It's time to move on to the eighth lesson.

You have today Monday, and Tuesday and Wednesday following, to cover this one.
Morphology
In this lesson a lot of future tense forms are introduced. As usual, you are not expected to be able actively to form them, or to
have at this early stage the whole picture of the tense, just to let yourself be exposed to and immersed in them. Nevertheless,
for the peace of mind of those who want to know more from the beginning, remember I have provided a file on the whole verbal
system of Latin under "Sct Necessria". It's so easy and regular that it can be learnt in a few minutes.
Syntax
This lesson also exercises the difference between the 'illative' use of the accusative case (to express movent to/towards a
place, as we saw: Rmam, etc.) and the use of the locative case (to express position in/on/at a place). The locative as such
exists only in the singular, and it ends in - in the first declension (Rm) and in in the second (Lesb) and third (Karthgin);
although in the third declension it is normally substituted by the ablative (Carthgine). In the plural, for any declension, the
'locative' idea is always expressed in the ablative (Athns). The locative (or the ablative without preposition that substitutes it) is
used only with those same words that we saw in lesson 3 (Q&R) take an illative accusative without preposition (including dom
and rr, but also vesper and the expressions dom mlitique and bell domque). For all other words, the preposition 'in' with
the ablative (in Itali) is used.
Vocabulary
Regarding vocabulary, rda is 'a four-wheeled travelling-carriage' (OLD), 'the most important conveyance for travellers',
'regularly used for the transport of families and luggage' (Sandys). In Csar (B.G. 1,6,7) we find 'Genava' ['ge.na.wa] instead of
'Genua' ['ge.nu.wa]; but, mysteriously, neither form has been picked up by the OLD.
Tapes
Nothing new on the pronunciation on the tapes.
As usual, don't forget to listen repeatedly to the audio file of the text of the exercise recorded with classical pronunciation.
By the way, the Italian book is still giving 'sorrs' with the wrong accent (ex. 2), and now also that made-up
"cnmatographum" appears with a short i and the accent on 'gra' (ex. 7), which in any case I've changed on the audio files to
the more sensible 'cnmatographus'.
Best of luck with the lesson, and come back to me with any queries.
Curate ut valeatis omnes!
Q&R
> I think "Lugdunum" in the 4th sentence of the exercitatio should be "Lugduni", shouldn't it?
As you can hear on the audio files, the form should indeed be 'Lugduni', as you say, and as it appears on the French book.
Sorry about this new typo of the Italian edition.
> First of all, I would like to ask if "birota" is the best word for "bicycle". After hearing your opinions about other neologisms, I
wonder if you would not prefer something more similar to the word used in most modern languages, including Romance ones;
something in the line of "bicyclus", I suppose.
I had passed this word uncommented because I don't have so strong feelings against it as against other (indeed worse)
neologisms. There is an issue here that I wanted to discuss later on, but we can equally discuss now. It's the 'problem' of
hybrids. Hybrids are animals that seem most innocuous to the majority but make some purists writhe with disgust and have fits
of anxiety. I'm talking in particular about compound words where part of the compound is Greek and the other part is Latin. The
word 'bicycle' is one such compound, as the first part (bi-) is Latin (in Greek it's di-) and the second (kklos) is Greek (in Latin it's
orbis or circulus or maybe rota, although rota rather corresponds the Greek trokhs). Other famous such compounds are
television and automobile. The question is: should such compounds "be allowed"?
There is a school of thought that says that such compounds should in fact not be allowed. I have no strong feelings against this
idealistic position, but the only thing that I would expect from such puritan people is some such puritan consistency.
Unfortunately the very same people who rejected bicycle and suggested the purely Latin 'birota' or rejected automobile and
strenuously championed the purely Greek 'autocntum' see, for some mysterious reason, no problem in going about saying
'tlevsi' instead of the purely Greek 'tlehorsis', and have actually moved on to create other hybrids that don't even exist in
the rest of western languages to start with, like 'autobirota' (motorcycle), 'autorda' (car), etc., etc., etc.
Those poor purists basically have had to surrender to usage and admit that they would never have been able to 'purify' the
innumerous amount of hybrids that our common civilisation has created. Also, they have the further problem of determining in
which direction the 'purification' should be performed. Towards the Latin ('birota', a word that exists neither in any attested Latin
nor in any other language)? Towards the Greek ('dicyclum', a word that at least appears on Greek dictionaries)? And on what
criteria are we to take such decision?
Puritanism crashes again and again against the hybrid reality of languages and of the human beings who speak them; but, if
they want to be purists, let them be consistently so at least. Let them produce clear criteria when a word is to be 'purified' into

