Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


AureliaeLacrimae last won the day on May 24 2016

AureliaeLacrimae had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About AureliaeLacrimae

  • Rank
    Language Enthusiast
  • Birthday 05/18/1994


  • Currently studying
    Latin, German, Spanish
  • Native tongue
  • Fluent in
    English, German (semi-fluent)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. While I was using Duolingo on my tablet, I was very frustrated with the app because there were no grammatical explanations (so if you're a beginner, you have to learn things via trial-and-error method, which isn't really the best choice) and you had to type in a lot of things, which is a real bother on phones and tablets. I always make a lot of mistakes when I type on my phone simply because the "keys" are too close and sometimes the phone doesn't register every tap... anyway, Duolingo on either a tablet or a phone is a nightmare! Just recently, I saw my mum using Duolingo on computer and I glanced at the screen. I was very surprised simply because there were more options available! There is even a grammar section! Before every lesson, there is a quick introduction into the basic grammar concepts. My mum had a table with the full conjugation of German verbs which she copied into her notebook. So practical and useful! Thus, I can only say, Duolingo as an app is a bad choice. It's good only if you are revising the lesson. But if you want to study, you have to do it on PC. When you're on PC, you have explanations - not to mention that typing is made much easier considering that you have a real keyboard to type on. Plus, the screen is wide and you can do other things as well. What is your experience with Duolingo? Have you ever tried it on PC?
  2. I am aware that a lot of people use Google translate simply because it is the most convenient translator found online and definitely the most known one: everyone knows about Google translate. Today, it is even available as an App. So, is Google translate good for Latin? Can it pass some basic checks? I say, yes. We all know that typing in the sentences will never get you the correct translation. It will always be a rudimentary translation in the Neanderthal-like speech. However, when it comes to translating words by themselves, Google translate is quick and efficient and fairly accurate. I have tested it out and I say that the results are good so far. When I typed in "see" I received a whole range of synonyms from video to specto and what I liked was the fact that each of these had at least five or six translations. This means that you at least know what the word roughly means, i.e. "see in what way" or "when to use which "see" verb" They usually come in the first person, which is also good, considering that the dictionary entries are always in the first person, so you can always go somewhere else for more information. Same was with the nouns. I tested it with "sea" and just like in the previous example, I received a lot of synonyms. Google Translate Latin However, you have to be aware of one great disadvantage: Google translate doesn't tell you the grammatical specifications!! For example, when it comes to the verb, Google translate only gives you the first person form. You don't know to which verb class the given verb belongs, which limits your usage maximally - you have to go somewhere else to find out that fact. Same is with nouns. You only get the nominative form, nothing else. This is why you don't know the basic information about the noun: not its gender and certainly not its class. So, is Google translate good? Yes, it's good. It can be used as a quick-access tool which can give you the rudimentary information about the word you type in. However, it is not perfect. When it comes to grammar, you're on your own. This is why it might be a better option to use some other translator, which does give you this information. I believe that I have already written about them in one of my previous posts, so if you're interested, go back and check it out. Google translator is the most widely used translator online. But it is not the best. This is especially true for languages such as Latin.
