EXAMINERS' REPORTS LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2 CERTIFICATES IN LATIN LANGUAGE AND LATIN LANGUAGE & ROMAN CIVILISATION SUMMER WJEC CBAC Ltd.

Transcription

1 EXAMINERS' REPORTS LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2 CERTIFICATES IN LATIN LANGUAGE AND LATIN LANGUAGE & ROMAN CIVILISATION SUMMER 2012

2 Statistical Information The Examiner s Report may refer in general terms to statistical outcomes. Statistical information on candidates performances in all examination components (whether internally or externally assessed) is provided when results are issued. Annual Statistical Report The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC. Unit Page Latin Language Level 1 - Unit Latin Language Level 2 - Unit Roman Civilisation Level 1 - Unit Roman Civilisation Level 2 - Unit Roman Civilisation Levels 1 & 2 - Units 9513 & Latin Language Level 1 - Unit Latin Language Level 2 - Unit

3 LEVEL 1 LATIN LANGUAGE UNIT 9511 General Comments The paper produced a broad range of marks, with a good number of candidates performing exceptionally well. There was no evidence that anyone ran short of time. Whereas the multiple choice questions were handled well by almost all candidates, the translations proved more challenging. The great majority followed the storyline through to the end. Q.1 Nearly all knew crudelis, but many did not know ingens. Q.2 All answered correctly. Q.3 All answered correctly. Q.4 This was answered well, but some candidates were unsure of stabat. Q.5 Tricky vocabulary proved the downfall of many candidates here, especially num, which was very rarely known, but also ire and vultis. Q.6 Nearly all recognised the imperative to yield the correct choice of A. Q.7 A few candidates failed to understand the question; a similar number were content to state that he made a comparison (i.e. he compared the school with the city streets ); most, however, grasped what was needed for the answer, though some did not know or guess reasonably meliores. Q.8 Was answered correctly by almost all candidates. Q.9 Was answered correctly by almost all candidates. Q.10 (i) Was answered correctly by almost all candidates. (iii) All realised that a personal response was called for here, and gave something sensible. The majority, who looked at the Latin, answered correctly; a minority made up an answer, which, while usually sensible ( go to school was a favourite), was wrong. (iv) Despite the tricky vocabulary, most correctly chose D. Q.11 nos facimus id quod volumus caused problems for most candidates; oddly, relatively few saw that nos and facimus belonged together ( we easily wish... vel sim. was quite common). The rest of the translation was done very well. Q.12 Almost all correctly chose A. Q.13 The only error here was to make the answer plural, as if addressed to all the boys. 1

4 Q.14 (i) The generally correct selection of B, C, F and H showed that nearly all were following the storyline closely. Nearly all correctly identified ridens, but only half translated it as a participle. It is worth reminding students that, when they are translating a Latin word selected from the passage, the ending must be correct as well as the meaning of the word. Q.15 Nearly all recognised the irregular comparative, maior, but many could not find a place for the qualifying multo. Q.16 Most answered correctly, but weaker candidates thought the order was to tear the old man apart, rather than his house. Q.17 (i) Many appeared to misunderstand the question, and gave a variety of Latin words, of which few were nouns or bore any relationship to the friends. It is worth reminding candidates that they are expected to be familiar with the names of the commonest parts of speech. &(iii) These questions were generally answered correctly. Q.18 (i) There was some confusion here between what Sextus and what the old man were doing; it may be that some candidates looked only at the lemma and saw Sextus... immotus as meaning that Sextus was motionless. It is worth stressing the importance of checking the passage before answering questions, rather than focusing only on the lemma. Those who did look at the passage often did not know manebat, and guessed incorrectly. (iii) Nearly all identified qui as referring to the old man. This time, nearly all assigned the correct action to the correct person. Q.19 (i) The weakest candidates, unable to cope with the Latin, guessed from the storyline: he could not beat the old man, which may be true, but was not in the Latin. Some omitted primus. Q.20 This multiple choice was nearly always answered correctly. Q.21 This was answered fully and accurately, with the exception of simulac, which was rarely known. Q.22 In contrast with the earlier translations, this one was handled very well by nearly all candidates. Q.23 (i) Virtually all gave the correct optimus, but only half noted the superlative. All answered correctly. Q.24 All answered correctly. Q.25 (i) Nearly all found three points to make here. Relatively few gained all three marks here: many could not work out exierunt, and even more omitted the superlative. 2