Latin and when is it to be 'purified' into Greek. And then let them 'purify' all hybrids, not only a few; because if 'tlevsi' and
many others are acceptable, then so should the rest of the usual hybrids.
Then again, what basis does this puritanism have? Is this based on any real classical Latin usage? If classical Latin had never
accepted hybrids, then we would have a very good reason not to accept them ourselves; but the actual truth is that classical
Latin never had this purist approach to start with!
Most words with any Greek component in classical Latin are usually purely Greek just because they were direct borrowings of a
word (and concept) previously invented by the Greeks, rather than Roman inventions and coinages. Our modern 'Grco-Latin'
vocabulary, on the other hand, as we saw with the French invention of the cnmatographus, are western coinages for western
inventions, not borrowings from the Greeks; only the lexical components are formally Greek. The Greeks themselves have
borrowed the words or from the west, not the other way around. But when the Romans took the
initiative, as we do nowadays, and used Greek components to coin Latin compounds to name Latin concepts, they did exactly
as we do now and had no problem whatsoever with hybrids. Thus no less than the classical grammarian Varro has no problem
to coin the hybrid 'philogrcus' when the purely greek word would have been (and was) . Or what can we conceive
of more hybrid than adding a Greek preposition to the most Roman of garments to say 'epitogium', as Quintilian bears witness?
These are only a couple of examples, but there are more such words, and not only between Greek and Latin: we have
compounds of Celtic and Latin, and other combinations.
Basically, there is nothing in classical usage that supports the adoption or the puritanic positon that hybrids shoud be not
allowed. Further than that, we have the practical difficulty not only to determine in which direction the purification should go, but
also to find adecuate 'pure' forms for all the hybrids that our hybrid Grco-Roman western civilisation has coined, plus the extra
difficulty to remove hybrid words like 'tlevsi', etc. from now well established usage among the Latin speaking community.
So, even if there are still some (inconsistent) purists that make a lot of noise against only the hybrids they don't fancy, while they
continue to use many others, I think once again that we should follow classical Latin attested practices and the example of the
established usage of the majority of languages belonging to the Grco-Roman western tradition as far as it agrees with such
classical Latin usage, of course. In this case, I do think that 'birota' is an unnecessary attempt at 'purification' that has no
fundament either in classical Latin or in any other western language. There would even be much to be said about it's ending in
a, as other words with which it could be compared (like birmis from rmus) display certain changes of desinence that can be
duly explained. I therefore find nothing wrong with and in fact do prefer the form 'bicyclum, -' for bicycle.
More Greek-Latin hybrid words from the classical period come to mind little by little.
Csar, for instance, one of the paradigms of pure classical Latinity had no problem to give two of his books the hybrid title of
'Anticatns' (from Greek 'ant' and the Latin name 'Cat').
Or how about the word that the English have 'purified' into disyllabic or dissyllabic (as it's an artificial form they can't even agree
on its spelling)? Well, the correct and classical form of that, as given to us by the classical polymath and philologist Varr in
his D lingu Latn, is 'bisyllabus', a perfect hybrid.
I think this is enough. ;-)
> My second question concerns the word "Rhodanum". How is the "RH" cluster pronounced? It appears in other words as well,
like in "rhetor".
Without establishing a precedent, as the opportunity to ask about pronunciation has now passed, I can only say that this is in
any case going to be a difficult one to reply to in writing. Basically the aspiration makes the normaly voiced r sound go voiceless.
I don't know how much this explanation can help. You have to try to pronounce an r while, at the same time, issuing the
voiceless breath that consitutes an h. Is this somewhat clear?
> The problem, of course, is how to translate to Latin neologisms that come neither from Latin nor from Greek nor from a
mixture of the two.
My intention is to give my opinion on the different types of neologisms gradually as they appear on the method, as there are
many of them (per compositionem [puram aut hybridam], per derivationem [puram aut hybridam], per mutuum [Grcum aut ex
aliis linguis], per periphrasin, per synecdochen) and it would be too long to deal with them all in one go.
> > As usual, don't forget to listen repeatedly to the audio file of the text of the exercise recorded with classical pronunciation.
>
> Thanks. The last three words of phrase 8 seem to be missing from the file: the audio is cut off after "homines."
They do seem to be. Sorry about that. In any case, please, everyone, start your messages with some usual form of Latin
greeting including your name.
> Again, I greatly appreciate the voice files. I continue, however, to have a problem which, perhaps, is shared by others. As I
listen to your recording without first reading the sentences, I understand most of what you are saying, but not with complete
confidence. After I read the sentences, I understand everything perfectly. Looking ahead perhaps a bit impatiently, I wonder at
what point I will begin to understand a Latin speaker who will not be carrying a transcript. Is there some need to adjust one's ear
to each individual speaker? I would be interested in your thoughts on the progress toward immediate comprehension in
colloquial Latin.
First of all, I beg you all for patience. Your eagerness is very refreshing and I appreciate it as an indication of your love for our
language, but we cannot build Rome in a day.

