1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Celeriter currere vobis plac…

"Celeriter currere vobis placet."

Translation:You all like to run quickly.

March 29, 2020



Only the americanism ‘you all’ is accepted. That can’t be right.


Plain 'you' seems to be accepted now, though it gives 'you all' as an alternative translation. That southeastern US americanism does fill in a hole in English, and allows the translation to be more accurate. I don't mind using it for the plural 'you' as long as it is recognized in advance and Duolingo stays consistent.


In this context, I would assume that it's not intended to be an Americanism, but rather the most natural English translation of the Latin 'you (plural).'


It would be an appropriate translation of ‘... vobis omnibus placet...’, but it’s certainly not natural in BE, as the Latin stands.


Does BE have any natural way of distinguishing singular from plural for 'you'? Maybe we could go back to 'thou' and 'thee' for the singular, and use 'ye' and 'you' only for the plural.


What about writing it as "All of you"?


You are 100% correct. "You" can mean singular you or plural you. "All" is redundant and improper grammatically in english. I don't care if Americans use it. It is still wrong. I mean, why not go all out Duolingo and add the southern "All y'all" to the accepted answers, if "you all" is going to remain as the only correct answer.


"You all" is not mandatory for the second person plural in standard English.


"To run quickly"... Is it possible to run slowly ?


Of course, running isn't just one speed. You could also consider one's running to another and say one is slower than the other.

There are 'jogging' and 'sprinting', both of which can be described as a way of running related to speed.


You haven't seen me run!


?"Is there any way to say "you like" other than "vobis placet


Vobis libet , vobis gratum est and many other such collocations.


I suggest that the pronunciation on the audio is off, and that "currere" should be pronounced with the "rr" as a trill, then the "r" as a flap. This is how a native speaker of Italian or Spanish would render the word phonetically.


While there may be some truth here, you will need to provide a better source than 'native speakers of Italian or Spanish'. The course is attempting to use a reconstruction of a pronunciation from just under two thousand years ago. That is plenty of time for pronunciation to change.


Hello Moopish. To begin, My professor at CSUN, John Paul Adams, who is no slouch, did once remark in class that a doubled "r" gets more time than a single "r." This strikes me as eminently logical. Why would pronunciation of “rr” and “r” have been identical? Why not spell the word as “currerre,” or “curere,” if the two r sounds are identical? Latin seems to have had a high level of grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence, unlike English, and very much like Latin’s descendants, Italian and Spanish. Italy and Spain are not adjacent countries, and yet the clear distinction those two languages draw between “rr” and “r” is essentially identical: in both languages a double rr is a trill, where a single r is a flap, or tap. This strongly suggests a common origin, and the common ancestor of Italian and Spanish is, as we all know, Latin. And while two thousand years is most certainly enough time for pronunciation to change, it would be surprising if the exact pronunciation change happened in both languages, considering the considerable geographical difference between the two countries. My two cents. It would be worth noting that my comment was a suggestion, not a demand. I could be wrong. But I think I’m onto something here.


That makes sense. Just looking for a deeper dive into it.

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