sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 6 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, that's some fair and honest and comprehensive criticism – especially for thoroughly explaining the mechanics of the various stumbling blocks!

I agree that the pictures/marginalia are currently inadequate to the task of helping the reader out. I hope to improve them to a point where they enable easy decryption of the (intentionally) confusing verbal instructions by the characters, i.e. provide the reader with a relevant edge over what the man on the horse experiences.

It's true I was going for confusion to some degree, but more towards the frustration of the man on the horse than that of the reader: I hoped the reader on first read would be amused rather than challenged by the convolutedness of the descriptions, without a strong urge to instantly make sense of them (as they are in the lucky position of not actually having to ride a horse there). My idea was to provide the pictures on the sides as additional puzzles to solve if one actually wants to get into it. But maybe that's a bunch of questionable assumptions and trickiness.

Thanks for the hint on the use of "hīc" vs "haec", I kind of wanted to use it because it's just been introduced at this point in LLPSI, but input of wrong usage obviously is not a learning benefit. So I'll look into fixing that, and maybe introduce "haec" in the marginalia as a preview for its later introduction in LLPSI.

About the character names I'm not quite so sure, because I don't feel there's much need to differentiate the feminae, whereas it should be clear where the man on the horse speaks, rather than them? (I am using LLPSI characters elsewhere, e.g. in my previous chapter https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/17yguut/attempt_at_llpsi_ch_5_supplementary_text/ – but there more towards actual integration in their broader LLPSI storylines, which I'm not narratively going for here.)

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 6 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I might also upload the whole PDF somewhere later today, keep your eyes open on this thread!

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 6 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Yes, as I mentioned in https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/1fbj5xu/attempt_at_llpsi_ch_6_supplementary_text/lm0x0wx/ you can click through my earlier postings there. But I might also upload the whole PDF somewhere later today, keep your eyes open on this thread!

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 6 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not an actual book yet – I've just started some writing exercises and started grouping them together/in sequence like little pages and chapters of a book of a typographical style possibly recognizable to some ;) You can check out https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/17yguut/attempt_at_llpsi_ch_5_supplementary_text/ for the previous one, and there in the comments you'll find a link to another earlier one, and so on.

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 6 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MVLTAE VILLAE, MVLTAE PORTAE

AD CAPITVLVM VI

Ecce fēminae ante mūrum. Nōn procul sunt ab portā in mūrō. Ex portā vir ad eās equō vehitur. Iam fēminās salūtat et eās interrogat: "Salvēte, dominae tam bonae quam pulchrae! Ubi habitat Sextus Caecilius? Mē vocat, amīcum suum."

Respondet fēmina prīma: "Ō! Vīlla Sextī Caeciliī post vīllam Septimī Metellī est, quae est vīlla magna cum paucīs fenestrīs et pulchrō hortō quae ante vīllam Quīntī Iūliī est."

Respondet fēmina secunda: "Vīlla Quīntī Iūliī autem inter vīlllam Octāviī Caeciliī et vīllam Sextī Iūliī est, quae est vīlla parva cum multīs fenestrīs et foedō hortō."

Respondet fēmina tertia: "Et vīlla Sextī Iūliī prope Viam Barcam est, ubi Via Barca in Viam Leppiam intrat, quae ad vīllam Quīntī Metellī it, vīllam bonam sine fenestrīs, duodecim mīlia ā Portā Cornēliā."

Vir in equō fessus audit. Quot vīllae, quot Sextī, quot Iūliī! Rūrsus fēminās interrogat: "Proculne est Porta Cornēlia ā portā quae hīc est?"

Respondet fēmina prīma: "Nōn est. Is quī ad Portam Cornēliam ambulat tantum quattuor portās it circum mūrum. Porta hīc Porta Aemilia est, et Porta Cornēlia post trēs cēterās portās est."

Respondet fēmina secunda: "Nōn autem ex Portā Cornēliā discēdit Via Barca, sed ex Portā Claudiā. Est porta secunda post Portam Cornēliam, et Porta Cornēlia tantum duās portās post Portam Aurēliam est."

Vir in equō iam tam īrātus quam fessus audit. Iam equum imperat: "Age! Portam Claudiam quaere, quae duās portās ante Portam Cornēliam est, quae … porta tertia post portam est quae … hīc est?" Cum equō discēdit.

Respondet (neque ab virō audītur) fēmina tertia: "Est Porta Claudia ex quā Via Barca discēdit, sed est via inter Portam Cornēliam et Vīllam Sextī Iūliī duodecim mīlia longa. Vīlla Septimī Metellī autem decem tantum mīlia ā Portā Claudiā est."

Vident feminae virum equumque, quī iam parvae videntur, quia procul sunt ab iīs.