Secondly, my audio files include some features (above all m caduca and synaloepha) which are disregarded by all
contemporary Latin speakers I've met. Although this is the correct Latin pronunciation, it makes some word endings less clear
than with an incorrect full pronunciation of the final m or a robotic pronunciation without synaloepha. All living languages have
these things though. The question is: do we want to learn the language as it really sounded, as we would have heard it if we
went back to Rome and listened to Cicero or Caesar conversing, or are we happy with an artificial arrangement? (This is a
rhetorical question, please, everybody, keep your opinions to yourselves).
Thirdly, it might be that the problem is not with the real sounds of the real language, but with other questions, like the unfamiliar
word order, unknown items of vocabulary, etc. Basically, time will bring familiarity, and familiarity better understanding.
I cannot answer your question about when you will begin to understand a Latin speaker who will not be carrying a transcript.
What I can say is that you are indeed looking ahead perhaps a bit impatiently. Please realise that we haven't even reached
lesson 10 yet, and that we have a reassuring one hundred and one lessons to study. By the end of the process you will surely
understand any Latin speaker you may meet without a transcript and you won't need to adjust your ear to each individual
speaker any more than you do in your own language. ;-)
> After I read the sentences, I understand everything perfectly.
Just a little addition to remind everybody that this is not the last stage: after you have managed to understand everything once
with the book, you have to continue to listen to the audio material again and again until you understand it perfectly without the
book, and then once more again and again for the days allocated to the lesson, in every possible occasion, until your brain is
saturated with it. Please check the course description and one of my first interventions on the role of the students.
> I have just read the file and I must say that it is an interesting and understandable way of laying out the verbal system.
Thank you very much for your feedback. It does indeed include absolutely everything one needs to know about Latin verbs
(regular) from a morphological point of view. Of course, whereas there may be some people who are able to learn those
abstract 17 pages in one go and thus become conversant with the whole of the Latin conjugation in just a few days, this is not
really expected. The purpose of the file is to be a reference in order to structure the information *after* we have learnt (or at
least seen) the forms in a contextualised manner throughout Desessard's method. The structuring of the information as I provide
it is aimed at optimising the memorisation of the forms and it will also be vital to understand later on a lot of syntactic patterns in
Latin. Basically the more you incorporate that file into your brain, the better your Latin will be; and the sooner you do it, the
faster you'll achieve fluency.
> A quick question about the alternate endings of the 2S passive and the 3P perfect active. Obviously we need to be able to
recognize all the endings; but, assuming that we are not writing poetry, which of the endings ought we to use?
A good question. For the 2nd p.sg. passive, the -ris form, and for the 3rd p.pl. perfect the -erunt form, are to be preferred for
everyday conversation.
> By the way, how do you manage to use the apices in emails?
It's all about the keyboard. With an English keyboard as yours, the matter is more difficult. My Spanish (ISO) keyboard has a
key for the Spanish accent (identical in shape to the Latin apex) which can be used for all vowels (except y). When I work from
an English keyboard, the only way to use the apex on the Internet is to type things first in Word (where the apex is obtained by
pressing ctrl+' and then the relevant vowel, except y) and then to cut and paste. When I'm working from an English keyboard
therefore, I usually can't be bothered to do all that. You'll be able to identify whether I've been writing with a Spanish keyboard or
not because my Spanish keyboard also allows me to do the middle dot I use for the greeting SPD (shift+3), whereas when I'm
using the English keyboard I just write S.P.D.
> > > > In Csar (B.G. 1,6,7) we find 'Genava' ['ge.na.wa] instead of 'Genua' ['ge.nu.wa];
>>>
> > > Am I misunderstanding? I took "Genava" and "Genua" to be different places (English spellings = Geneva and Genoa).
I'm afraid I have no spontaneous and first hand knowledge of this and I haven't got the tools at the moment to make the
necessary research to answer your query. The words strongly appear to be etymologically linked, but might have indeed
specialised to name the two different places we all have in mind. I have no means to check.
> > The following link may be of interest to the above student:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva
Thanks, although Wikipedia is far from being infallible. ;-)
> > > > but, mysteriously, neither form has been picked up by the OLD.
>>>
> > > Lewis&Short seem to be quite good for proper names and have entries for both Genua and Genava:
>>>
Absolutely. The duration in time, which English expresses through the preposition "for" (for a few days, for the whole week), is
expressed in Latin through the accusative, with no preposition (as in Spanish: unos cuantos das, toda la semana). Native
English speakers tend to use the preposition "per" in these cases when they speak Latin (just as they tend to use "por" or "para"
in the same cases when speaking Spanish). The use of "per" is not incorrect in Latin (it is much less incorrect than "por" or
"para" are in Spanish for such cases); but it conveys a stronger idea, something equivalent rather to the specific use of "during"
("durante" in Spanish): aliquot dies = for a few days, per aliquot dies = during a few days, etc.