5 LEVEL 2 LATIN LANGUAGE UNIT 9521 General Comments This summer saw another pleasing increase in the entry. The fact that there was a great variety in the standard of performance indicates that the paper was an effective discriminator. Although very many scored over 90 there were almost no entrants scoring full marks; there were also many who could not cope with the Latin at all and produced nonsense, especially for question 2. These candidates would have been better advised to enter for Level 1. Often little words were not known as well as they needed to be, e.g. enim, saepe, in + accusative, tamen, sine, and tot. There were not unsurprising confusions between lookalikes such as miser / miserunt and habeo / habito. Hasdrubalem was left in that form by some candidates in translation and, more carelessly, Hannibal was on occasion mistranslated (e.g. as "Hannibus"). Q.1 Rather surprisingly this seemed the most challenging section. Very few entrants scored full marks on this and even otherwise good candidates tended to miss several points; the very weak often scored below 10. Candidates should be reminded that precision is important in answering comprehension questions as well as when translating. (a) (i) Many did not know parvus. All answered correctly. (b) (i) Unlike last year, this multiple choice question was not always answered correctly, with even quite strong candidates slipping up occasionally. Nearly all gave a correct derivative of mortem; a few gave morgue, which is of unknown origin. The fact that a few gave death suggests that not all candidates understood the nature of this question. (c) (i) periit foxed quite a few but most came up with death of some sort. (iii) Not everyone recognised vulnus and old age was often given as the cause of death. A few made vulnus plural. Occasionally credit for wounded was given from (i). This was answered very well. (d) (e) (f) (g) This was the most difficult question by far and a score of 0/6 was quite common even for some who ended up with almost full marks for questions 2 and 3. Most got Hannibal being led to the senators (though quite often senatores was singular), and then failed completely with the rest. The relative pronoun, the meanings of oro and legatus and the concept of making someone something were collectively beyond the grasp of all but the most able. All who recognised miserunt as a verb answered correctly; probably about twenty per cent of candidates thought it was part of miser. The glossing of the key words guided most candidates to the meaning; weaker candidates guessed at to fight the Romans, which gained some credit. Common error here was omission of the superlative; weaker candidates tended to give were living instead of were having or had for habebant. 3

6 Q.2 in Hispania milites gaudebant, quod optimum ducem iam habebant. The first verb was often unknown but usually guessed sensibly. Many took ducem as a verb, which made nonsense of the second clause. nemo enim erat in bello audacior quam Hannibal, nemo fortior. This was mostly translated well, though quite a few did not know audacior (confused by weaker candidates with parts of audio). saepe inter milites iacens in terra dormiebat, et cibum similem consumebat. iacens caused the problem here: if it was omitted, the line made perfect sense but many made the soldiers the subject and ignored the singular verbs. semper primus in proelium ibat, ultimusque e proelio exibat. ibat was unknown to many: he was first into battle was the commonest rendering, which lost only one mark. erat tamen vir crudelis, nec deos timebat. A few did not recognise vir. Hannibal, postquam fratrem Hasdrubalem reliquit ut Hispaniam defenderet, This was handled competently by nearly all. Hardly any candidate failed to identify the purpose clause. A few did not know fratrem. sexaginta milia militum cum multis elephantis trans montes in Galliam duxit. milia caused the only difficulty here: half the candidates got it right; a third confused it with milites; a few thought it meant millions or omitted it. ibi statim principes Gallorum ad se vocavit. ad se defeated the majority of candidates, with many giving called to the chiefs. in Italiam, eis inquit, iter facere volumus. in Italiam was almost universally In Italy. eis was usually omitted. Some wanted an easy journey. per Galliam nobis procedendum est. The gerundive of obligation was known to only a small minority of candidates. id difficile est sine auxilio Gallorum. nolite nobis resistere. The first sentence caused few problems (even the usually problematic id was nearly always correctly translated). The difficulty came in the second sentence, with nolite, which was hardly ever known. Hannibal tot dona principibus obtulit ut auxilium ei libenter promitterent. Surprisingly this seemed the most difficult section: very few scored full marks or even half that. Although obtulit was often wrongly guessed as gave, it was the result clause which defeated most: very few knew tot while many made libenter a noun and mentioned Hannibal giving them their freedom in return for help; principibus was often singular. 4

