Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TFL Unit I Review, Worksheet 5, Translation D

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

    TFL Unit I Review, Worksheet 5, Translation D

    On p. 49 of the TFL Student Workbook, under Translation D, number 3 lists the imperative Think with your head and heart as Puta capite cordeque.

    Can you give me some more guidance on when to tell my students to pick the enclitic -que as opposed to "et." Head and heart don't feel like "milk n' cookies" to me, but maybe it's a Roman thing? 😄 Also, does the enclitic always go on the second of the pair? Feels like yes, but I want to be sure. Also, why is the "cum" missing? Does puto have a built-in preposition?

    Same page, number 7, is "guard against" always going to be the "beware" verb instead of, say, servo -are with contra?

    Should I make sure that if my students know the pronoun, they include it? I think of how the Latin subject + verb, creati sumus, (we have been created) does not need the Nos. I remember from SFL there was a note about how adding the pronoun is only done to emphasize the subject specifically. For the purposes of the TFL workbook, should I just insist that students always put the pronoun if they've been introduced to it (e.g. they don't know the 3rdP S or Pl pronouns, but they do know the 1st and 2nd P S&Pl subject pronouns)? Should it count off on a quiz/test if they omit it?

    Thanks!​
    Mama of 2, teacher of 3
    SY 22/23
    6A, teaching TFL & CC Chreia/Maxim w/ Elementary Greek Year One
    MP2

    Completed MPK, MP1, MP2, 3A, 4A, 5A
    SC B, SC C, SC1 (Phonics/Math)

    #2
    1- I think that head and heart are nicely joined by -que because they are both body parts, so there's a relationship there that the -que helps to highlight (like Senatus Populusque etc.) And yes, the enclitic is always attached to the second term. There is no cum because these are two ablative of means

    2 - I'm not sure I understand your question here!

    3 - You should not try to get your students used to including subject pronouns, least of all take points off quizzes if they omit them. Insisting on using them gives them a distorted view of Latin usage, in my opinion. Make sure they know the pronouns and their uses, but in Latin that almost never include the way they're used in English, in front of a verb. Your memory is correct that they emphasize the subject (Ego sum via, veritas et vita, says Our Lord, so that ego means that He is those things and nothing/no one else). So I think that using subject pronouns as a matter of fact is going to damage a student's ability to understand why a Latin author uses them rather than not - you want your students attuned to the text as much as possible, able to pick up clues like the presence of a pronoun.
    DS (16)
    DD (15)
    DS (8)

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by enbateau View Post
      Same page, number 7, is "guard against" always going to be the "beware" verb instead of, say, servo -are with contra?​
      Mrs. Bee attended well to your other questions, so I'll get this one!

      As a general rule of thumb, anytime an English phrase of multiple words (e.g. on account of) can be translated by one Latin word (e.g. propter), choose the one-word translation over a more convoluted word-by-word translation (e.g. in computo + GEN). The exception would be if each of the English words is being used literally (i.e. on account of is an English idiom with no literal account involved; but there is no truth in the account of... refers to a literal account, of something, in which...) then a word-by-word translation is correct. Notice, however, how very specific the conditions are for the word-by-word translation. You can usually discount this possibility and default to the idiomatic one-word translation.

      In the case of #7, there's no strong reason to think that the English words guard and against are being treated literally and separately. If, for example, both guard and against had their own objects, such as guard yourself against sin, then each one would be operating grammatically independently and would suggest separate words (se contra peccatum serva). As it is, neither word is being used especially literally or independently, so cave is the right choice.

      - Jon

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Mrs Bee View Post
        There is no cum because these are two ablative of means.
        Maybe Jon Christianson can answer this, but where in the TM is this explained in detail? I would suggest that more guidance be given to teachers who are learning ahead of or along with their students. I do see on p. 12 of the Student Text that ablative of means is an ablative without a preposition that "may be used to express the NON-LIVING AGENT [...] or instrument of the action of an active or passive verb." Without any example or note as to what that means, that statement is unhelpful. A note with an example would help parent teachers direct their students to a pattern so that they could be on the lookout for this construction.