Now, the case with "nocts" is different. That is simply the direct object of "agere": we will spend what? > the nights.
Of course, the accusative of duration developed from the use of the accusative with verbs like the above. Sometimes it's difficult
to distinguish the accusative of the direct object from the accusative of duration (wait a minute, wait for a minute). But we now
enter the realm of philosophy. No one cares much about philosophy when they speak. If we remember to use the accusative
without preposition (unless we would use specifically "during" instead of "for" in English for what we want to say), I am more
than happy. ;-)
I forgot about the ablative. If you use the ablative, the meaning is rather as with English "in" (aliquot diebus = in a few days, tot
hebdomad = in a whole week, nocte = at night).
> > "cnmatographum"
>
> This is surprising to me, because most "ium" words, like "consilium" and "otium", have the accent on the antepenult.
All Latin words in -ium have a short i, as in Latin generally 'vocalis ante vocalem corripitur' (a vowel followed by another vowel
becomes short); but we are talking here about a Greek loan word. In Greek you can have long vowels before other vowels, and
this is kept when the word passes on to Latin, as in 'Msum', for instance.
> > In this case, I do think that 'birota' is an unnecessary attempt at 'purification' that has no fundament either in classical Latin
or in any other western language.
>
> I mostly agree, but there is one point about which I disagree.
Thank you for your comments (see below). Of course you are free to disagree. That is the problem, that everybody seems a bit
too prone to disagree with everybody else in the issue of Latin neologisms. In the meantime, the capability of the language to
act as an efficient means of contemporary communication among the nations remains unrestored. Unfortunately the topic of
neologisms produces very heated discussions and tends to grow exponentially, so I must make it absolutely clear that this is not
and cannot become yet another discussion forum on the matter. I'll tell you what my vision is throughout the course and I'll try
explain it in as much detail as I can; but I beg you not to share with us in exchange your own personal opinions, whether they
are in agreement or disagreement with mine. There are other forums where opinions on this topic can be debated freely ad
infinitum. Here the emphasis is on basic Latin grammar and fluency, not on the philological details of neology.
> It is not uncommon for a word to have native components in some western languages and Grco-Roman components in
other languages; for instance, the German 'Fahrrad' for 'bicycle' and 'Fernsehen' for 'television'.
Ja, natrlich, das wute ich schon. Das war trotzdem ein sehr unnatrliches Unternehmen der deutschen Philologen und viele
von diesen reinen Germanismen (bzw. Fernsprecher) werden jetzt allmhlich verlassen (Telefon).
Otherwise said. Yes, that is true; but that purist attempt of German (or other languages') philologists from previous centuries
never succeeded fully, and we can see the proof in the rather thick Duden dictionary of German words borrowed from foreign
languages. It's basically an impossible enterprise to attempt to purify the thousands of hybrid words that western civilisation has
coined. Anyone who tries will die trying.
> Even English sometimes coins Anglo-Latin hybrids like 'bi-weekly' and fully native neologisms like 'input' and 'output', as well
as the numerous purely Latin and Greek forms.
Of course, that's precisely my point. Latin neologisms are more often than not purely Latin or purely Greek. All I'm saying is that
we cannot defend the proposition that *all* neologisms must be 'pure', because that's simply as good as impossible.
> Therefore, it seems to me that Latin neologisms could go either way; it is all the same to me whether the Latin for a word
coinage is from native components like 'birota', hybrid like 'televisio'
Yes, it is all the same to you, but that's not the problem. The problem is that it seems to be all the same to everyone, and so
each living Latin guru has their own preferences and publishes their own dictionaries of word creations with no definite criteria
for choice. All I'm trying to do is to identify and put together philologically sound criteria for coining those neologisms; so that,
among all the multiple and mutually contradictory proposals that are being made for each single concept, we can finally be able
to determine which are to be supported and which discarded. All I'm saying is that the behaviour of the rest of the western
languages (the majority of them at least, if there are peculiar exceptions like the German case, which is in no way widespread)
must be observed if we want to avoid the chaos that is now rampant in the world of Latin neology. And if we observe it, then
what we need to say is 'bicyclum', not 'birota', that's all. If we don't observe it, then of course we can say 'birota' or 'dicyclum' or
what you will.
> or fully Greek like 'cinematographium'.
Sure, but I'm sad you don't care to acknowledge my teaching in this area even for argument's sake. I suggested the word
should be 'cinematographus', as it is in every other language; of course, only if one doesn't want to end up with the
'cinematographium', 'cinematographeum', 'cinemateum', 'locus ubi spectacula cinematographica eduntur', and many other
contradictory aberrations that have been proposed.
As I said above, I apreciate questions to find out what I have to say about this or that aspect of neology, as this happens to be
my course. Your own personal opinions, please keep them to yourselves to use outside of this class. Also please remember that
for exams this year and within the context of this course, proof that at the very least you are aware of my teaching. People using

say 'cinematographeum' instead of 'cinematographus' will be downgraded. As I said, you have the rest of your lives to do as you
please. If what you please later on is to undermine the Latin language, that's entirely up to you. In this course though, that won't
be tolerated.
> > > > What is 'desinence'? I cannot find the word in an English dictionary.
>>
> > The Internet has everything. The online dictionary at http://www.alphadictionary.com/index.shtml finds 7 instances of
"desinence". It just means "ending"; specifically, when speaking of grammar, "word ending" or "inflection".
>
> I was simply surprised not to find it in Merriam-Webster, but I should have checked other websites.
Indeed.
ltima modificacin: lunes, 30 de septiembre de 2013, 01:23
Saltar Navegacin