7 Q.3 This section caused far fewer problems for candidates than Question 1. (a) (i) latissimum was the only source of difficulty, partly because the basic latus was very frequently unknown, and partly because many missed the superlative. This was mostly handled well; the most frequent error was omission of any mention of the Gauls, as if it were Hannibal who built the ships. (b) (c) (d) (e) ceperunt was frequently not recognised. Nearly all answered this correctly. A few did not know what to do with num, but guesses were usually sound. Apart from the frequent selection of E instead of F, choices were well made. (f) (i) Nearly all chose correctly. (iii) Go to war was accepted as well as take the war ; in consequence, nearly all gained both marks. The only occasional error here was treating vos as singular. (g) (i) All picked out difficillimum, but half missed the superlative. Although a few were unsure of one or more of the words, most answered correctly. (h) (i) Fortunately for most candidates, the superlative of plurimos was not required here, because it had already been tested in Question 1; but ignorance of milia prevented most from gaining full marks. Although tanta was widely unknown, nearly all were able to find enough other details to gain both marks. (I) (i) Nearly all knew or guessed the significance of resisteret, including the purpose clause. Weaker candidates omitted facile; others gave ambiguous answers: they won easily, where it was unclear which side won (such ambiguity was not acceptable). 5

8 LEVEL 1 ROMAN CIVILISATION UNIT 9512 General comments This year candidates again generally achieved a pleasingly high standard and there were few really poor scripts. Topic 1: Daily Life in Roman Society was more popular than Topic 2: Roman Britain, although Topic 2 attracted more candidates than last year. There was little difference in the standard achieved by both sets of candidates. There were, however, several instances of Rubric Error, where candidates attempted both topics. In almost all cases they could probably have achieved a higher mark if they had spent the full time allocation on a single topic. Candidates clearly enjoyed answering the questions in Section B, and many displayed excellent empathy in their detailed and imaginative answers. Not all, however, remembered that they had to give roughly equal weight to factual knowledge and personal response in order to obtain top marks. Good use was made of the source material and these questions provided good discrimination. Once again some candidates omitted to number their answers to questions in Section B. Topic 1: Daily Life in Roman Society Section A Q.1 (a) This question was generally well answered (b) Answers varied. Some candidates mentioned that the garden had a fountain or a water feature, but omitted to say why this feature was suitable for a hot climate. A few misinterpreted the question and mentioned the types of plant grown there. Q.2 Candidates had few problems with this question, although some need to be reminded to copy down terms such as praetor correctly. Others thought that the number of Macedo s names was a clue to his importance. In (d) it was important that candidates gave three different reasons why masters often treated their slaves well. Some answers overlapped and consequently did not gain full marks. Q.3 This question was not always well answered. All the source material used in the examination paper is taken from the online source materials for Level 1, where some of the information needed to answer this question can be found. Clearly some candidates were not familiar with the picture of the cooking pots. Q.4 In general candidates answered (a) (c) well, although in (b) the crosses placed to mark the traders temporary stalls were sometimes hard to spot. (d) was well answered, but in (e) - (g) some candidates were uncertain about aediles and duoviri and their respective jobs. The aediles supervised such jobs as street cleaning and did not do the jobs themselves. This was not always made clear. 6