  3. Well, some of you have noted that you would like to know some of the Latin sayings and I have chosen a few of my favourites. The translations I have provided for these sayings are not the official translations. If you want those, you can easily find them by typing in the proverb in Latin. The translations are accurate, though. I was careful to capture the essence of what had been said in the proverb. So, without any further ado: Dicta et sententiae 1. O tempora, o mores! Oh what times, oh what customs! (or Alas ...!) 2. Post nubila Phoebus. After the clouds comes Phoebus (Sun). 3. Bis dat, qui cito dat. He who gives fast, gives twice. 4. Licentia poetica. The freedom of the poet. 5. Amor magister est optimus. Love is the best teacher. 6. Aurora musis amica. The dawn is the friend of the muses. 7. Gloria discipuli, gloria magistri. The glory of the student is the glory of the teacher. 8. Periculum in mora. There is a danger in delay. 9. Fama volat. Lit. The tale flies. i.e. The rumours circulate fast. 10. Ab ovo. From the egg. 11. Repetitio est mater studiorum. Repetition is the mother of knowledge. 12. Sapienti sat. To the wise man, it is enough. 13. Omnia vincit amor. Love conquers all. 14. Omnia praeclara rara. Everything rare is amazing. 15. Mens sana in corpore sano. Sane mind in the sane body. 16. Usus magister egregius. Experience is the best teacher. 17. Res, non verba. Act, don’t say. 18. Aquila non capit muscas. The eagle doesn’t hunt flies. 19. Festina lente! Make haste slowly. 20. Divide et impera! Divide and conquer. 21. Parce tempori! Save time! 22. Cave canem! Beware the dog! 23. Carpe diem! Seize the day! 24. Vade mecum! Come with me! 25. Servus meus liber esto! Let my slave be free! 26. Omnia mea mecum porto. Lit. I carry everything that’s mine with me. 27. Sapiens omnia sua secum portat. Lit. The wise carries everything that’s his with him. 28. Quod nocet, saepe docet. That which harms will often teach. 29. Margaritas ante porcos. (Throw) Pearls in front of pigs. 30. Inter nos. Between us. 31. Pars pro toto. Part for whole. 32. In memoriam. In the memory. 33. In melius. In peius. In good. In evil /bad. 34. In spe. In hope.
  4. Culture: The Cities of Ashes Part 3: Pompeii & Heculaneum - The Cities That Vanished It is August 24, 79 AD. People of Pompeii and Herculaneum are doing their usual routine. The rich are coming to Pompeii, this major resort city and port. It is busy and bustling, with traders from everywhere and people visiting the temples of Venus, Jupiter and Apollo, all of which are near the forum. The land is rich and the area is known for its grapes and olive trees. There were several smaller earth tremors in the previous few days, but nothing alarming. Just yesterday, there was a great celebration in the name of Vulcan. And then, the disaster strikes. ___________________________ Mount Vesuvius had erupted and the two cities were buried under 20 feet of ash and debris in the matter of just a few days. It is estimated that about 16000 people died. The pyroclastic surge had been devastating. Unlike Pompeii, the deep pyroclastic material which covered Herculaneum preserved many objects which were based on organic material, primarily roofs, beds, doors and food. It goes without saying that the same was for some 300 skeletons which had been found in the city. Since Herculaneum lay to the west of Vesuvius, unlike Pompeii, which was in the direct path, it was only mildly affected by the first phase of the eruption. This was not the case with Pompeii where the roofs collapsed under the weight of falling debris and ash. The recent studies have shown that the lethal effects of the pyroclastic surges were primarily due to the heat. The heat was the main cause of the death of people not suffocation. The people were dead long before the ash even touched them. They were dead the moment that the wave of heat enveloped the city. The city of Pompeii continues to attract visitors due to its unusually cruel fate. It is ironic that prior to the eruption of a volcano, just a day before in fact, the people of Ancient Rome were celebrating Vulcan, the god of fire. What a twist of fate indeed!
  5. Culture: Mythology Themes - Gods in Ancient Rome Part 2: The Cult of Mithras When I was studying the history of Ancient Britain, I found it curious that there was a cult of Mithras which had been brought to Britain sometime in the late Pre-Christian era. The Romans were responsible for this new exotic cult. I say exotic because Mithras is a Persian deity and it is curious that he also appears in Roman mythology. Here are some interesting facts about it: Mithras as a Roman deity appeared somewhere in the Anno Domini era, from 1st century to 4th century, when it completely disappeared. Though there are few mythological sources about it, there are many depictions in caves. They mostly illustrate Mithras as a “bull-slayer.” In antiquity, the text usually refer to the “mysteries of Mithras” and it is often linked with the Persian deity. Many do not believe this, but we still have to note that sometimes Mithras appears with another figure, a mysterious lion-headed figure, who may have been the Arimanius (Avestan god of Zoroastrism, the evil spirit) himself. The temples for Mithras were often built in caves (this is why the depictions are found in caves as well). These underground temples have been built in the 1st century AD when the cult of Mithras is believed to have appeared in Ancient Rome. This cult, though not very long lasting, was still influential, considering that it had gone as far as Ancient Britain (which was, at that point in history, a part of the Roman empire). This is why it should be mentioned, considering that it is a part of the Ancient Roman pantheon.
