In japan they’re all just called food.
I squālus, -ī (m.)
II batia (?), -ae (f.)
III anguīlla, -ae (f.)
IV cancer, -rī (m.)
V cammarus, -ī (m.)
VI delphīnus, -ī (m.)
VII cētus, -ī (m.)
VIII pulmō marīnus, pulmōnēs marīnī (m.)
IX sardīna, -ae (f.)
What I think I’ve learnt from comparing our translations (apart from that I messed up loads of cases):
discedo is the root for leave rather than the much more ambiguous cedo.
When describing leaving a place, I need ex.
When describing travelling along a road, I need ad rather than in, and I don’t need eo.
When using primus I need ineo.
impedio is more nuanced to blocking and compesco to confining.
When describing paying a toll, I should use pro as though a service was being bought.
I don’t understand your construction aliquos ibatur.
arbor instead of lignum. Basic.
oppidulum, the diminutive, is more natural than using parva.
Using peto (I make for) is more natural than using the noun destinatio.
Using advesperascit (evening approaches) is more natural than using the noun vesper.
deversorius has more of a connotation of a place you would stay as opposed to taberna?
pernocto (I spend the night) is more expressive than quiesco (I rest, sleep)
I get the feeling that natural Latin relies more heavily on verbs than English.
Here’s a game: can you find any English word that starts with V that doesn’t originate in Latin? I can’t think of any.
vacca => vaccine
varix => varicose
velum => velum
vendere => vend
vilis => vile
vilaticus => village
vindemia => vintage
vinea => vine
virginem => virgin
vorax => voracious
Ah, found it! vole from Norse vǫllr is the exception!
My sister found me a second exception, van from Persian kârvân.
discedo is the root for leave rather than the much more ambiguous cedo .
When describing leaving a place, I need ex .
discedo a / de / e loco aliquo means “go away from some place”. excedo or egredior (e) lovo aliquo “to leave a place” is maybe better. decedere would imply leaving the place forever. Look up the proper section in the Phrasebook I linked. In connex with leaving places, you aaaaalways use de, a/ab or e/ex with ablative. Ablative is the case of origin and separation, (sometimes location) remember that.
When describing travelling along a road, I need ad rather than in , and I don’t need eo .
When using primus I need ineo .
The most usual way to say ‘I travel’ is iter facio. I feel like the english ‘to travel along a road’ has a degree of metaphorical concreteness that’s kinda un-latin. ad is the preposition for destinations. There’s no connection between primum and ineo. Primum means ‘at first’, viam ineo is “to take on a road”. in se dare works for “to set out on a journey”.
Edit: as one can see by the -an, borean is a greek word and should be reserved for poetry.
I don’t understand your construction aliquos ibatur .
per campos aliquos ibatur is ‘one goes through some fields’. ibatur is a passive form ‘it got went’. When the english said ‘the path goes’ I was a bit uncomfortable, because, as a general rule Latin does not like abstract nouns to be a clause’s subject. Maybe it’s still good style if a ‘path’ does something like go around through fields. For the same reason I iuxtaposed ‘a river blocked my path’ with ‘my path was blocked by a river’, which is probably wrong. A river is less abstract than a path, so it may be the better choice for the subject. But these are nuances.
arbor instead of lignum . Basic.
Lignum is kinda alright, too. Sometimes, lignum can also be a gallow or cross, so the thought of resting under a ‘wood’ beside a roman road is a bit gruesome. Think of Spartacus.
Using advesperascit ( evening approaches ) is more natural than using the noun vesper .
deversorius has more of a connotation of a place you would stay as opposed to taberna ?
pernocto ( I spend the night ) is more expressive than quiesco ( I rest, sleep )
A deversorium is the kind of inn you would find along the roads, specialised in accomodating travellers, messengers, tradesmen and the like.
I get the feeling that natural Latin relies more heavily on verbs than English.
Yes, verbs all the way.
in is used with the ablative if it means location and accusativ if motion. Feles in cistam est is wrong, in cistâ est is correct. The cat goes into a box is feles in cistam it. Same with sub. Nevermind the position of the verb. It’s really no matter. Strangely enough, ante and iuxta always have accusative, even for location.
Edit: even more edits.
And can you think of a modern english word not derived from greek, where y is a vowel?
Edit: I’ll also give you an excersise from the textbook I instruct my pupils with, because your CNG-congruence is really off-world. Copy this text into your notebook and mark with colour which words belong together by congruence of case, number and gender:
Grrr! I forgot about the ablative of location! (in the cat translations)
Also, sylvan. Easy
Posh-looking renaissance spellings of latin words don’t count
Still easy. Rye!
nyce, nyce, veri nyce.
… not to mention every adverb derived from adjectives.
How about this one: are they any words with ae in that aren’t from Latin?
Superscript alright for you?
Apud ¹ Cinnam ¹ magnus ² clamor ² est.
Gripus ¹ enim clamat ¹ : “Ego mercator ² honestus ² sum. Et quid servi sunt? Nihil!”
Per Romam currunt, nihil agunt dominos ¹ suos non audiunt ¹ .