Navegacin

Pgina Principal

o
o
o

rea personal
Mi perfil
Curso actual
SL I
Participantes
Lctins 8-14

Lcti 8 (Anglic)

Lcti 8 (Hispnic)

Exercitti 8

Desessard 8 (Anglic)

Desessard 8 (Hispnic)

Lcti 9 (Anglic)

Lcti 9 (Hispnic)

Exercitti 9

Desessard 9 (Anglic)

Desessard 9 (Hispnic)

Lcti 10 (Anglic)

Lcti 10 (Hispnic)

Exercitti 10

Desessard 10 (Anglic)

Desessard 10 (Hispnic)
Mis cursos
Saltar Ajustes

Ajustes

Administracin del curso

Ajustes de mi perfil

Usted se ha identificado como Yolanda Garcia Gutierrez (Salir)

Ha llegado el momento de pasar a la octava leccin. Tenis hoy lunes, y el martes y mircoles que siguen, para dedicar a la
misma.
Morfologa
En esta leccin se introducen un montn de formas del futuro. Como de costumbre, no se espera que podis formarlas
activamente, o que tengis tan pronto en vuestras cabezas una visin de conjunto del tiempo en cuestin; slo se trata de
exponeros a esas formas como parte del mtodo de inmersin. Sin embargo, para tranquilizar a los que quieran saber ms
desde el principio, recordad que os he facilitado un archivo sobre el sistema verbal completo del latn bajo el epgrafe de "Sct
Necessria". Es tan fcil y regular que puede aprenderse en unos minutos.
Sintaxis
Esta leccin tambin ejercita la diferencia entre el uso 'ilativo' del acusativo (para expresar movimiento a/hacia un lugar, como
vimos: Rmam, etc.) y el uso del locativo (para expresar situacin en un lugar). El locativo como tal existe slo en el singular, y
termina en - en la primera declinacin (Rm) y en en la segunda (Lesb) y tercera (Karthgin); aunque en la tercera
declinacin se substituye normalmente por el ablativo (Carthgine). En el plural, para cualquier declinacin, la idea del 'locativo'
la expresa siempre el ablativo (Athns). El locativo (o el ablativo sin preposicin que lo substituye) se usa slo con esas
mismas palabras que vimos en la leccin 3 (Q&R) que tomaban un acusativo ilativo sin preposicin (incluidas dom y rr, pero
tambin vesper y las expresiones dom mlitique y bell domque). Para todas las dems palabras, se usa la preposicin 'in'
con el ablativo (in Itali).
Vocabulario
En cuanto al vocabulario, rda es un carruaje de viaje de cuatro ruedas (OLD 'a four-wheeled travelling-carriage'), la forma
ms importante de desplazarse para los viajeros, usado regularmente para el transporte de familias y equipaje (Sandys 'the
most important conveyance for travellers', 'regularly used for the transport of families and luggage'). En Csar (B.G. 1,6,7)
encontramos 'Genava' ['ge.na.wa] en vez de 'Genua' [ge.nu.wa]; pero, misteriosamente, ninguna de las dos formas es recogida
por el OLD.
Cintas
Nada nuevo acerca de la pronunciacin de las cintas.
Como de costumbre, no dejis de escuchar repetidamente el archivo sonoro del texto del ejercicio grabado con pronunciacin
clsica.
Por cierto, el libro italiano todava da 'sorrs' con el acento mal (ex. 2), y ahora tambin ese inventado "cnmatographum"
aparece con una i breve y el acento en 'gra' (ex. 7), que, en cualquier caso, he cambiado en los archivos sonoros al ms
sensato 'cnmatographus'.
La mejor de las suertes con la leccin, y dirigos a m en caso de duda.
Curate ut valeatis omnes!
Q&R
> Creo que el "Lugdunum" del la frase 4 de la exercitatio tendra que ser "Lugduni", no?
Como podrs escuchar en los archivos sonoros, la forma tiene que ser efectivamente 'Lugduni', como dices, y como aparece
en el libro francs. Perdn por este nuevo gazapo de la edicin italiana.
> Lo primero de todo, quisiera preguntar si "birota" es el mejor trmino para decir "bicicleta". Tras escuchar tus opiniones sobre
otros neologismos, me pregunto si no preferiras algo ms parecido a la palabra que se usa en la mayora de las lenguas
modernas, incluidas las romances; algo en la lnea de "bicyclus", supongo.

