CAPITULUM DECIMUM SEXTUM
1) Quas res (it’s certainly possible, but a simple quid would be more idiomatic) Medus et Lydia (a Lydian woman is generally Lyda in Latin; Lydia is the name of the province) secum ferunt?
Quas res idem atque quid
A country in Asia Minor, Lydia
2)
you won’t need the subject pronoun “they” in Latin as it’s evident from the verb
Illi (you won’t need the subject pronoun “they” in Latin as it’s evident from the verb) omnes res suas ferunt (remember that there’s also the verb portare, which you may sometimes want to use): pauca vestimenta, paulum cibi nec multum pecuniae.
Fero, ferre, tuli, latum
I. Lit.: “ferri proprie dicimus, quae quis suo corpore bajulat, portari ea, quae quis in jumento secum ducit, agi ea, quae animalia sunt,”
We say that closely borne is that burden which ones' own body bears, it is carried which is put upon a beast which with himself one leads, it is done by those who living creatures be.
3) Quo Medus cum amica Lydia (same as above) sua ire vult?
Redire cum ea in Graec
am vult.
Lyda
I was not sure if the accusative is correct, I looked back in the presentation to answer my question and there is this: Ego in terram eo multo pulchriorem, in patriam meam Graecam.
I go into a much more beautiful land, into my country, Greece.
Videtur mihi recte dicere: redire....in Graecam vult, ergo in eo modo scripsi. But I thought about Graeca first. But then I reviewed the presentation.
4) Cur tristis est Lyda?
Lyd
a quoque Graeca est et relinquit amicas Romanas suas, quibus illic amicitiam habuit. Altera patria
es (Do you mean to use
es instead of
est?) mihi inquit (generally the verb
inquam comes in the second place [although many {all?} different variations are met])¹ Lyd
a, ea (“
she?” If so, I’d say better to omit it altogether) !non sine lacrimis Roma (direct object with relinquere) relinquit.
Do you mean to use
es instead of
est?
Vale, Roma! inquit, Non sine lacrimis te relinquo, nam tu altera patria es mihi.
Be well/ so long Rome! Not without tears do I leave you, for you are to me my second country. pp121 My sense was that Lyda refers to Rome in the second person.
5) Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur (Latin passive works roughly in the same manner as English [e.g. Finnish passive is different]: You wouldn’t say “Neptune *are invoked by the sailors” in English, and the same goes mutatis mutandis with Latin) tempore tempestatis (possibly a simple tempestate; ablatiuus temporis is at the very least used with this word in the sense ‘(point of) time’ [the same obviously goes with tempore], though I’m not 100% sure about the sense ‘during the storm’), dum nubes atrae fulgurque oriuntur.
Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur (Latin passive works roughly in the same manner as English [e.g. Finnish passive is different]: You wouldn’t say “Neptune *are invoked by the sailors” in English, and the same goes mutatis mutandis with Latin)
I thought to use the third person active plural to attribute to the nominative subject when I wrote: Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur. But my thinking is unaccustomed and wrong. To attribute to the subject the act of now being called, is it not to say: Neptunus a nautae invocatus est? Because:
Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur translates as Neptune is a god (a?) the sailors are called... The active plural is transitive to an object, not passive to a subject and therefore exists inflection to show the direction.
incipio cum
mutatis mutandis: mūto , āvi, ātum
I. Prop., to move, to move away or from its place, to move to a place (rare): “neque se luna quoquam mutat,”
Neither does the moon move itself anywhere.
mūtātus , ūs, m. 4th decl.
Of which declension is mutatis? I want to call it nominative with the gerund in the possesive case and to think of these two as modifying the clause: "...and the same goes with Latin."
Mutatis mutandi or (change of the need to change?) regarding the correction of grammatical error in a sentence I wrote in bad Latin which error is demonstrated in its' English translation. Et nunc devio ab admonitione Bedwere.
Neptunus deus est a nautae invocantur
tempore tempestatis... original sentence
"...tempore tempestatis (possibly a simple tempestate; ablatiuus temporis is at the very least used with this word in the sense ‘(point of) time’..."
Yes, point of time is what I wanted to convey. I tied to use the ablative with the genetive to express ‘(point of) time’.
Surgit tempestas et Neptunus a nautae invocatus est.
6) Cur merces in mare iaciuntur?
In periculo (omit the preposition) navis mergentis, iussit (Who’s the subject? Neptune??) merces iaci et nautae in mare iaciunt illas.
In periculo navis mergentis... Allow me to ask: what is the efficacy of the ablative case? In English I have the habit of the preposition needed.
Periculo navis mergentis,
gubernator iussit merces iaci in mare.
7) Medus, os suum aquae plenus (Which is full, the mouth or the Mede? My gut instinct says that suum could be omitted, but I’m not sure about this.) est (to be omitted), conatur invocare Neptunum sed non obtinere (This means rather ‘to hold in one’s possession’, not as much ‘to get, receive’) auxilium posse (Do you mean possunt? Infinitive posse would be understood as dependent on conari!)
consequor, consequi, consecutus
Oh, this is painfull!
Os suum aquae plenus, Mede conatur invocare Neptunum, eum non consequi potest.
This...uh...smiley, it appears when the numerl 8, a cardinal number, is closed with a right parenthesis.
Lydia, perterritus est (The same as above: perterritus is in apposition to Lyd
a. Also, what’s the gender of Lyda?)
"Apposition: a noun may be used to explain another noun; both nouns have the same case and the same syntactical relationship to the rest of the sentence."
Collins, J. F. (1985). A primer of ecclesiastical Latin. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. pp 114
Thank you, that is why I am here, to put my hands on definitions such as apposition, for "Lyda perterrita est" is redundant while "Lyda perterrita" is not. Then nouns in apposition will be in which case is needed for good sense.
9) invocat Dominun Christum ut mare tranquillum sit (This is obviously from esse; you may want to consider using the verb fieri)
Fio, fieri, factus sum 'be made. be done, become, happen, be'
Collins, J. F. (1985). A primer of ecclesiastical Latin. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. pp 303
It would not achieve the task of laying my hands to Latin if I were to fail to consider this verb. While Bedwere admonishes simplicity, Timothee drives me to search. This simple verb is the threshold of all the depth of philosophy upon which was founded the distant strength of the West: within several lines and my untrained mind I am impotent.
10) navis a mari (in mari) non mergitur.
Navis mari non mergitur.