9 Section B Q.5 There were some lively, imaginative answers to this question but, if they wish to use proper names in their accounts, candidates should aim to choose plausible Roman ones. A few candidates did not read the question carefully and described a day in their own life as a Roman, rather than describing life in their Roman town or city. Q.6 There were some very good answers to this question, although a few gave long accounts of the manumission ceremony, which were irrelevant. Some also omitted to make the important point that freedman became Roman citizens with three names and a vote. Many, however, did note that their children became full Roman citizens with the right to stand for political office. Q.7 Some accounts of a dinner at the house of a rich patron did not say anything about the meal itself. Quite often enjoyment of the occasion was so great that candidates forgot to mention anything that annoyed them, although some did mention boring conversation and tedious entertainment. The best answers also included the question of comfort, such as the cramped conditions on the couches and having to sit so close to unpleasant people. The part played by slaves was often omitted and, when it was included, candidates sometimes took a modern standpoint and found the use of slaves abhorrent. Q.8 This was a popular question which produced some excellent answers. Candidates made reference to the disadvantages of being close to the street and the advantages of a shady colonnade in the peristylium, but the weaker candidates simply gave a catalogue of rooms without saying what they found pleasant or uncomfortable about them. Topic 2: Roman Britain Section A Q.1 On the map of Roman Britain some candidates filled in more than the required two boxes and consequently could not be awarded any marks for this question. (b) was well answered although a few candidates thought that Cogidubnus capital was Bath. Answers to (c) were not always sufficiently precise. Candidates needed to give particular examples of the help Cogidubnus might have given the Romans, such as local information or an anchorage for their ships. Q.2 The question on Bath was well answered. All candidates seemed to recognise the plan and could give details of the temple and baths complex as well as information about Sulis Minerva. Q.3 Candidates had no problems with this question, as the diagram gave much of the information needed to answer (a), and there were plenty of valid answers to (b) from which they could choose. Q.4 This question was also answered well. Most candidates knew that the containers were amphoras or amphorae and therefore answered (b) and (c) correctly as well as (a). The commonest answers to (d) were wine and olive oil, but some mentioned fish sauce or garum. Q.5 (a)&(b) This was a more challenging question, even though all the answers could be deduced from the passage. (c) This was generally done well, and most candidates considered Agricola to be a fair governor. 7

10 Section B Q.6 There were some excellent responses to this popular question on Boudica. Both sides of her character were discussed and candidates showed real empathy. The best candidates explained why she inspired her people and included good detail about how she enlisted the support of other tribes like the Trinobantes and her burning of major cities like Colchester and London. They also criticised her for the over-confidence, which led to her ultimate defeat. Q.7 This question also produced some excellent answers. Some candidates mentioned the drawbacks of living in Bath such as the crowds, diseases and pickpockets and the advantages which included all the facilities afforded by the huge temple and baths complex. Some, however, wrote down all they knew about baths without attempting to answer the question. Q.8 There were many good references to the size of Fishbourne palace, its important rooms and the elaborate decoration with Italian origins. Some were able to give precise examples of this, such as the mosaic showing Cupid riding on a dolphin. The best candidates linked all these details to the lifestyle of Cogidubnus and his duties as a local ruler. Q.9 In this question candidates were discussing a farm in Roman Britain from the owner s point of view. A few misread the question and wrote as if they were the bailiff. There were some excellent answers on the duties of the bailiff and the problems he faced were well documented. Accounts of work inside the house were mostly confined to household chores, with only a few mentioning the cook or the need to keep accounts, if the farm was to run smoothly. Similarly, only the best candidates gave details of particular jobs to be done outside on the farm, apart from the two mentioned in the question. On the whole candidates found this a challenging question. Conclusion This was a pleasing set of papers and the standard was once again high. Candidates generally had a very good knowledge of the source material and used it to good effect in their answers. All the questions in Section B were very popular, apart from Question 1 in Topic 1, and Question 9 in Topic 2, which were slightly less popular, but still answered by a good number of candidates. In Section B, candidates also made a real attempt to meet the demands of the question this year, which was most encouraging. The answers to these questions often contained an excellent personal response. 8