  6. Culture: Mythology Themes - Gods in Ancient Rome Part 1: Basic Outline & Dii Consentes It is important to mention that Ancient Romans were polytheists, i.e. they believed in many gods. In the beginning, these Roman gods were considered as faceless and extremely powerful. It is only later on that they became anthropomorphised beings, i.e. Ancient Romans started imagining them as humans. These beliefs primarily came from Ancient Greece. This is also why many of Roman gods have their corresponding Greek counterpart. The entire collection of all these gods is called Pantheon. Although there are far too many gods to be listed, we still have to note the magnificent twelve: the twelve great gods and goddesses also known as “Dii Consentes” (this is the name that Varro gave to these deities) whose statues stand in the Forum. There are six gods and six goddesses, namely: Roman Greek Apollo Apollo Ceres Demeter Diana Artemis Juno Hera Jupiter Zeus Mars Ares Mercury Hermes Minerva Athena Neptune Poseidon Venus Aphrodite Vesta Hestia Vulcan Hephaestus Other notable gods are: Roman Greek Bacchus Dionysus Cupid Eros Pluto Hades Proserpina Persephone Saturn Cronus You will note that many of these Roman gods are actually the names of the planets. This is because our culture had always had access to the Roman culture. However, this was unfortunately not the case with the Greek culture, primarily because of the alphabet. Thus, for many years, the influence of the Greek culture could only be felt through Latin translations of Greek works.
  7. How do I get to  your lessons.



    1. AureliaeLacrimae


      All of my lessons are in the Latin section.

      Good luck!


  8. I too believe that languages are important. They are the reflection of someone's psyche and worldview. This is why a lot of cultures have similar and yet different idioms - they look at the world in a slightly different way, even if they are on the same continent. Old languages are a true marvel. It is a shame that we cannot preserve them. Latin has had luck because it is full of grammar rules and everything is strictly determined. Besides, there were many grammarians and linguists in general who had written about Latin, which helps us greatly in reconstructing it. Not to mention that it has been the lingua franca of the science for ages. In Croatia, it has been used for liturgical purposes until the 19th century. My grandma still remembers her grandma used to recite "Pater Noster" and "Ave Maria." They didn't really understand what was being said, but they were still able to remember these prayers. There are, of course, languages which have not been as fortunate. I can't even imagine what Proto-Indo-European could sound like, for example. None of us can tell for certain. That's why it's important to try to preserve language so they don't get lost. Because if they do, getting them back will be a true challenge.
  9. We all know that grammar usually isn't the favourite topic and so far, I'd mostly written about grammar. This is why I am asking you this: if you were learning Latin, what would you like to learn about? Phrases and sentences? Vocabulary? Proverbs? Idioms? Customs? The origin of the words we now have (such as cease and import)? Books and literature? Prosody? I will be bringing this section back to life, slowly. It would be good if I knew what to write about. Latin has many interesting topics that could be touched upon. Sometimes it's really difficult to pick one. If I knew what you wanted to read about when it comes to Latin, I might get more efficient in sharing my knowledge about it. Of course, I will not forget about grammar, I will still write about it from time to time, but it is not a problem writing about other things as well.So, help me pick! Think about it and let me know.