        I found some helpful examples here.
        Mama of 2, teacher of 3
        SY 22/23
        6A, teaching TFL & CC Chreia/Maxim w/ Elementary Greek Year One
        MP2

        Completed MPK, MP1, MP2, 3A, 4A, 5A
        SC B, SC C, SC1 (Phonics/Math)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by enbateau View Post
          Maybe Jon Christianson can answer this, but where in the TM is this explained in detail?

          ...

          I found some helpful examples here.
          It is not explained in detail in TFL because it is not being taught for the first time; the ablative of means was originally treated in SFL Lesson XXIV, p. 73, where it is given adequate explanation and example. The same is true of the ablative of agent, which is mentioned briefly in TFL Lesson I but originally taught in SFL Lesson XXII, p. 69. An argument could be made for its re-explanation in the TFL Teacher Manual, but a counter-argument could also be made that the first two lessons of TFL are reviewing A LOT OF MATERIAL and excessive detail is its own impediment.

          Incidentally, I highly recommend the web site you've linked. The Dickinson College Commentaries are a great source of precise information for the intermediate or advanced teacher. Some of the concepts are likely to go far over the head of Latin newbies, but the answers to many common classroom conundrums are to be found there.

          - Jon
          Last edited by Jon Christianson; 09-23-2022, 09:37 AM.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by enbateau View Post
            Can you give me some more guidance on when to tell my students to pick the enclitic -que as opposed to "et."​
            I would not be too concerned since you already understand the general idea of –que as opposed to et -- and you know that –que is attached to the second element. There is no hard-and-fast rule on when to use -que. It often occurs in legal language or formal expressions like Senatus Populusque Romanus. And it may be used when two elements are closely related, e.g., exercitus equitatusque, the army and the cavalry.

            However, sometimes either et or –que could be used. It was up to a Roman author to decide which connecting conjunction to use. What sounded most euphonious would undoubtedly have also played a part (especially in a saying or sententia like the one here). Of course, that was a judgment call on the author’s part. The enclitic does seem very pleasing in the phrase capite cordeque (CA pi te COR de que). The phrase…capite et corde just does not have the same ring or rhythm.

            Bonnie


            Comment


              #7
              On the theme of –que vs. et, I noticed today in the Creed that the phrase ex Patre Filioque occurs, followed in the very next line by cum Patre et Filio. Just sticking with the Latin (not getting into Filioque’s history), I think generally that the intent of the writer matters very much in whether he uses -que or et; it matters how closely he wants the reader to connect the two ideas. It is not that we can always predict whether two words should be linked by -que (except in certain fixed expressions). We see the author’s intent in Virgil’s Arma virumque cano, I sing of arms and a man – two ideas a reader would not necessarily closely connect. But while reading the Aeneid, we clearly see Virgil’s purpose in connecting them for us. (And I do think that the sound of the phrase is also a factor in choosing et or –que.)

              I also recalled that –que can also be used for ideas that are related but contrasting -- pace belloque, in peace and war, terra marique, by land and sea.

              Bonnie

              Comment


                #8
                Bonnie , yes, that feels right! An et or an ac or an atque, by literally breaking up the discourse, would tend to highlight each term in its individuality, while the -que, by allowing the two terms to be right next to each other, tends to send our brain the message that there is a connection or a unity of meaning the author wants us to pick up. In this sense, the two examples from the Creed are excellent - the qui ex Patre Filioque procedit highlights the unity of the Trinity, while qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur highlights the Three Persons and what is owed to each. But as you said, it is far from being a mathematical formula and there can be other factors at work. By the way, shouldn't cordeque be pronounced cor DE que? And I'm not sure I understand the se in Mr. Christianson's se contra peccatum serva. Thank you!

                DS (16)
                DD (15)
                DS (8)

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Mrs Bee View Post
                  And I'm not sure I understand the se in Mr. Christianson's se contra peccatum serva. Thank you!
                  The difference is that servo, I guard, conveys guarding a direct object; caveo, I guard against, does not. So, a statement with a direct object of guard, such as to guard oneself, would suggest servo in a way that a statement without a direct object of guard would not. Conversely, a statement without a direct object of guard, such as to guard against something, would suggest caveo in a way that a statement with a direct object of guard does not.

