loqu Latine

[loqu]

Salvete!

Linguam latinam discere volo et hoc filum aperire decidi, ut vos dubitationes meas respondere et errata mea corrigere possitis.

Nunc curso Latinae Cambridge studeo, sed librum "Lingua latina per se illustrata" (de Orberg scriptus) vidi et eum credo bonus esse. Novistisne hunc librum? Quid creditis?

Vale!

[KingHarvest]

*bonum

The Cambridge Latin Course should be fine. If you really feel you want to switch books, I would suggest Wheelock's, it's pretty much the standard series from which to learn Latin. What you want to look for in a Latin course is 1.) Readings that are adaptations of actual Latin passages which are less and less abridged the further you get into a course 2.) Good explanations of grammatical points in a modern language, neither of which does this Orberg text seem to have.

[loqu]

Well, my goal is not to read and translate classical texts but to learn the language in a natural way as I did with English or German. That's why I prefer a monolingual book, completely in Latin, I think it's a faster way to get myself immersed in the language (it worked with German, I'm a student of C1 but I haven't translated or read any text by Goethe, still I consider my level pretty decent). That fact and the good reviews of the book are what led me to think of buying it, but I'm also considering other options. The Wheelock one seems to be too dry/theoretical, isn't it?

[KingHarvest]

The thing is, you're never going to experience Latin in the same way that you experience a modern language. You are going to experience Latin through writers who are well aware of incredibly obtuse and seemingly irrelevant points of grammar, and there are most likely huge differences between natural spoken Latin and written Classical Latin, and you will never experience true spoken Latin. Memorizing obscure points of grammar is far more useful than reading repetitive phrases like are in the beginning of Orberg. Frankly, I learned Ancient Greek in the manner in which I described what you should be looking for in a course for Latin, and it was far more useful than any reading everything in the target language. At best it is useless, at worst it is harmful. You want to be reading real texts as soon as possible rather than compositions by modern writers because passages written by modern writers do not prepare you at all for what texts written by the real classical authors are like.

[loqu]

Well I don't agree at all, but that's a matter of points of view; I guess we just don't have the same goals with the language. Anyway I didn't ask what I should be searching for (it's not the first language I learn) but rather about the quality of the book if anyone had worked with it.

Dubitationem parvam cum caso locativo habeo. In tabulis declinationum libri mei locativus non apparet. In sententiis contemplo, ut locativus primae declinationi -ae habeat, et locativus secondae declinationi -i habeat. Quomodo locativus tertiae declinationi dicitur?

Valete!

[KingHarvest]

Well, what is your goal in learning the language? Do you want to read Classical works, or do you just want knowledge of Latin to ease the learning of the disparate branches of the Romance Languages?

The locative is either -e or -i in the third declension, I've forgotten. Place names are usually first or second declension and third doesn't come up all that often, but I'll look it up in my grammar for you when I get home. My only possible correction for you is that the genitive of declinatio is "-is." But the dative is perfectly acceptable if that's not what you're going for . Also, your Latin is getting much better.

[KingHarvest]

Both -i and -e are correct, and they are completely interchangeable.

[loqu]

Gratias ago!

Verus est, ut multi loci nomina primae aut secundae declinationum habeant, sed ego loci cum nomine tertiae declinationis habito (Hispalis). Urbis ubi mater mea habitat et ubi ego natus sum Gades (itaque pluralis) dicitur. Num casus locativus pluralis existit?

[KingHarvest]

Est verum* moltos locos declinationis primae aut secondae nomina habere*, sed ego loco* cum nomine tertiae declinationis habito (Hispalis). Urbs* quo* mater mea habitat et ubi ego natus sum Gades (itaque pluralis) dicitur. Casusne* locativus pluralis existit?

*existential clauses usually like to have the est as the first word or at least close to the beginning
*an ut + subj. clause can't be used for most types of indirect speech. They are mostly used for such phrases (the damn technical word is escaping my mind at the moment) as "I was so happy that I jumped up and down," or "I was so mad that I killed him"; for purpose clauses, "I went home to read."; indirect commands "I ordered him to take out the trash."; and a few other minor clauses that you needn't concern yourself with at the moment.
*most normal nouns don't take the locative, only proper names, domus, and rus.
*I'm not sure why you put urbs in the genitive, just a typo?
*Latin uses a relative clause in this situation, there's an implied loco that is in apposition to the quo. Ubi is used like "Where am I going?" or "That is where it is."
*Num would mean "There's a plural locative, isn't there?" -ne means "Is there a plural locative?"