Haba dejado pasar esa palabra sin comentar porque no tengo una aversin tan fuerte hacia ella como hacia otros (ciertamente
peores) neologismos. Hay aqu una cuestin que quera discutir ms adelante, pero que igualmente podemos discutir ahora. Es
el 'problema' de los hbridos. Los hbridos son bestias que parecen de lo ms inocuas a la mayora pero que hacen a algunos
puristas retorcerse de asco y tener ataques de ansiedad. Me refiero en particular a palabras compuestas en las que parte del
compuesto es griego y la otra parte latina. La palabra 'bicicleta' es una de ellas, ya que el primer trmino (bi-) es latino (en
griego es di-) y el segundo (kklos) griego (en latn es orbis o circulus or acaso rota, aunque rota ms bien corresponde al
griego trokhs). Otros compuestos famosos del mismo tipo son televisin y automvil. La cuestion es: deben esos
compuestos "ser permitidos"?
Hay una escuela de pensamiento que dice que esos compuestos no deberan de hecho ser permitidos. Yo no tengo grandes
objeciones que hacer a esa posicin idealista, pero lo nico que esperara de semejantes puritanos es una cierta coherencia
igual de puritana. Desgraciadamente, la misma gente que rechaz bicicleta y sugiri el puramente latino 'birota' o que rechaz
automvil y defendi con denuedo el puramente griego 'autocntum' no ven, por alguna razn misteriosa, problema alguno en
ir por ah diciendo 'tlevsi' en vez del puramente griego 'tlehorsis', y han procedido incluso con la creacin de otros hbridos
que, para empezar, no existen siquiera en el resto de lenguas occidentales, como 'autobirota' (motocicleta), 'autorda' (coche
[carro en Amrica]), etc., etc., etc.
Esos pobres puristas bsicamente han tenido que rendirse a la evidencia del uso y admitir que jams habran sido capaces de
'purificar' la innumerable cantidad de hbridos que ha creado nuestra comn civilizacin. Adems, tienen el problema adicional
de determinar en que direccin se lleva a cabo la 'purificacin'. Hacia el latn ('birota', una palabra que no existe ni en ningn
latn atestiguado ni en ninguna otra lengua)? Hacia el griego ('dicyclum', una palabra que al menos aparece en los
diccionarios de griego)? Y en base a qu criterios vamos a tomar semejante decisin?
El puritanismo choca una y otra vez con la realidad hbrida de las lenguas y de los seres humanos que las hablan; pero, si
quieren ser puristas, que lo sean al menos con coherencia. Que propongan criterios claros de cundo una palabra ha de
'purificarse' hacia el latn y cundo ha de 'purificarse' hacia el griego. Y luego que 'purifiquen' todos los hbridos, no slo los que
les apetezcan; porque si 'tlevsi' y muchos otros son aceptables, entonces tambin debera serlo el resto de hbridos usuales.
Y, adems, qu base tiene ese puritanismo? Est basado en ningn uso real del latn clsico? Si el latn clsico nunca
hubiera aceptado hbridos, entonces tendramos muy buenas razones para no aceptarlos tampoco nosotros; pero la verdad del
caso es que el latn clsico nunca tuvo esta visin purista para empezar!
La mayora de las palabras con algn componente griego en latn clsico son normalmente puramente griegas simplemente
porque eran prstamos directos de una palabra (y concepto) previamente inventados por los griegos, en vez de inventos y
acuaciones romanas. Nuestro moderno vocabulario greco-latino, por otro lado, como vimos con la invencin francesa del
cnmatographus, son acuaciones occidentales para denominar inventos occidentales, no prstamos de los griegos; slo sus
componentes lxicos son formalmente griegos. Los griegos mismos han tomado prestadas las palabras o
de occidente, no alrevs. Pero cuando los romanos tomaron la iniciativa, como hacemos nosotros hoy en da, y
usaron componentes griegos para acuar compuestos latinos con que nombrar conceptos latinos, hicieron exactamente lo
mismo que hacemos nosotros ahora y no tuvieron ningn problema en absoluto con los hbridos. As, nada menos que el
gramtico clsico Varrn no tiene empacho para acuar el hbrido 'philogrcus' cuando la palabra puramente griega hubiera
sido (y era) . O qu podemos concebir ms hbrido que aadir una preposicin griega al ms romano de los
atuendos para decir 'epitogium', como atestigua Quintiliano? stos son slo un par de ejemplos, pero hay ms palabras as, y
no slo entre el griego y el latn: tenemos compuestos de celta y latn, y otras combinaciones.
Bsicamente, no hay nada en el uso clsico que apoye la adopcin de la posicin puritana de que los hbridos no deben
permitirse. Aparte de eso, tenemos la dificultad prctica no slo de determinar en qu direccin ha de orientarse la purificacin,
sino tambin de encontrar las formas 'puras' adecuadas para todos los hbridos que nuestra hbrida civilizacin occidental
grecorromana ha acuado, adems de eliminar palabras hbridas como 'tlevsi', etc. del ahora firmemente establecido uso
entre la comunidad latinohablante.
As que, aunque hay todava algunos (inconsecuentes) puristas que hacen mucho ruido slo contra los hbridos que no les
gustan, mientras siguen usando muchos otros, creo que una vez ms deberamos seguir las prcticas atestiguadas en latn
clsico y el ejemplo del uso establecido en la mayora de lenguas que pertenecen a la tradicin occidental grecorromana en
tanto en cuanto concuerda con ese uso del latn clsico, por supuesto. En este caso, creo efectivamente que 'birota' es un
innecesario intento de 'purificacin' que no tiene fundamento ni en el latn clsico ni en ninguna otra lengua occidental. Habra
incluso mucho que decir sobre su terminacin en a, ya que otras palabras con las que podra compararse (como birmis de
rmus) reflejan ciertos cambios desinenciales que pueden ser debidamente explicados. Yo por lo tanto no encuentro nada
incorrecto y de hecho prefiero la forma 'bicyclum, -' para decir bicicleta.
Ms palabras hbridas grecolatinas del periodo clsico me vienen a la memoria poco a poco.
Csar, por ejemplo, uno de os paradigmas de puro latn clsico no tuvo problema en dar a dos de sus libros el hbrido ttulo de
'Anticatns' (del griego y el nombre latino 'Cat').
Y qu hay de la palabra que los ingleses han 'purificado' como 'disyllabic' o 'dissyllabic' (al ser una forma artificial no se ponen
de acuerdo siquiera en su ortografa)? Pues bien, la forma correcta y clsica de esa palabra, como nos la ofrece el clsico
erudito y fillogo Varr en suD lingu Latn, es 'bisyllabus', un perfecto hbrido.
Creo que con esto es suficiente. ;-)
> Mi segunda pregunta se refiere a la palabra "Rhodanum". Cmo se pronuncia el grupo "RH"? Aparece en otras palabras
tambin, como en "rhetor".
Sin que sirva de precedente, puesto que la oportunidad de preguntar sobre pronunciacin ha pasado ya, puedo decir tan slo
que esto va a ser, en cualquier caso, algo difcil de responder por escrito. Bsicamente la aspiracin (h inglesa o alemana)
hace al sonido normalmente sonoro de la r transformarse en sordo. No s cunto pueda ayudar esta explicacin. Tienes que
intentar pronunciar una r mientras, al mismo tiempo, produces una exhalacin sorda que constituye la h. Est ms o menos
claro?

