Talk:Latin/Lesson 3-Present Verbs
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Is there any particular reason that it uses Jesus as an example? That doesn't seem particularly neutral...
What's the idea of having a table where you have to inflect nouns in cases if we have studied only nominative case? And below the table is exercise to copy pronoun table from lesson 7, but lesson 7 seven doesn't exists anymore. I wonder if the table can be removed or should it be moved to some other lesson? (And sorry my bad english)
Pardon if I am not polite, but I really think that this chapter could have been made by a silly or a person who does not know how to build a book like this one. --84.77.146.109 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Poor Construction
I think this article needs to be overlooked by an editor with some experience. It is not very well written in its current state. 220.101.40.217 (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] First Exercise - Present verbs
I was thrown a bit by 4. "Conjugate the verb 'to be' in the past and present tense in English and Latin (I am, You are, He is etc.) ". It asks for 'past and present', but only gives the present tense in the answers. --59.167.249.210 (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Exercise Under "Tense"
The book, as it currently reads, tells the reader to "fill out this table of noun declensions." While I can find the singular declensions (on the introductory page #2), I cannot find the plural declensions.--Phillipps (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to add that while the exercise asks for the table to be filled in, it does not give the source of the information required (It was on page 2 of the introduction). The table that I am referring to does contain an inaccuracy; it states that the table is only for illustration, not to be memorized, and does not display the plural as this would be redundant. This is wrong, as: 1. The table is the only source of information on the declensions, 2. The exercise says that the table has to be memorized, and 3. The plural would not be redundant as it is given nowhere else and is needed to complete the exercise. In fact, the only plurals I could find were that of puella in the nominative case (only for the first two declensions), and several others in the accusative.--Phillipps (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