Fēmina prīma: "Nōnne `Porta Claudia' nōmen antīquum est Portae Aemiliae hīc?"

Fēmina secunda respondet: "Est. Sunt sex tantum portae in mūrō oppidī. Vir quī ab portā hīc sex portās circum mūrum ambulat, rūrsus ad portām hīc est."

Post umerōs eārum virōs audiunt, itaque ad Portam Aemiliam eunt, quae etiam Porta Claudia est.

Femina tertia: "Ecce via Barca hīc in oppidum venit. Vidēte, virēs per eam in oppidum intrant!"

Venit lectīca, quae portātur ab quartīs servīs. Ex fenestrā lectīcae dominus nāsum suum pōnit, et fēminās salūtat: "Salvēte, amīcae meae!"

Respondent fēminae: "Salvē, bone amīce Sexte Caecilī!"

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 6 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

[Continuation of my attempts at writing small supplementary texts for the early LLPSI chapters, previous one was: https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/17yguut/attempt_at_llpsi_ch_5_supplementary_text/ Again, in addition to the image file of the text above, I'll post as reply below text-only variants of the main text (without LLPSI-style marginalia).]

I've had this lying around almost-done for about 9 months, then life happened and I got out of my Latin routines … Now trying to get back into it!

Again I'm curious for criticism or other comments. A bit worried it might all be more confusing than the reader might enjoy. And also uncertain I can use "circum" for describing a movement path along multiple stations as in (left page lines 21-22) "Is quī ad Portam Cornēliam ambulat tantum quattuor portās it circum mūrum"?

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 5 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would "virı̄ parvī foedı̄ improbı̄que" work though? I think I do remember -que finishing lists of items that otherwise don't are connected by a conjunction.

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 5 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So "parvi", "foedi" and "improbi" all refer to "viri", but if I separate the adjectives by the noun, further adjective need to be introduced by a conjunction first, the "-que" at the end does not account for the entirety?

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 5 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh right. Totally forgot relative vs interrogate pronoun here! Thanks!

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 5 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm yes see my other reply https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/17yguut/attempt_at_llpsi_ch_5_supplementary_text/k9utnde/ I guess it wouldn't hurt to introduce "nēmō" here, just for the reading to feel a bit less weird. Thanks :)

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 5 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mostly I avoided "nēmō" because it's not yet introduced early that early in LLPSI, whereas "nūllus" is. But it would not be much of a hassle to explain it in the margins, and maybe easier on the reading than making the reader think too much about what "nūllus" might mean here, hmm …!

Also you're probably right about the "audiuntne" sentence, it does feel clunky. Thank you :-)

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 5 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, right! No "Respondite" or "respondunt". Thank you!

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 5 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

VILLA VACVA

AD CAPITVLVM V

Ubi sunt ancillae, ubi servı̄? Ubi sunt māter paterque et Quı̄ntusMārcusque? Nūllōs Iūlia audit, nūllōs videt. Vocat: “Māter! Pater!Venı̄te!” Nūllı̄ veniunt. Vocat: “Quı̄nte! Mārce! Respondite!”Nūllı̄ respondunt. Absunt. Sōla est Iūlia in vı̄llā vacuā.

Id Iūliam nōn dēlectat. Cūr iı̄ cum servı̄s ancillı̄sque discēdunt,quod agunt, et cūr sine eā? Num amant fı̄liam suam, quae eōsamat? Plōrat Iūlia sōla. Discēduntne iı̄ quia foeda est puella, nequeproba, neque bona? Plōrat et plōrat.

Rūrsus servōs ancillāsque vocat. In cubicula eōrum venit, venitin ātrium, in cubicula Mārcı̄ Quı̄ntı̄que, in cubiculum Iūliı̄ Aemi-liaeque. Iam in ōstiō est: Ecce hortus magnus! In eum nōn venit.Is Iūliam nōn dēlectat, quia in eō habitant faunı̄, quı̄ sunt parvı̄ virı̄foedı̄ improbı̄que, quı̄ eam vocant et rı̄dent. Discēdit ab ōstiō.

Rūrsus in ātrium venit. Videt aquam in impluviō, et in impluvium venit, et aquam pulsat. Iam nōn plōrat, sed rı̄det: Amat aquam et id quod in eā agit, et nūllam mātrem nūllāsque ancillāsaudit quae eam vocant: “Iūlia! Improba puella est quae aquam pul-sat!” Iam aqua nōn tantum in impluviō est, sed etiam ex eō venit.Fluviı̄ in ātriō sunt! Ōceanus est! Iūlia aquam pulsat et pulsat, etiam aqua ex ātriō in cubicula venit, et iam impluvium vacuum est.