> El problema, por supuesto, es cmo traducir al latn neologismos que no vienen ni del latn ni del griego ni de una mezcla de
los dos.
Mi intencin es la de daros mi opinin sobre los distintos tipos de neologismos gradualmente segn vayan apareciendo en el
mtodo, ya que hay muchos de ellos (per compositionem [puram aut hybridam], per derivationem [puram aut hybridam], per
mutuum [Grcum aut ex aliis linguis], per periphrasin, per synecdochen) y sera demasiado largo tratarlos todos de una
sentada.
> > Como de costumbre, no dejis de escuchar repetidamente el archivo sonoro del texto del ejercicio grabado con
pronunciacin clsica.
>
> Gracias. Las tres ltimas palabras de la frase 8 parecen faltar en el archivo: el sonido se corta tras "homines."
As parece. Perdn por el fallo tcnico. En cualquier caso, por favor, todos, empezad vuestros mensajes con algn saludo
normal latino que incluya vuestro nombre.
> De nuevo, aprecio mucho los archivos de voz. Sigo, sin embargo, teniendo un problema que, quiz, sea compartido por
otros. Cuando escucho tu grabacin sin leer primero las frases, entiendo la mayora de lo que dices, pero no con plena
confianza. Tras leer las frases, lo entiendo todo a la perfeccin. Mirando hacia el futuro quiz con impaciencia, me pregunto en
qu momento empezar a entender a un hablante de latn que no lleve una transcripcin encima. Es necesario ajustar de
alguna manera el odo a cada hablante concreto? Me interesara saber cmo ves la progresin hacia una comprensin
inmediata del latn coloquial.
Lo primero de todo, os ruego a todos paciencia. Tus ansias son muy reconfortantes y las aprecio como indicacin de tu amor
por nuestra lengua, pero no podemos construir Roma en un da.
En segundo lugar, mis archivos de audio incluyen algunos rasgos (sobre todo la eme caduca y la sinalefa) que son omitidos por
todos los hablantes de latn de nuestros das que yo he conocido. Aunque sta es la pronunciacin correcta del latn, hace las
terminaciones de las palabras menos claras que con una incorrecta pronunciacin plena de la eme final o una robtica
pronunciacin sin sinalefas. Con todas las lenguas pasa esto por lo dems. La cuestin es: queremos aprender la lengua
como realmente sonaba, como la habramos odo si volvisemos a Roma y escuchsemos a Cicern y Csar conversando, o
nos contentamos con un arreglo artificial? (sta es una pregunta retrica, por favor, todos, guardaos vuestras opiniones para
vosotros mismos).
En tercer lugar, podra ser que el problema no fuera con los sonidos reales de la lengua, sino con otras cuestiones, como el
orden de las palabras poco comn, elementos de vocabulario desconocidos, etc. Bsicamente, el tiempo aportar familiaridad,
y la familiaridad mejor comprensin.
No puedo responder a tu pregunta sobre cundo empezars a entender a un hablante de latn que no lleve una transcripcin
encima. Lo que te puedo decir es que ests efectivamente mirando hacia el futuro acaso un poco impacientemente. Por favor
date cuenta de que no hemos llegado siquiera a la leccin 10 todava, y que tenemos unas reconfortantes 101 lecciones por
estudiar. Para el final del proceso te aseguro que entenders a cualquier latinohablante que te encuentres sin transcripcin
encima y que no tendrs que ajustar tu odo a cada hablante concreto ms de lo que lo haces en tu propia lengua. ;-)
> Tras leer las frases, lo entiendo todo a la perfeccin.
Slo una pequea observacin adicional para recordar a todo el mundo que ste no es el ltimo paso: tras haber logrado
entender todo una vez con el libro, tenis que continuar escuchando el material sonoro una y otra vez hasta entenderlo
