Homework In villam cenebamus

[Thunder]

This is a short composition I have written so I can practice my writing skills in Latin. I would be very happy for some insight on some errors I might have made. It's not exactly homework because I am teaching myself and I want to check what level of basic understanding I have reached.

In villam cenebamus. Proculum hausi. Amicos erant taciti. Amici fabulam expectabant, meas fabulas amabant. Fabulam formidolosam narravi: "Vir olim vivebat, tres natos habebat - duo erant pueri et una erat puella. Puella erat Octavia et Octavia pulchra erat. Multi pueri Octaviam ardebat sed pueri Octaviam non delectabant. Quintus quoque Octaviam amabat. Vidit eam uno die in foro:
"Quo venis?" - Quintus rogavit
"Ad meam villam venio" - puella respondit
"Visne ad meum domum venire?"
"Nullo modo"
Quintus erat iratus. Cur Octavia Quintum negavit? (I guess I should use plusquamperfectum in the last sentence, but I haven't studied it yet).
Tum Octavia ad villam revenit. Sero fuit, Octavia et fratres dormiverunt. Nox erat et nullae stellae lucebant sed plena luna lucebat.
Aliquid ad villam intravit. Non homo erat sed lupus (erat). Uluvavit et puellam excitavit. Octavia valde timuit. Subito Octavia totam rem intellexit. Is non lupus sed versipellis. Iratus Quintus versipellis erat. Sero fuit! Quintus fratres necavit tum Octaviam necavit. Octavia deficit et factus fuit umbra.
Nunc tamen Octavia est in villa. Octavia necat omnes quod in villa intrant.

 

[Pacifica]

In villam cenebamus.

In takes the accusative when there's an "into" motion. When it's about a static location, it takes the ablative.

Proculum hausi

Poculum, no "r". Typo maybe.

Amicos erant taciti.

The friends are the subject, so they should be in the nominative.

Multi pueri Octaviam ardebat

The verb doesn't agree with the subject.

"Quo venis?" - Quintus rogavit
"Ad meam villam venio" - puella respondit

Don't you mean "where are you going? I'm going..." rather than "coming"? The latter looks weird, in Latin as well as in English. Venire means "to come"; "to go" is ire.

"Visne ad meum domum venire?"

Domus is feminine, not masculine, and it also has a peculiarity in that, like names of towns and a few other nouns, it usuall doesn't take prepositions, but instead of in + abl., the locative is used (domi = at home), instead of ad + acc., the accusative alone is used (domum = home — "to" home, with motion), and instead of ex + abl., the ablative alone (domo = from/out of home).

Cur Octavia Quintum negavit? (I guess I should use plusquamperfectum in the last sentence, but I haven't studied it yet).

Yes, and it should also be in the subjunctive because it's reporting Quintus's thought rather than a question truly asked by you, the author. Also, Quintum is in the wrong case: it should be dative, Quinto — she refused something to Quintus.

Sero fuit, Octavia et fratres dormiverunt.

Fuit should rather be erat. It would perhaps be more natural to say dormitum ierunt, too, "they went to sleep".

Aliquid ad villam intravit.

Ad is the wrong preposition, as it means a motion towards, not into. You can say either in villam intravit or villam intravit.

Non homo erat sed lupus (erat).

Really no need for a second erat.

Uluvavit

Ululavit.

Octavia deficit et factus fuit umbra.

You mean "Octavia died and became a shadow"?
The perfect would be defecit, but there are much more usual verbs meaning "to die", like mori. Factus is masculine, which doesn't agree with the subject, which is feminine. The perfect passive is also more usually formed with the perfect participle and the present tense of esse. So: Octavia mortua (est) et umbra facta est. The first est is really not necessary, but I've included it only for you to understand that it's implied.

Octavia necat omnes quod in villa intrant.

Quod, neuter singular, doesn't agree with what it represents, which is omnes, "everyone"/"all people", masculine plural. Villa is in the wrong case.

 

[Thunder]

Thank you very much for the detailed response! I'll try to correct the mistakes I have made below

1.

In takes the accusative when there's an "into" motion. When it's about a static location, it takes the ablative.

