is frightening the shepherds?” rather than “Who was frightening the shepherds?” to match the tense of terrentur.
    • 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.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Bonnie
    replied
    You are right that without context magistri liberi could be either free teachers or children of the teacher. I think you could give credit either way.

    But I lean toward the Key answer. As far as word order, magistri liberi as free teachers fits the guideline that an adjective of quality usually follows the noun. (As a genitive may precede or follow its noun depending on sentence structure and other reasons, there really is no clue as to whether magistri is genitive singular or nominative plural.)

    Your instinct to look to context where available is wise. Although there is no larger passage here, I certainly think that the writer of the question had in mind the contrast between paedagogi, very often educated Greek slaves (or freedmen) who taught Roman children, as opposed to magistri, schoolmasters/teachers who were, as in this phrase, liberi, free. Of course, a Second Form student would not be expected to know that, but as students progress through the language, they pick up more and more historical information that will supply clues in reading Latin.

    Bonnie

    Leave a comment:


  • kraigb
    replied

    Thanks; we have a much longer list put together that I'll post soon (we're almost done with our summer review).

    One question, which isn't exactly an errata. In Unit IV, Section V, Translation #4, the given translation for magistri liberi is "free teachers." All three of us translated this as "teacher's children" (with corresponding changes in the dictionary forms). Is there any reason this is not a legitimate answer as well? Does the word order perhaps implies "free teachers" more strongly? The sentence itself doesn't seem to give a strong indication either way, but I imagine a paragraph surrounding a sentence like this in classical literature would make the appropriate translation clear.


    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Christianson
    replied
    My apologies, I misread; here's the Second Form Latin REVIEW errata.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X