  10. We all know that language uses finite means to get infinite number of sentences. We can create sentences almost freely. Sometimes they don't make sense, true, but they still remain a possibility. However, language in general also has the property of recursion. By its definition "recursion" is the repetition of something. In language, things can be repeated almost infinitely. Take for example the following sentence: I am very tired. If I feel extremely tired, I might (instead of using the adverb phrase extremely) put another very in front of very tired as a premodification: I am very very tired. Grammatically, this is allowed even one hundred times. So sentence I am very very very very very very very very very tired. is perfectly grammatical, although it is not used simply because its not economical or practical. This is the example of recursion: the repetition of the adverb / adverb phrase very. One other way in which recursion is realised is via coordination. Consider the following: Mary was in school. If we wanted to name all the children who were in school, that would be allowed, so we might get a very very very long sentence (I just love recursion), for example: Mary and John and Jane and Joseph and George and Steve and Tina and Josh were in school. Coordination allows me to name as many children as I want. Same is with adjectives: I am tired and sleepy and frustrated... And finally, there is one more structure I can think of: embedding! Also known as : subordinate clauses. He says that I know that Mary thinks that John believes that .... So, this is recursion. I used the examples from English simply because we all understand it. However, recursion is present in other languages as well. The only reason why it doesn't function is the memory limitation. We forget what we'd wanted to say or we forget what we'd already named - things like that. Still, these sentences remain grammatical. We cannot call them ill-formed, merely impractical.
  11. Words have meaning and function. According to their semantic function in the sentence, they also get a grammatical / syntactic function as well. There is one theory which bases everything on the verbs. The verb determines the complements and whether the sentence will have two objects, an object and a complement, just one object or nothing. The verb also carries certain semantic properties, which not only determine the number of complements, but also their type, i.e. form (whether to have a noun phrase or something else). Take for example put. Verb put in English asks for a direct object and location - put something somewhere, usually in the form of noun phrase (for direct object) and prepositional phrase (for location). So, a grammatical sentence with put can be: I put the book on the table. But certainly not *I put the book the table. Although we have a direct object and potential location, it is not in the correct form, thus it cannot get the right thematic role. When it comes to English, there are many thematic roles. It all depends on whether you're studying them from the point of view from generative or descriptive grammar. I prefer generative grammar and this is how it's usually described there: Agent: the doer of an action, capable of volition; by virtue of his own volition achieves something; Instrument: a tool with which an action is performed; used by an agent to achieve something; lacking independent volition; Affected Object (Patient): the element undergoing the action or state; Affected Object (Theme): the element undergoing a change of state involving location or movement; Location: the place an action or state occurs; Source: the starting point of a movement; Goal: the end point of a movement; Experiencer: the entity which is aware of the action or state described by the predicate but which is not in control of the action or state; Beneficiary: the entity for whose benefit the action is performed; Recipient: a special kind of goal found with verbs of possession, e.g. give; Proposition: The thematic role assigned to clauses; Thus, in the previous sentence we have three arguments for the verb put: one subject and two complements. I put the book on the table. The subject "I" carries the theta role of Agent, because "I" is a subject capable of volition and is doing something. The book gets the theta role of Theme, because it undergoes a change of state which involves either location or movement. On the table is the Location. Similar analysis can be applied to many other sentences. For example: Mary cracked the nut with the hammer. Mary is Agent (doing something), the nut gets the thematic (theta) role of Patient (no location or movement change) and with the hammer is Instrument. The doctor examined the patient. The doctor gets the thematic (theta) role of Agent (doing something) and the patient gets the thematic (theta) role of Patient (no change in location) The postman brought the letter. The postman gets the thematic (theta) role of Agent and the letter is the theme (change of location). There are also sentences where Agent is not the subject. For example. The letter arrived. The letter is theme. That's because the verb "arrive" is ergative and its subject begins as its complement. The train is in the station. The train gets the theta role of Theme and in the station that of Location. The man felt ..... The man becomes Experiencer because of the verb "feel" which is not an action.
  12. Well, I'd chosen linguistics for my BA thesis simply because linguistics is something you can prove and find evidence for. Literature has more speculation. I am not certain what can be discovered simply because the teacher will always have his or her own interpretation of it and can always say that your interpretation is wrong, because that is what literature is - interpretation. You can find some evidence of certain phenomena, for example, alliteration or things like that, but that is not really a research topic. I think literature could be connected to psychology, if nothing else, and maybe some psychological behaviours or studies could be read from it, but again, I am not really sure about this. It would take a lot of originality to write a thesis in literature and a great knowledge of many literary movements, that's for sure.