And to answer your question, yes there is. In the first and second declension it's -is, and in the 3rd it's -ibus. Athenae, Athens; Athenis, at Athens. Gades, Cadiz; Gadibus, at Cadiz.

[loqu]

Oh, thanks for the corrections. Urbs wasn't a typo, it was originally urbis (genitive), but I have the bad habit to write a post and then re-write it again and again until I get the best way to express myself. With highly flexive languages such as Latin it has the inconvenient that I often forget to change the endings and thus I usually make errors that way.

The thing with num was supposed to mean "There isn't a locative plural, is there?". I read that num is used when expecting a negative answer, I expected that (though I was wrong ).

I also read in my book that quo means direction to where and ubi means place in where. There is something that doesn't fit, I mean, ubi can't be used for relative clauses then?

I understand the correction of the ut, changing it for an infinitive clause, but I don't regard the example as indirect speech.

In the ego loci habito thing, if loco can't take the locative, why does it become ego loco habito and not locum (Acc.) or in loco?

[KingHarvest]

The thing with num was supposed to mean "There isn't a locative plural, is there?". I read that num is used when expecting a negative answer, I expected that (though I was wrong )

Oh yes, fair enough. I don't read plays often so num and nonne don't come up all that often, and I forget which one is which

I also read in my book that quo means direction to where and ubi means place in where. There is something that doesn't fit, I mean, ubi can't be used for relative clauses then?

I consulted my grammars, and ubi can be used for relative clauses that are place at which, but the normal way to express them is with a relative clause. Quo is used for place at which. I've personally always seen quo and never ubi.

I understand the correction of the ut, changing it for an infinitive clause, but I don't regard the example as indirect speech.

What are you intending it to mean (in English), then? I understood it as "It is true that...."

In the ego loci habito thing, if loco can't take the locative, why does it become ego loco habito and not locum (Acc.) or in loco?

As far as I can tell, habito doesn't take an accusative. Loco and in loco, however, are both perfectly correct. Latin prefers to not use an in for place at which when the noun is a very generic, unspecific word, like locus or pars, but in loco would not be wrong to say.

[Æren]

Really sorry for such an interruption, but I think that studeo governs Dative. So I think it should be latinae [linguae] nunc studeo.

[loqu]

Really sorry for such an interruption, but I think that studeo governs Dative. So I think it should be latinae [linguae] nunc studeo.

Thanks for the correction. I wrote that some time ago and now that I notice, I would rather change the verb.

[KingHarvest]

Studeo governs nouns in both the dative and the accusative, either are correct.

[Evil Weasel]

you will never experience true spoken Latin.

Go to Romania. Probably something like that.

[KingHarvest]

Stop it right there.

[DANAY]

WE SPEak LATIN EVERY DAY AT HOME.....WHITH EVERYBODY....GRANDPA/GRANDMA/ MAMA, PAPA....CUM OMNIBUS.....EVEN WHITH MY CATS....MICHI-BITCHIE AND LITTLE NAZLI....EVEN IF THE WANT 2 EAT, THEY NIAOOW IT IN LATIN....
ΕΙΠΑΜΕ, Η ΤΡΕΛΛΑ ΔΕΝ ΠΑΕΙ ΣΤΑ ΒΟΥΝΑ....ΚΟΡΙΤΣΙΑ, ΚΑΝΤΕ ΣΕΞ,ΑΝΤΙ ΝΑ ΜΙΛΑΤΕ ΣΕ ΜΙΑ ΝΕΚΡΗ ΓΛΩΣΣΑ...... ............

[KingHarvest]

Αρχαία ελληνικά είναι καλύτερα από νέα ελληνικά.

[Æren]

[loqu]

Salvete. Linguam graecam non intellego, itaque nescio quod scripsistis.

quaestio mea nova de vocabulo 'coquus/cocus' est. In Curso Latino Cambridge coquus dicitur homo quis cibum parat, quis in culina laborat. In 'Linguam Latinam' ab Orberg hic homo cocus dicitur.

Suntne differentiae inter haec dua vocabula?

Gratias ago. Valete!