11 LEVEL 2: ROMAN CIVILISATION UNIT 9522 General Comments The level of performance was very pleasing again this year. Candidates produced some excellent answers and included a wide range of source material. Topic 1: Daily Life in Roman Society was once again more popular than Topic 2: Roman Britain, although more candidates chose Topic 2 than last year. There was very little difference in the standard achieved by both sets of candidates. It was good to note that there were few Rubric Errors at this level. Questions with a larger mark allocation, which required evaluation, were generally well answered, and many candidates made a very good attempt to meet the demands of the questions. However, answers to these types of question should give a balanced view of the issues and include some negative aspects, particularly if the question begins to what extent? Spelling and handwriting were variable and examiners had great difficulty reading some scripts. Candidates should remember that poor handwriting can cost them marks, if examiners are unable to decipher their answers. Topic 1: Daily Life in Roman Society Q.1 If candidates knew that a salutatio was being described, this question was well answered, but a few did not, and omitted to mention clients and patrons. There were some good answers to (d) and, besides mentioning the siesta and a visit to the baths, candidates realised that this might have been a time when Martial was writing his poems. Q.2 (a)&(b) These were both answered well. (c) There were some excellent accounts of the extent to which the lives of slaves changed once they had been set free, with many candidates considering a wide range of benefits the slave would gain. The best candidates also mentioned ways in which the freed slave could still be at his master s beck and call, or mentioned how female slaves often married the master and could then become the mistress of the household. A few candidates did not meet the demands of the question and either gave a long list of a client s duties or described the manumission ceremony in detail. Q.3 Many candidates gave excellent personal responses to this question. They described attending a Roman dinner party from either a Roman, or sometimes a modern, point of view. Those who viewed it from a modern standpoint said that they would have felt uncomfortable about the use of slaves or having to eat so many rich or unusual dishes. Candidates did, however, generally find it easier to write about the enjoyment of the dinner party rather than the comfort. There were some pleasing references to literary sources such as Juvenal and Pliny, including mention of Virro as host in Juvenal s Satires. 9

12 Q.4 (a)&(b) There were some pleasing answers to this question, although if candidates did not read (b) carefully they lost marks. The table of weights and measures is not a building! Nor was it acceptable to give more than one temple in the answer to (b), when the question asked for kinds of building. (c) This was very well answered. Candidates mentioned a variety of similarities and differences between a Roman forum and a modern shopping centre, including the number of different shops, pedestrianisation and a meeting place for friends, as well as the lack of religious buildings in modern centres. In (d) most candidates mentioned graffiti and the noticeboards, and also election speeches, the town crier and local gossip, as a means of finding out what was happening in the town, but were not always able to give a wide range of the kinds of information that were available. Q.5 (a)&(b) Most candidates knew papyrus as the answer to (a) and were able to give details of the pens and ink in (b). (c) There were some excellent answers to this, although a significant number of candidates did not read this question carefully and gave information which could not be found in the picture. From those who were familiar with the picture there were some interesting comments about their own students and teachers. One wrote: The students in the picture actually look interested, which today is rare! Topic 2: Roman Britain Q.1 (a)&(b) Most candidates gained full marks for these questions. (c) There were some pleasing answers, although some candidates could have given more details about Boudica s successes against the Romans. Many mentioned the fact that the Roman women were not involved in warfare and that their main role was to run the household, and therefore the Romans might well have been fascinated, amazed or shocked by Boudica acting as a military leader. Q.2 (a)-(c) In general, candidates liked this question and did well, although some did not realise that the spring was not a building. This is another example of the need to read the question carefully before answering. (d) Not all candidates met the demands of the question. They were asked to give archaeological evidence for life in Bath in Roman times. There were, however some pleasing answers from the best candidates, who mentioned items like Memor s statue base, tombstones and curse tablets, and then went on to explain their significance. Q.3 (a)-(c) Answers were generally fine. Most candidates had little difficulty in identifying two decorative features from the garden at Fishbourne Palace, generally mentioning trellises and fountains. There were also some references to columns from the garden colonnade and the remains of statues which had been found in the garden. (d) This was well answered by many, who selected their material carefully to meet the demands of the question. Some candidates, however, wrote too generally or borrowed information from the question on Chedworth villa. Q.4 This question produced some of the best answers on this topic. Candidates were familiar with the source material for villas in Britain, and often gained full marks. 10