perfectamente sin el libro, y luego de nuevo una y otra vez durante los das asignados a la leccin, en toda ocasin posible,
hasta que vuestro cerebro se sature con l. Por favor, mirad la descripcin del curso y una de mis primeras intervenciones
sobre el papel de los alumnos.
> Acabo de leer el archivo y tengo que decir que es una manera interesante y comprensible de presentar el sistema verbal.
Muchas gracias por tu comentario. Incluye efectivamente todo lo que uno necesita saber sobre los verbos latinos (regulares)
desde el punto de vista de la morfologa. Por supuesto, mientras que puede haber algunas personas que sean capaces de
aprenderse esas abstractas 17 pginas de golpe y obtener as un conocimiento de la totalidad de la conjugacin latina en slo
unos cuantos das, esto no es realmente lo que se espera de vosotros. El propsito del archivo es servir de referencia para
estructurar la informacin *despus* de haber aprendido (o al menos visto) las formas de manera contextualizada a lo largo del
mtodo de Desessard. La estructuracin de la informacin como yo la facilito est dirigida a optimizar la memorizacin de las
formas y ser tambin vital para entender ms adelante un montn de patrones sintcticos del latn. Bsicamente, cuanto ms
incorporis ese archivo en vuestro cerebro, mejor ser vuestro latn; y cuanto antes lo hagis, antes alcanzaris fluidez.
> Una pregunta rpida sobre las terminaciones alternativas de la 2 sg. pasiva y la 3 pl. del perfecto activo. Evidentemente
necesitamos ser capaces de reconocer todas las terminaciones; pero, asumiendo que no escribimos poesa, cul de las
terminaciones deberamos usar?
Buena pregunta. Para la 2 p.sg. pasiva, la forma en -ris, y para la 3 p.pl. del perfecto la forma en -erunt, son las preferibles
para la conversacin cotidiana.
> Por cierto, cmo consigues poner los pices en mensajes de correo electrnico?
Es todo cuestin del teclado. Con un teclado ingls como el tuyo, la cuestin es ms difcil. Mi teclado espaol (ISO) tiene una
tecla para el acento espaol (idntico en la forma al pice latino) que puede usarse con todas las vocales (excepto la y).
Cuando trabajo con un teclado ingls, la nica forma de usar el pice por Internet es escribir primero las cosas en Word (donde
el pice se obtiene apretando ctrl+' y luego la vocal correspondiente, excepto la y) y despus haciendo cortar y pegar. Cuando
trabajo desde un teclado ingls, por lo tanto, normalmente no me molesto en hacer todo eso. Podris identificar si he escrito
con teclado espaol o no porque mi teclado espaol tambin me permite hacer el punto medio que uso en los saludos SPD
(shift+3), mientras que cuando uso el teclado ingls escribo simplemente S.P.D.

> > > > En Csar (B.G. 1,6,7) encontramos 'Genava' ['ge.na.wa] en vez de 'Genua' ['ge.nu.wa];
>>>
> > > Estoy entendiendo algo mal? Yo crea que "Genava" y "Genua" eran sitios distintos (en espaol = Ginebra y Gnova).
Me temo que no tengo conocimiento espontneo y de primera mano de este tema ni las herramientas en este momento para
buscar la respuesta a tu pregunta. Las palabras parecen tener una fuerte conexin etimolgica, pero puede que se hayan
especializado en nombrar los dos lugares distintos que todos tenemos en mente. No lo puedo comprobar ahora.
> > El siguiente enlace puede ser del inters del alumno de ms arriba:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva
Gracias, aunque Wikipedia est lejos de ser infalible. ;-)
> > > > pero, misteriosamente, ninguna de las dos formas es recogida por el OLD.
>>>
> > > Lewis&Short parecen bastante buenos para nombres propios y tienen lemas tanto para Genua como para Genava.
>>>