  13. I definitely agree. Some things are simply lost in translation. That's because every language is unique and all languages try to apply the "Economy Principle." This is why words usually have more meanings and each of the meanings is language specific. A word "nice" in English can be easily translated into any other language, but that doesn't mean that all the connotations that the word "nice" has will be successfully transmitted into the target language. That's why the semantic fields are so complex. I have two good examples, one from Zootopia and one from The Jungle Book. Considering that Zootopia is a cartoon, the producers synchronised it into Croatian. I'd seen a few scenes beforehand in English, so I knew what to expect. There's one scene where Judy says "I may be just a dumb bunny, but we're really good at MULTIPLYING" and she had literally been multiplying the numbers 200 dollars a day, for two decades, etc. However, at the beginning of the movie, there was also a scene where her parents said "you and your 270 brothers and sisters" and the population of the village was growing constantly... The second meaning of the word "multiply" was lost. Not even my mum figured it out and I had expected her to - this is because it's impossible to fully get the meaning across. An even better example is with polysemy and idiomatic expressions. There's another scene in Zootopia which is a good example. Judy has just arrived at the police station and she is in the room with other officers (wolves, bison, elephant, etc) and they're all waiting for the briefing from the chief. He comes in and says "we have to acknowledge the ELEPHANT in the room. Hello Frances, happy birthday!" The elephant was translated like the elephant, of course, but one crucial meaning was sacrificed!!! The idiomatic expression did NOT survive in my mother tongue and thus the people watching the movie in Croatian did not have the same picture as those who would be watching it in English. Another example is from The Jungle Book. Baloo is a bear and he sings a song called "BARE necessities." Of course you will translate it like vital, but bare also sounds like BEAR and Baloo was talking about wolves and their jungle law being a propaganda.... this homophonous meaning is LOST in translation. In English BARE necessities also sound like BEAR necessities, and they should, because he's a bear - and the connotation is that his song too is a propaganda, just like the law is for the wolves. But in Croatian, this second meaning doesn't survive. These are only a few examples from the movies that I remember. There's also one from a text by Susan Sontag, The Way We Live Now. It's a great text but it's really difficult to translate. There's one point in the text when she says... "you say hospitable, but I still hear the hospital" and this is crucial because their friend is in the hospital, he has an incurable disease and this was in the context of compromise and living with the disease. So, it is crucial to keep both concepts. But how can we when Croatian doesn't have the similar sounding words with these meanings?!?! Something has to be sacrificed! And how can a translator make that choice? Which do you sacrifice? How do you translate? You have to make compromises, but it's inevitable that some things will get lost in translation.
  14. This is true. I feel the same way. The app can reinforce, but it should be the primary way of learning. However, if I simply wanted to learn a few words or phrases, I wouldn't bother with an app, I'd make a vocabulary list (a table in either Word or Excel with four columns, word, translation, synonym, description) and learn it that way. This is how I usually prepare for my vocabulary exams and it works. People usually say that they forget the things they learn for the exam, but I still remember about 70% of my vocabulary list (which was eleven pages long last time) whereas I only remember a few things I'd learnt about via Duolingo, so I must admit it wasn't very efficient - at least I didn't find it much useful.
  15. Yes, both can be correct - both are correct, but in different contexts!! You can't use nominative case for object and vice versa it just doesn't work like that. It's like saying Who did you see? when you really have to say Whom did you see? because whom is the correct form. It goes without saying that in colloquial speech both sentences are correct, but in formal English, you will always say whom. Maybe this isn't a good example because of its popularity in colloquial speech, but the analogy is still good. Me too / neither is a fixed expression. But if you wanted to begin the sentence with: _______ (1st ps sg) too would love to come. _______ (1st ps sg) too will help you. You will use the nominative form I, not the accusative form me. Yes, you are correct. Subject of finite clause - nominative case Everywhere else (except for possession) - accusative case
  • Create New...