Translation:The wind violently blows through and the fire destroys the ancient bridge.
"perflat" can mean "to blow through," but in line with per's use as an intesifier it can also mean "to strongly blow." It would be redundant to translate that and vehementer, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect. . . this sort of redundancy in English where there is an emphasis in Latin is a pretty common phenomenon in translation.
They should teach us the unemphatic sentence first!
So, if I say "Venti vehementer perflant per silvam".
It means "The winds blow violently though the forrest"?
And if I remove "per", it would be just "to blow though" but less violently?
I'm lost in the translations of the sentence with per, without per, with vehementer, without vehementer, and all the cases of figures.
Tbh it seems that many people overthink latin with all kinds of explainations. It is a language. And language normally is something organic that can be used without too much thinking. Therefore, i think that the additional "per" is just used for emphasis. After all there already is a "per" in "perflare" So when looking at it like this, it becomes sorta obvious that it is mainly for emphasis. There are languages like Lowgerman (my native language) where they put another "through" at the end of something regardless: "dör de Döör dör" which basically is "through the door through". It doesn't put too much emphasis, on it but it COULD be interpreted as such too. But since we only have mainly doorways today that are normal doors, other possibilies have vanished. Like going "up through a door" - "dör de Döör rop" Still possible.. but never used really.
We can't check without going through the whole lesson again, and they won't give us any more XP for doing it a second time today.
In other courses, there is a speaker icon on the discussion page. I have asked contributors to add this functionality to the Latin course. They agreed it's useful... it probably depends on some software designer and not them though.