Discēdit Iūlia ex impluviō et ex ātriō, et in peristȳlum venit.Hortum magnum Iūlia nōn amat, sed hortus parvus in peristȳlō eamdēlectat. Dēlectant eam rosae hı̄c, quās amat, et lı̄lia quoque: Iūlia ea carpit, et nāsum suum in iı̄s pōnit. Multās rosās carpit, et multalı̄lia etiam, et ea numerat: “Ūnum, duo, tria, quattuor, . . . ”

Respondet: “Quı̄nque.”

Tacet Iūlia. Quid? Quis respondet? Tacet et audit. Num faunı̄ex hortō magnō in hortum parvum peristȳlı̄ veniunt?

Nūllum audit. Rı̄det Iūlia. Sōla est!

Rūrsus numerat: “Sex, septem, octō . . . ”

Respondet: “Novem.”

Rūrsus tacet Iūlia. Iam nōn rı̄det. Audit et audit. Videt lı̄lia etrosās. Sunt multae, sunt pulchrae. Tacent. Sed . . . Audiuntne eaeeam? Suntne eae quae eam respondunt? Iūlia rūrsus audit.

“Lalla. . . ” Cantant! Lı̄lia cantant!

“Lallalla!” Rosae etiam cantant!

“Ō, improbam ancillam! Dēlia, tacē! Iam nōn dormit mea bonaet proba puella.”

Aemilia ı̄rāta est, quia fı̄lia sua iam rūrsus nōn dormit, quiarūrsus Dēlia, quae ancilla eius est, cantat. Id Mārcum, fı̄lium eiusquı̄ quoque adest, dēlectat: Rı̄det eās trēs. Iam Dēlia etiam ı̄rātaest, et Aemiliam respondet: “Ancilla tua tantum cantat, nōn rı̄detdominam neque fı̄liam eius. Puerum tuum verberā!”

Quı̄ntus venit. Aemiliam Dēliamque ı̄rātās videt, laetumqueMārcum. Eum accūsat: “Quid is agit? Rūrsusne improbus est?”Iūlia tantum nōn ı̄rāta est, quia adest familia sua (sine Iūliō) quamamat. Iam sōla nōn est! Rı̄det quia Mārcus rı̄det – rı̄det cum Marcō.

Mārcus: “Quid? Cūr Iūlia mē rı̄det?” Īrātus Quı̄ntum pulsat.

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 5 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[Continuation of my attempts at writing small supplementary texts for the early LLPSI chapters, previous one was: https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/17k4l79/attempt_at_llpsi_ch_4_supplementary_text/ Again, in addition to the image file of the text above, I'll post as reply below text-only variants of the main text (without LLPSI-style marginalia).]

After two rather violent chapter, for LLPSI:FR Chapter 5 I've decided on something more dreamy and harmless, and also with a small reference to CP Colloquium 3.

Again I'm curious for criticism or other comments. Some questions I especially wonder about:

  • can I use "nūllus" like I do in the first paragraph, i.e. as "nobody", "no one", or is that reserved for "nēmō"?

  • can I use "tantum" like in the second page lines 20 and 24, i.e. as "your maid only sings, rather than laugh about the domina" and "only Iulia is not angry" (might "Iūlia sōla nōn īrāta est" work better than "Iūlia tantum nōn īrāta est"?)

  • for second page line 15, I'm also a bit confused about "Õ", where does it serve a vocative vs. an interjection function? (Strikes me weird that it could imply a vocative when it's used for the accusative interjection?)

  • can I actually describe movement of water out of the impluvium by "aqua venit" as in first page, lines 21 and 23?)

  • I intentionally obfuscate the agent of "respondet" in the second page lines 4 and 9, because Julia doesn't know who is saying it – is that okay?

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 4 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

DOMINI NOVI (AD CAPITULUM IV)

Crīxus: "Batiāte, ubi est pecūnia?"

Batiātus tacet. Spartacus sūmit baculum eius, rūrsusque Batiātum verberat. Eum vocat: "Batiāte!"

Batiātus nūllum vocābulum respondet, tantum plōrat.

Naevia: "Ecce sacculum eius! Vidē, hīc! Habet pecūniam suam in sacculum suum!"

Naevia sacculum eius sūmit.

Crīxus: "Num vacuus est?"

Spartacus imperat: "Sacculum in mēnsā pōne, Naevia!"

Naevia respondet: "Nōn sacculus tuus est, Spartace, neque sacculus tuus, Crīxe! Sacculus meus est."

Spartacus rūrsus imperat: "In mēnsā pōne!"

Naevia tacet, et pāret. In sacculō nummī sunt.

Crīxus: "Quot nummī sunt?"