"Cuncti ¹ servi homines ¹ mali ¹ sunt. "
Sed unus ¹ ex hospitibus ¹ claris ¹ Gripum ² reprehendit ² :
“Quantus ¹ clamor ¹ est hic! Tace! Tu ² homo ² es ² , non deus. Tu ceteris ¹ hospitibus ¹ clamore ¹ tuo iam satis molestus ³ fuisti ³ !”
Just write a paragraph or few about the geography of your target country and its neighbours.
Please tell me if all my uses of esse are wrong. I sort of guessed at what an infinitive is.
Esse tria continentia: Eurōpa, Āfrica, Āsiaque. Mediterrāneānum hic dīvitur. Urbs Rōmae esse in Italiā; hic esse terra pulchra. In aquilōnem esse Gallia et Germānia. Hic esse in Imperium Rōmānum. Ultrā Galliam esse duae īnsulae magnae: Brittania et Hibernia. Ultrā Brittaniam esse frīgus terra Thūlēs.
In oriēns esse Graecus, cum īnsulae multae. In oriēns longe esse terra Persārum. Hic calda esse nimis. Libya esse mare austrī. Hic inter parietinae Carthāginis, barbarī miserī bubulcātis.
The Sea: Japanese
海月、くらげ or クラゲ、(kurage)、jellyfish
in bold face the more often used in written form.
I just learned some Latin today from this webcomic
Translate the first half-verse of the greatest English poem:
From the hag and hungry goblin
That into rags would rend ye,
The spirit that stands by the naked man
In the Book of Moons defend ye,
If you’re feeling confident, then make it rhyme
- Apud ¹ Cinnam ¹ magnus ² clamor ² est.
Cinnam alone, accusative triggered by apud. magnus clamor both nom.sg.m, together “great shouting”. “At Cinna’s there was a great ruckus”
- Gripus ¹ enim clamat ¹ : “Ego mercator ² honestus ² sum. Et quid servi sunt? Nihil!”
Gripus nom.sg.m agrees with clamat 3.sg.ind.act.present. ego 1.sg.nom. agrees with mercator nom.sg.m, honestus nom.sg.m. quid nom.sg.n. is predicative to servi nom.pl.m., sunt 3.pl.ind.act.present. "For Gripus is shouting: “I am an honest merchant! And what are slaves? Nothing!”
You might have heard about subject, object, and predicates. Now, when you’ve got to be as predicate to a sentence, that’s only half a predicate. You need to supplement the something that is being been. So, to I am an honest merchant, I is the subject, am an honest merchant is a predicate in two parts, namely am and an honest merchant.
- Per Romam currunt, nihil agunt dominos ¹ suos non audiunt ¹ .
Romam acc.sg.f, triggered by per ‘through’. currunt 3.pl.ind.act.present. nihil* acc.sg.n, direct object to agunt 3.pl.in.act.present. dominos suos both acc.pl.m, object to non audiunt, 3.p.i.a.pr. The subject to these three clauses is implied by the ending -unt.
“They run through Rome, do nothing, and do not listen to their masters.”
When doing lists, you either put et after every element, or you put no et at all.
- "Cuncti ¹ servi homines ¹ mali ¹ sunt. "
cuncti nom.pl.m, servi nom.pl.m, homines nom.pl.m mali nom.pl.m sunt 3.p.i.a.pr.
“All slaves are bad persons.”
- Sed unus ¹ ex hospitibus ¹ claris ¹ Gripum ² reprehendit ² :
unus nom.s.m, reprehendit 3.s.i.a.pr., hospitibus claris abl.p.m triggered by ex, Gripum acc.sg.m.
“But one of the famous guests rebukes Gripus.”
- “Quantus ¹ clamor ¹ est hic! Tace! Tu ² homo ² es ² , non deus. Tu ceteris ¹ hospitibus ¹ clamore ¹ tuo iam satis molestus ³ fuisti ³ !”
quantus, clamor, hic: nom.sg.m. est 3.s.i.a.pr. tace 2.s.imperative.active.present. tu 2.sg.nom. homo, deus nom.s.m, es 2.sg.indicative.a.pr. ceteris hospitibus dat.pl.m. clamore tuo abl.sg.m. iam ‘now, already’ satis ‘enough’. molestus nom.s.m. fuisti 2.sg.i.a.perfect.
“How much noise is this! Be silent! You are a man, not a god. You have been bothersome to the other guests with your shouting [quite] enough, now!.”
What do you want to know, exactly? This text, as it stands, looks like an exercise, where the student is supposed to turn the infinitive into the proper conjugated form. An infinitive is the verbal action per se, without any statement about person, number, or mood. Only voice and tense: esse ‘to be’, fuisse ‘to have been’. delere ‘to destroy’, delevisse ‘to have destroyed’, deleturus/a/um esse ‘to be about to destroy’, deleri ‘to get destroyed’ deletus/a/um esse ‘to be destroyed’.
There’s a litte style error. You say Europa, Africa, Asia without -que here. I’m not sure if your hic here is supposed to mean ‘here’ or ‘this’. If it’s ‘this’, you have to agree it in number, case and gender with whatever it applies to. (cf. French cet homme, cette femme or German dieser Mann, diese Frau, dieses Kind).
By the way, names of countries are feminine, regardless of their grammatical ending.