most recent 30 from latin.stackexchange.com 2025-08-06T03:59:58Z https://latin.stackexchange.com/feeds/question/24024 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf https://latin.stackexchange.com/q/24024 2 user16189 https://latin.stackexchange.com/users/0 2025-08-06T08:00:10Z 2025-08-06T08:00:10Z

<p>I'm looking for more things to read in order to improve my Latin, and I came across a little book: <a href="https://magisterp.com/2017/09/14/rufus-lutulentus-published/" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Rufus Lutulentus</em></a>. I found it a bit too easy, but amusing, and I only discovered later, on Reddit, that it was criticised for being written in bad Latin. Here's an extract:</p> <blockquote> <p>Rūfus est lutulentus cotīdiē, sed lutulentus est domī. Rūfō placet esse lutulentum domī. est diēs Lūnae. Rūfus est lutulentus domī omnibus diēbus Lūnae. iam, Rūfus est domī. Rūfus vult lutulārī domī.</p> <p>ecce, Līvia!</p> <p>Līvia est māter Rōmāna. Līvia est māter, sed nōn est māter Rūfī. Līvia est māter Sextī et Drūsillae. māter Rūfī et Pīsōnis est Agrippīna. Sextus et Drūsilla sunt Rōmānī, sed nōn sunt lutulentī. Sextus nōn vult lutulārī. Drūsilla et Pīsō nōn volunt lutulārī. Līvia et Agrippīna nōn volunt lutulārī...</p> <p>...sed Rūfus vult lutulārī. Rūfus vult esse Rōmānus lutulentus.</p> </blockquote> <p>Of course, it's very repetitive and heavy-handed, but that's undoubtedly a choice made by the author for educational purposes. I wonder if there are any grammatical errors or strange constructions that I wouldn't have noticed. Personally, it's only the fact that the sentences aren't linked together (nam, autem, etc.) that seems out to me.</p>

百度