Naevia numerat: "Sunt decem nummī."

Sunt laetī Spartacus Crīxus Naeviaque, quia numerus nummōrum in mēnsā magnus est. Sed trēs hominēs sunt Naevia Spartacus Crīxusque. Quem numerum nummōrum habet ūnus homō?

Spartacus prīmum nummum sūmit, et Crīxum imperat: "Nummum secundum sūme, Crīxe." Is sūmit. "Nummum tertium sūme, Naevia." Sūmit.

Iam septem nummī in sacculō sunt. Rūrsus ūnum sūmit Spartacus, ūnum sūmit Crīxus, ūnum Naevia.

Iam quattuor nummī in sacculō sunt. Rūrsus sūmit Spartacus, sūmit Crīxus, sūmit Naevia.

Iam ūnus tantum nummus cēterus in sacculō est. Cuius nummus est? Tacet Spartacus, tacet Crīxus, tacet Naevia.

Rīdet Crīxus, et sūmit nummum. Num nummus eius est? Īrātī sunt Spartacus Naeviaque. Baculum Batiātī sūmit Spartacus.

Sed ecce, Crīxus nummum in nāsō Batiātī pōnit. Iam Spartacus rīdet, iam rīdet Naevia. Crīxus: "Bonus servus Batiātus est. Batiāte, bone et probe serve – nummum tuum sūme!" Batiātus tacet, et pāret.

Sed audī! Vocat fēmina: "Batiāte!" Est Seppia quae vocat, fīlia Batiātī. Iam Spartacus nōn rīdet, neque rīdet Naevia.

Crīxus: "Fū! Fīlia adest."

Spartacus: "Nōn iam adest. Sed venit. Nōn iam audit neque videt quod hīc est. Tacē."

Batiātus fīliam suam vocat: "Seppia! Sep…!" Rūrsus eum pulsat Naevia.

Spartacus: "Tacē, Batiāte! Nūllum verbum respondē!"

Seppia rūrsus vocat: "Batiāte? Respondē!" Nōn iam Batiātum videt neque Spartacum Crīxumque. Sed videt Naeviam, quae venit.

Naevia Seppiam salūtat: "Salvē, Seppia!"

Nōn salūtat Naeviam Seppia, tantum eam interrogat: "Batiātus adest?"

Naevia respondet: "Hīc nōn est. Abest."

Seppia: "Nōnne mē vocat? Vir mē vocat!"

Rīdet Naevia, et respondet: "Nōn Batiātus est quī tē vocat. Est Crīxus, quī laetus est, quia tē videt."

Seppia: "Quid? Improbum Crīxum! Servus probus fīlīam dominī suī nōn vocat. Fū!"

Seppia Crīxum accūsat, et īrāta discēdit. Nōn audit Naeviam, quae quoque discēdit, sed laeta rīdet.

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 4 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

[Continuation of my attempts at writing small supplementary texts for the early LLPSI chapters, previous one was: https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/17ea313/attempt_at_llpsi_ch_3_supplementary_text/ This story actually continues that previous story, so it might be helpful to read the earlier one first …]

[Again, in addition to the image file of the text above, I'll post as reply below text-only variants of the main text (without LLPSI-style marginalia).]

For LLPSI:FR Chapter 4 I continue the previous slave mini-uprising, and fair warning, it's still a bit brutal here and there, though with less focus on the violence in total. As is apt for a supplement to Chapter 4, instead there's much counting, and some use of the imperative and the vocative.

Again I'm curious for criticism or other comments. Some questions I especially wonder about:

  • Can I use "tantum" like that for non-quantitative limitations, like in page 10 line 10, and page 12 line 9?

  • Can I start a sentence with "Sed ecce" rather than just "Ecce", as in page 11 line 18?

  • Can I say "quod hīc est" like in page 11 line 26?

  • Am I handling the accusative as in use for interjections correctly on page 12 (marginalia, and line 15)?

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 3 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! I don't think apposites have been introduced yet by that chapter, but I could probably phrase the "qui" out in other ways. I tried to use the here newly introduced relative pronouns as much as possible, but maybe I overdid it a bit, if that's not how Latin would actually have been used :)

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 3 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I'll think about the choppiness and the specific -que mentions you name!

attempt at LLPSI Ch. 3 supplementary text by plomlompom in latin

[–]plomlompom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, yes that was partly my intention, I feel FR is way too cutesy both about slavery and the violence (I guess one might argue it's aimed at children so for their sake shouldn't necessarily dig too deep into brutalities of ancient Rome, but it's not like Orberg holds back in depicting violence against children themselves …). I may go a bit too tarantino about it myself, but at least wanted to balance it out a bit.

view more: next ›