                  In my example clause, se contra peccatum serva, se is the direct object of serva (guard yourself), peccatum is the prepositional object of contra (against sin). A similar clause with caveo would not include se because caveo does not indicate that anything is being guarded - merely that something is being guarded against. Really, they're very different uses of the English word guard; servo means to literally protect or preserve an object, caveo means to be watchful, mindful, or cautious about something.

                  - Jon

                  Comment


                    #10
                    That is an excellent question as to the pronunciation of cordeque. The accent does not automatically fall on the syllable before –que. It may fall on that syllable, as it does in filiōque, because the vowel o is long, i.e., marked with a macron. (Also words like ma RI que.) But the e in corde is short, and adding -que does not automatically move the accent to that syllable. However, in po pu LUS que, the syllable before -que is accented (even though the u is short) as the combination of the two consonants sq make the syllable heavy and accented. There has to be a long vowel or a consonant to go with the q to accent that syllable. There is evidence, as time wore on (by the 4th or 5th century), that by analogy the easy route was taken of just always accenting the syllable before –que. So you may see that syllable accented in ecclesiastical texts that use accent marks.

                    (There are a few grammarians who state that the syllable before -que is routinely accented, but they don't give any evidence that this was the case in early or classical Latin. )

                    Bonnie

                    Last edited by Bonnie; 09-26-2022, 10:10 AM.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Jon Christianson View Post

                      The difference is that servo, I guard, conveys guarding a direct object; caveo, I guard against, does not. So, a statement with a direct object of guard, such as to guard oneself, would suggest servo in a way that a statement without a direct object of guard would not. Conversely, a statement without a direct object of guard, such as to guard against something, would suggest caveo in a way that a statement with a direct object of guard does not.

                      In my example clause, se contra peccatum serva, se is the direct object of serva (guard yourself), peccatum is the prepositional object of contra (against sin). A similar clause with caveo would not include se because caveo does not indicate that anything is being guarded - merely that something is being guarded against. Really, they're very different uses of the English word guard; servo means to literally protect or preserve an object, caveo means to be watchful, mindful, or cautious about something.

                      - Jon
                      I think what I don't understand is the use of the third person pronoun as the object of the singular imperative serva. Why is it not te or te ipsum? I would use se with an infinitive, as in se contra peccatum servare - to guard oneself against sin - but I am surprised to see it with that imperative. What am I forgetting here? Thank you!
                      DS (16)
                      DD (15)
                      DS (8)

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                        That is an excellent question as to the pronunciation of cordeque. The accent does not automatically fall on the syllable before –que. It may fall on that syllable, as it does in filiōque, because the vowel o is long, i.e., marked with a macron. (Also words like ma RI que.) But the e in corde is short, and adding -que does not automatically move the accent to that syllable. However, in po pu LUS que, the syllable before -que is accented (even though the u is short) as the combination of the two consonants sq make the syllable heavy and accented. There has to be a long vowel or a consonant to go with the q to accent that syllable. There is evidence, as time wore on (by the 4th or 5th century), that by analogy the easy route was taken of just always accenting the syllable before –que. So you may see that syllable accented in ecclesiastical texts that use accent marks.

                        (There are a few grammarians who state that the syllable before -que is routinely accented, but they don't give any evidence that this was the case in early or classical Latin. )

                        Bonnie

                        Thank you so much for this! Those pesky long and short! The trickiest word to pronounce in the whole Latin Mass is totiusque
                        DS (16)
                        DD (15)
                        DS (8)

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Mrs Bee View Post
                          The trickiest word to pronounce in the whole Latin Mass is totiusque
                          I was struck by superabundanter, more abundantly, in the Epistle yesterday -- with a sense of flowing from on high -- what a glorious adverb!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Mrs Bee View Post

                            I think what I don't understand is the use of the third person pronoun as the object of the singular imperative serva. Why is it not te or te ipsum? I would use se with an infinitive, as in se contra peccatum servare - to guard oneself against sin - but I am surprised to see it with that imperative. What am I forgetting here? Thank you!
                            Oh! Silly me; yes, I should've been using the second person te. I guess I was thinking of you in the generalized "it makes you think" sense.​

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X