13 Q.5 Candidates found this a more challenging question, where they had to discuss how Agricola s policy affected the Britons rather than discuss Roman policy in general. There was, however a good number of excellent answers. Some linked Agricola s strategy for changing the Britons lives to his own early education and one candidate concluded that some Britons might no longer have resented the Romans but aspired to be like them. Conclusion The standard of achievement this year was most encouraging. Many candidates wrote with obvious interest and empathy, and centres can be congratulated on the way in which they helped their students both to interpret the source material and to use it to advantage in answering the questions. 11

14 LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2 ROMAN CIVILISATION UNITS 9513 & 9523 General Comments Once again, centres are to be congratulated on the wide range of interesting questions submitted for Roman Civilisation studies at both Level 1 and Level 2. These ranged from a series of questions from a Centre in Dorset researching the influence of the arrival of the Romans on the lives of those living in the local area to a question on the effect of Eastern cults in the Roman Empire. Comparisons between Roman society and the present day continue to be popular, but candidates sometimes need to be reminded that they have to give more or less equal weight to both parts of the comparison if they are to gain good marks for evaluation. Some candidates chose ambitious questions concerned with Roman politics or the government of the Roman Empire. It is important with topics such as these to have access to sufficient evidence and also to possess the maturity to evaluate the issues involved. Candidates must take into the assessment a single side of A4 paper, containing all the primary sources they intend to quote or refer to, as well as notes and an essay plan, neither of which should exceed 100 words. Teachers should be aware that websites are secondary sources and may be listed in a bibliography, but not used as footnotes. Any primary sources they contain, whether quotations or illustrations, should be identified and included on the A4 sheet which is the only item candidates have with them in the examination. They must not use the internet or refer to any storage facility on their computer while writing the assignment, but simply refer to the A4 sheet. Several centres submitted exemplary A4 sheets, and candidates from these Centres benefited from having information clearly set out and accessible in the examination room. Sources need to be clearly identified and the correct spelling of proper names should form part of the notes. It was obvious that most candidates had enjoyed the experience of researching a topic of their own choice. If several candidates wish to write about the same topic, they should try to vary their questions, to avoid any overlap in the selection of primary sources or similarities in essay plans. This year nearly all candidates kept to the permitted number of words and most included a word count at the end of their work. A very few scripts were very difficult to read and should probably have been typed. For security, pages should be stapled, held together with a paper clip or placed in a clear wallet. Each page should bear the name of the candidate. It is always a good idea for candidates to write the title of their question on the coversheet themselves, as there were one or two minor discrepancies between these titles and the titles on the actual work. Centres were also aware of the different allocation of marks for the criteria for Levels 1 and 2. At Level 1 there is greater emphasis on factual knowledge, whereas at level 2 there are more marks for evaluation. Conclusion Teachers recorded the marks for factual knowledge, use of primary sources and personal response, and almost without exception successfully placed their candidates in the correct band for each of these assessment criteria. Supporting comments and annotation of the scripts were thorough and extremely helpful, especially where there was a clear indication in the margin of the script where credit had been given for Assessment Criteria 2, 3 or 4. Centres can congratulate themselves on the pleasing standard of work and should be encouraged to enter further candidates next year. 12