Yes, I know about this rule and I still made a mistake . In villa
2. Poculum - yes, typo. I don't know why but it's very hard for me to see typos in Latin words and sometimes when I read I realise I didn't see some letter or I put a letter which isn't there. I guess it takes time to get used to the language.
3. Multi pueri Octaviam ardebant - I have missed the "n" by mistake.
4. Yes, yes, this is exactly what I mean. So it should be "Quo is" . I have another question for this type of sentences. When I was writing the story I was wondering whether I should use "quo" or "ubi" and I decided to use "quo" because I remembered the title of the famous novel "Quo vadis" On second thoughts I concluded that "ubi" probably is used more with the ablative case, like "Ubi mea patria est?" but not with accusative. Am I right about that?
5. Thank you for the information, I didn't know that. Visne domum venire is the correct way to say it, isn't it?
6. What I was trying to say in Cur Octavia Quintum negavit that he is wondering why she rejected him. We use that phrase (to reject someone) in English, we have a phrase of the same meaning and construction in my native language (the only other I speak) so generally speaking, can I use it in Latin or because it's more precise language it's better to stay out of such expressions?
7.

Fuit should rather be erat. It would perhaps be more natural to say dormitum ierunt, too, "they went to sleep".

Yes, I can see why. By the way, I have read your comments on past tenses in other forum topics so I use the occasion to thank you about them
8. Villam intravit it is then
9.

Ululavit.

- The last typo in the row
10. I haven't used a perfect passive before so I'll count this as an experimentation gone wrong. But I think I get it better now with your explanation
11. Octavia necat omnes qui villam intrant

 

[Pacifica]

4. Yes, yes, this is exactly what I mean. So it should be "Quo is" . I have another question for this type of sentences. When I was writing the story I was wondering whether I should use "quo" or "ubi" and I decided to use "quo" because I remembered the title of the famous novel "Quo vadis" On second thoughts I concluded that "ubi" probably is used more with the ablative case, like "Ubi mea patria est?" but not with accusative. Am I right about that?

Ubi and quo aren't used with any case in particular, but perhaps you meant to say that ubi indicated a "place in which" like in + abl. does, and that quo indicated a "place (in)to which" like in or ad + acc. does? If that is what you meant to say, then yes. Ubi means "where" = "in what place" and quo"where (to)", "whither", "to what place".

5. Thank you for the information, I didn't know that. Visne domum venire is the correct way to say it, isn't it?

Yes, that is correct. You could still add meam, but it isn't necessary either.

6. What I was trying to say in Cur Octavia Quintum negavit that he is wondering why she rejected him. We use that phrase (to reject someone) in English, we have a phrase of the same meaning and construction in my native language (the only other I speak) so generally speaking, can I use it in Latin or because it's more precise language it's better to stay out of such expressions?

Negare just isn't the right verb to translate that, then. It means more like "to say no", "to refuse", "to deny". Aspernari would work fine. But, actually, I forgot to ask you earlier: have you learnt about deponent verbs yet? Because I mentioned one (mori) in my last post already, and aspernari is another one.

What's your native language? Just curious.

Yes, I can see why. By the way, I have read your comments on past tenses in other forum topics so I use the occasion to thank you about them

Oh, so kind of you.

11. Octavia necat omnes qui villam intrant

Correct.

 

[Thunder]

Ubi and quo aren't used with any case in particular, but perhaps you meant to say that ubi indicated a "place in which" like in + abl. does, and that quo indicated a "place (in)to which" like in or ad + acc. does? If that is what you meant to say, then yes. Ubi means "where" = "in what place" and quo"where (to)", "whither", "to what place".

Yes, this is what I was trying to say

Yes, that is correct. You could still add meam, but it isn't necessary either.

This is what I thought when I read the sentence I have written again and that's why I removed it.

But, actually, I forgot to ask you earlier: have you learnt about deponent verbs yet?

Yes, I know the basics- that they look like they are in passive voice, but are active in meaning. I don't use them yet because there aren't many of them in my vocabulary and I haven't studied properly the passive voice yet.

What's your native language? Just curious.

It's Bulgarian

And again, tibi gratias maximas ago