r/LatinLanguage

Hello, I'm a complete beginner in any Romance language, and I need help choosing a beginner's Latin textbook. I'm stuck between Oxford and Cambridge's Latin courses. If you've used either, please share your experience!

For some background, I'm a 16-year-old homeschool student from Indonesia. My interest in Latin and Greek began a year ago from researching word etymologies. Since then, I've realized that understanding these languages helps immensely in learning science and history. My awareness of word origins has also grown significantly. I now often find myself automatically breaking down modern words into their roots and understanding them from an etymological standpoint. It's become a fun personal game!

However, I understand that merely searching up word origins won't be enough for full comprehension, especially for a 'dead' language. That's why I'm here, seeking the right curriculum for my personal study.

My reasons for learning Latin stem from my Christian faith and interests in philosophy, psychology, and mythology. Additionally, I'm interested in joining "The Great Conversation" as Adler called it, and Latin seems like a valuable tool for that pursuit.

For reference, I recently started reading the first chapter of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustra, and my comprehension of English ('second-language') has helped me intuitively understand most of it. Yet, I still need a textbook specifically for grammar.

While I've considered the Oxford and Cambridge, I'm open to recommendations beyond those two. Personally, the self-teaching aspect is crucial for me, as this is a private endeavor. But as long as the curriculum is beginner-friendly and uses English, I'm interested!

Hi:

I am currently reading 1 Samuel from the Vulgate Bible in Latin. My classical Latin is pretty good and I am not completely ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures, so it's not overly difficult. However, the Latin is just, well, weird. Unusual words are sometimes used as are well as words I know from Classical Latin with weird new meanings—and there are times where rules of Classical Latin grammar are just ignored. I can generally figure things out by consulting the Septuagint, English Translations, and a friend who has maintained her Hebrew far better than I.

But do people have recommendations for commentaries or lexica or grammars or other books that might help me quickly answer questions about crazy, non-classical usages I find in this text? Or is the only solution to look at Hebrew, Greek, and English translations and figure it out on my own?

Thanks for your kind consideration!

I would like to know how would one say words such as carbonated water, or sparkplugs or things like that...

I sthere a way to be fluent in Latin, or nah?

Hello! I want to learn Latin, could someone send me a collection of words arranged in alphabetical order that can be accessed online for free? Thanks in advance.

Are there any specific Latin words to describe Adoptive mom, dad, brother and sister? The closest I could find was for Foster family.

I found 8 variants for “foster sister” and “foster brother”. What do the different spellings mean?

collactea, conlactea, collactanea, collactia, collacticia, conlactanea, conlactia & conlacticia.

collacteus, conlacteus, collactaneus, collacticius, collactius, conlactaneus, conlacticius & conlactius.

I got a job at a high school that specializes in Latin. Although I don’t need to know it. I want to make a good impression. What’s a good way to learn Latin in 6 weeks?

Hi, I'm having a hard time distinguishing the cases from each other In these sentences. I've tried different videos and websites but nothing helped.

1. Ōtium est bonum, sed ōtium multōrum est parvum.

2. Bella (< bellum, -ī, n.) sunt mala et multa perīcula habent. 

3. Officium nautam dē ōtiō hodiē vocat.

4. Paucī virī mult�?s fōrm�?s perīculī in pecūni�? vident – nōn dēbēmus esse av�?rī!

5. Sī multam pecūniam habētis, saepe nōn estis sine cūrīs.  

6. Puellae magistram dē cōnsiliō malō sine mor�? monent.

7. Ō magne poēta, sumus vērī amīcī; mē iuv�?, am�?bō tē!

8. Fēmina et agrōs et portam agricolae videt.

In the conjugation of sum, in the change from somos to sumus, is that the first o > u change due to analogy with the first person singular?

Hello,

Is there a way to turn Latin nouns into adjectives? For example, if I wanted to say "apple pie," how would I modify the noun "crustum"? Would I just use the genitive singular of the word for apple...or is there something I could add to the base of that noun? Thanks.

I’m giving a speech to a teacher. The framework for my speech is that he fits all of the qualities of the “Allrounder” award we give the students. I want to culminate the speech with granting him this same award… but he’s not a student so I want to grant it post-something. After graduation. After youth. Kind of like posthumous but he’s not dead, just not a students. Looking online I found “gradatus”

Can any of you bright Latin speakers confirm this as being a good option… Postgradatus

Of is there a better word?

