1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Angry, I arrive at the bedro…

"Angry, I arrive at the bedroom."

Translation:Ego iratus ad cubiculum advenio.

September 25, 2019



My gran always said, "Never go to bed on a row". Pass it on.


There is a comma after Angry , why does it count in latin. I believe it changes the sense of the sentence.


Probably it would be better in English to say "I arrive angrily at the bedroom," which would still be, in Latin, Īrātus ad cubiculum adveniō (there's no need for the "ego" here). Yes, īrātus is (still) an adjective describing the subject of adveniō, but it's translated by an adverb (angrily) in English.


thank you Suzanne.


A sub is going to get punished!


I've cancelled out the humourless downvote on that one ;)


I couldn't remember seeing "angrily" thus far in the course so I came up with "iratice", is that even a word?


The adverb īrātē "angrily, indignantly" exists (going by the Oxford Latin Dictionary).

The usual rule is that adjectives of the 1st/2nd declensions (like īrātus, a, um ) form the adverb by adding ending -(long)ē to the base (īrāt- ).


So then "Iratē ad cubiculum advenio" or "Ad cubiculum iratē advenio" would seem to be legitimate constructions?


Putting īrātē before the verb (Ad cubiculum īrātē adveniō) would seem legitimate.

It is striking, however, that there are many more examples (in the OLD) of adj. īrātus being used adverbially, than there are of the adv. īrātē . "The subject, in an angry state , does something" seems to be the more common way to express it, in Latin.


last time I used the masculine (I am feminine), I was corrected, so I assumed that Duo knows that i am feminine. I guess not


When offered the same sentence as a "type and translate" (rather than a "choose words" option), I was told it was 'incorrect' to put the adj. īrātus at the end. Whereas I think separating the verb and the adjective (and let's leave out the unnecessary ego!) makes for better style--greater emphasis on the adj. "īrātus".


Just report it, I don't think they mean that it's not okay to put "iratus" at the end, as I don't think I saw rules saying that we cannot put adjectives at the end of a sentence, when't they are predicate or not. They've simply forgotten to add this alternative solution.


Is advenio a mix of ad + venio?


Precisely: "come" (veniō) + "to, at" (ad).

There's also inveniō , "to come upon, find" (like English inventor);

ēveniō , "to come out, to turn out" (like English event ).


Shouldn't it be "in cubiculo" to say " at the bedroom" and to distinguish it from " to the bedroom"?


I think the prepositional phrase is dictated, so to speak, by the verb: advenīre wants to be 'completed' by the ad + accusative phrase. (One might think of it as certain verbs having their own 'logic' . Advenīre requires a certain amount of 'traveling' through space, and coming TO a destination.)

Of course, there can be all kinds of sentences about "being angry IN the bedroom" and so forth ...


Where presumably Livia is drinking and waiting.


Hey, that's a pretty well formed sentence. That really does sound like something I'd see in a book


I didnt use ego just iratus ad cenaculum advenio. Why does ego have to be there? It is rarely seen in Latin


Why does ego have to be there?

I don't see why ego would be required here, report it I suppose.

It is rarely seen in Latin

That would depend on what you are reading I suspect. In the copies I have of Petronius's Satyricon and Apuleius's Metamorphoses, ego pops up quite a lot. Other books, not so much.


Anywhere you have dialogue (so, novels like Petronius' and Apuleius'; and also in Roman comedy), you'll have some uses of ego , often very much for emphasis.

Latin also likes to juxtapose personal pronouns--when you are doing something to me, for example, we'll see tū mē (if you're doing a transitive verb that takes a direct object), or tū mihi (if the verb you're subject of takes a dative); and, conversely, ego tē and ego tibi .

But the student of Latin should definitely not get the impression that a verb with 1st person subject (e.g., veniō ) "needs" to be accompanied or preceded by the 1st person nominative singular pronoun, ego .


Yes, of course. I hope I didn't somehow imply that an ego should ever be required.

Thank you very much for the more detailed explanation on when it is more likely to see a pronoun in the nominative.


Yes--I meant to be agreeing with, and maybe amplifying, your comment rather than correcting anything you said.


Thank you, I feel encouraged in these more draconian duolingo days!


What would "Ego iratus in cubiculum advenio." translate to?

Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.