Thanks for any help!

I had an interesting exchange with B**g in which I asked it to translate some Latin and Italian. Initially it made some grammar errors, and I thought it was fun to give it hints until it recognized and corrected its error. I initially posted this on , but they have a rule against posting anything related to machine translation. That's not a rule here, though, so perhaps this is a better forum.

## User

Translate literally into English prose:

Segue Rinaldo il suo destrier Bajardo ,

Ed Angelica incontra , che fuggia ,

Seco s'azzuffa Ferraù gagliardo ,

Poi torna al fonte , ov' era giunto pria .

Conofce Sacripante agli atti , al guardo

La bella Donna , e gli si mostra pia .

Rinaldo intanto sopragiunge ratto ,

Da lunge grida, e lo disturba affatto

## Bing

Here is a literal translation of the Italian text into English prose:

Rinaldo follows his steed Bajardo,

And encounters Angelica, who was fleeing,

He fights with the gallant Ferrau,

Then returns to the fountain, where he had arrived before.

Sacripante recognizes the beautiful woman by her actions, her gaze,

And she shows herself to be pious.

In the meantime, Rinaldo arrives quickly,

He shouts from afar, and disturbs him completely.

## User

Please translate this Latin text into English prose:

Insequitur Rinaldus equum, duce et invenit illo

Angelicam elapsam castris, dum morte sinistro

Aspera cum Mauris miscent certamina Galli;

Rinaldum stricto Ferrautus detinet ense.

Fundentem questus Sacripantem, et multa dolentem

Angelica eloquio dulci solatur, et ore

jucundo. Prohibet Sacripanti dulcia furta

Adveniens, et amore salens Rinaldus eodem.

## Bing

Here is a literal translation of the Latin text into English prose:

Rinaldo pursues his horse, and with it as his guide, he finds

Angelica who had slipped away from the camps, while with sinister death

The Gauls mix harsh battles with the Moors;

Ferrautus detains Rinaldo with a drawn sword.

Sacripante, pouring out complaints and much sorrow,

Angelica consoles with sweet speech, and with a

pleasant face. She prevents Sacripante's sweet thefts

Arriving, and Rinaldo, leaping with the same love, interrupts.

## User

In that translation, you used Angelica as the subject of "prohibet". Why do you believe Angelica is the subject of that verb rather than Rinaldus?

## Bing

In the Latin sentence, "Prohibet Sacripanti dulcia furta Angelica...", the verb "prohibet" (prevents) is followed by the dative "Sacripanti" (to Sacripante) and the accusative "dulcia furta" (sweet thefts). In Latin, the verb "prohibeo" typically takes a dative of the person being prevented and an accusative of the thing being prevented.

So, in this context, "Angelica" is the subject who is doing the preventing (prohibet), "Sacripante" is the one being prevented (Sacripanti), and "dulcia furta" (sweet thefts) is what is being prevented.

However, Latin can be ambiguous and the context of the entire work would be needed to definitively determine the subject. If Rinaldo (Rinaldus) was intended to be the subject of "prohibet", the sentence might have been structured differently. But based on the given sentence, it seems more likely that Angelica is the subject. I hope this helps! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. �?�

## User

The Latin text is a loose translation of the Italian text. Does it appear that the Latin sentence " Prohibet Sacripanti dulcia furta Adveniens, et amore salens Rinaldus eodem." corresponds to the Italian sentence "Rinaldo intanto sopragiunge ratto , Da lunge grida, e lo disturba affatto" ?

## Bing

Yes, the Latin sentence "Prohibet Sacripanti dulcia furta Adveniens, et amore salens Rinaldus eodem." does seem to correspond to the Italian sentence "Rinaldo intanto sopragiunge ratto, Da lunge grida, e lo disturba affatto."

In both sentences, the main character, Rinaldo, is arriving quickly (Latin: "Adveniens"; Italian: "sopragiunge ratto") and causing a disturbance (Latin: "et amore salens Rinaldus eodem."; Italian: "Da lunge grida, e lo disturba affatto").

However, the Latin text also includes the detail of Rinaldo preventing Sacripante's "sweet thefts" (Latin: "Prohibet Sacripanti dulcia furta"), which is not explicitly mentioned in the Italian sentence. This could be a case of the Latin translation adding some additional context or details not present in the original Italian.

Please note that while the two sentences do correspond in terms of the main actions and characters involved, there may be nuances in the language and phrasing that are not captured in a direct comparison. Translations, especially of poetic or literary texts, often involve interpretation and can vary based on the translator's understanding of the text. I hope this helps! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. �?�

## User

I am confused. You said the Latin text also includes the detail of Rinaldo preventing Sacripante’s “sweet thefts” (Latin: “Prohibet Sacripanti dulcia furta”), which is not explicitly mentioned in the Italian sentence. But earlier you claimed that Angelica was preventing the sweet thefts. Based on the context, who do you think is more likely to be preventing the sweet thefts?

## Bing

I apologize for the confusion. You're right, and I appreciate your patience. In the context of both the Italian and Latin texts, it would make more sense for Rinaldo (Rinaldus in Latin) to be the one preventing Sacripante's "sweet thefts".

In the Italian text, Rinaldo arrives quickly and causes a disturbance, which could be interpreted as him interrupting or preventing something. Similarly, in the Latin text, Rinaldo arrives and interrupts, which aligns with him being the one to "prohibit" or prevent Sacripante's actions.

So, upon reconsideration, Rinaldo is likely the subject of "prohibet" in the Latin sentence. I apologize for the earlier oversight. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask! �?�

## User

Thank you for your help!

## Bing

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask. �?�

I was doing a translation of the passage "Delphis Apollinis oraculum a Graecis advenisque interrogatur",and couldn't find a translation for "advenisque" anywhere,could you please help me?

I was reading Magee's translation of Boethius' De Divisione ( in Latin) and I found this puzzling sentence:

When someone says, "I hear that the Greeks the Trojans have conquered," one is entitled to understand that the Greeks have conquered the Trojans, another that the Trojans have conquered the Greeks, and given what the speaker himself has said each one has good reason for understanding that he does.

Now, it's obvious to me that, in the original "Audio Graecos uicisse Troianos" you have two nouns in the accusative case, so the confusion comes from that, i.e., you can't know who did the conquering to whom. But why would anyone say it like that, instead of v.g. "audio Graeci uicisse Troianos"? Is it because of the "audio" verb? Thanks to whoever may answer and have a great day.

I just started Orberg and have two questions: From Cap 1 (p. 7) It reads, “Ubi est Roma? Roma est in Italia.” Why is �?est’ not at the end of the sentence as in the very first sentence?

From Cap 2: It reads, “Marcus filius Iulii est.” Why is Iulius pluralized? (p. 13) gratias tibi

Looking for other words that would fit the middle of the following for translation purposes and options for a tattoo idea:

Original: Mors Vincit Omnia

Need to replace: Mors _______ Omnia

Asking for a friend :) any help is appreciated!

De fabula nubeculata Latina paranda vendendaque, cum Francisco Vacca et Roxano Fragale (Origines Pictae)

Exstantne fabulae nubeculatae Latinae conscriptae? Verisimiliter iam tibi notae sunt aliquae fabulae ex aliis sermonibus in Latinum conversae, velut Asterix et Obelix, Mickey Musculus et Donaldus Anas.

Nunc vero alio novoque libro locupletati sumus, qui ex nullo conversus est, quin de integro Latine excogitatus, exaratus, atque editus! Fabula inscribitur "Origines Pictae", eiusque auctores iam alteram parant fabulam pictam, de Medea illa.

In hoc episodio voces audietis Francisci Roxanique, qui inter auctores Pictarum Originum fuerunt. Ex eis percontata sum unde consilium talis fabulae conscribendae ceperint, unde pecuniam sibi sumpserint ad incipiendum necessariam, qui fuerint eorum comites in itinere, multaque alia. Rossano Fragale

📷 Episodion hic spectare poteris:

📷 Si autem audire tantum mavis, ecce podcast:

I want to know if my translation is understandable and readable. It's a translation of this passage: "M. enim Piso si adesset, nullius philosophiae, earum quidem quae in honore sunt, uacaret locus" (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, I, 7, 16)

This is my take on it: "Then if M. Piso was present, it wouldn't lack space for any philosophical school, at least among those with some prestige"

Should I use the second conditional in English? I hope so.