15 LEVEL 1 LATIN LANGUAGE UNIT 9514 General Comments There was a pleasing increase in entry numbers over last summer. The standard overall was high, with a number of candidates achieving full marks. Difficulties were caused by sentences which did not start with an obvious subject; by any subordinate clauses; by the pluperfect tense; by prepositions with the accusative. A significant number of candidates, including very good ones, missed out a line of text or a whole sentence, showing the need for checking translations against the text at the end. The increasing proportion of candidates who submit typed translations is making the marking process more difficult, because with few exceptions these candidates do not use doublespacing, so leaving very little room for marks to be written in the text. A plea is made, therefore, that such candidates be trained to use double-spacing. Flavius per vias urbis ambulabat. subito duo homines ingentes eum rapuerunt. Occasionally vias was taken as singular. A few rendered ambulabat as walked, instead of the more appropriate was walking. Many were unfamiliar with ingentes. A few for incomprehensible reasons assumed that Flavius was a woman, despite the obvious gender of eum. This error, repeated throughout the translation, was penalised once only. unus homo Flavium ferociter pulsavit; alter saccum, quem portabat, abstulit. The first half of this was usually correct; many took alter to agree with saccum, because they could not fathom the parenthetic relative clause. in sacco Flavius multam pecuniam posuerat. Only the best candidates noted the pluperfect. Postumus erat amicus Flavii. Postumus quoque per urbem ibat. This was generally translated accurately. Flavium in via iacentem conspexit et eum adiuvit. The weaker half of the entry treated Flavium as the subject and could not recognise the participle, giving typically Flavius was lying in the street (or even more typically Flavius was laying in the street (misspelling not penalised)). Flavius amico narravit id quod acciderat. amicus erat iratus. Most coped well with the difficult id quod, but many omitted the pluperfect. heri, inquit, duo viri me quoque oppugnaverunt pecuniamque meam abstulerunt. heri was rarely known ( today was a frequent rendering). A few did not know quoque. quid facere possumus? rogavit Flavius. 13

16 This sentence was translated very well, the most common error being ignorance of the ending on possumus. nihil, amicus tristis dixit. difficile est nobis pecuniam nostram recipere. This was handled well, apart from nobis and nostram, both of which were frequently unknown. subito magnum clamorem audiverunt. There were no problems here. in viam cucurrerunt illi duo homines, qui amicos oppugnaverant. The word-order foxed weaker candidates, who invariably began, in the street. iili also defeated many (it should be noted that these was not accepted). Again, the pluperfect was often missed. post eos festinavit multitudo civium clamantium, illi homines sunt fures: sistite eos. Unsurprisingly the genitive participle differentiated well among candidates. Fortunately for many, the repetition of these for illi was ignored the second time. Most recognised the imperative. Flavius et Postumus, ubi fures appropinquaverunt, eis obstiterunt. Half the candidates made fures the object rather than the subject, as required by the context. The pronoun was handled well. quamquam fures pugnaverunt, effugere non poterant, quod cives iam eos circumstabant. Some did not know quamquam. Many took fures as the object, even though the context demands that they be the subject. iam was often omitted. ecce, saccus meus! clamavit Flavius laetus. Nearly all translated this correctly. ubi omnem pecuniam in sacco vidit, etiam laetior erat. This too was nearly always right, apart from the occasional uncertainty over etiam. Conclusion Once again, centres are to be congratulated on the high standards achieved. 14

17 LEVEL 2 LATIN LANGUAGE UNIT 9524 General Comments It was pleasing to see a considerable increase in entries for this paper. Although there was a wide range of ability, the great majority of candidates coped effectively with the challenges of vocabulary and syntax. Only a small minority of candidates scored fewer than half the marks. There was little to choose between the two parts of the paper in perceived difficulty or in outcomes. In the translation section, the second half provided much calmer waters than the first half. Q.1 (a) (i) Quite a few candidates did not know legiones, often guessing the meaning as troops, which was close but not quite acceptable. There was widespread confusion between pugno and oppugno. (b) The only frequent error here was the selection of F instead of E; this indicates an ignorance of plurimis, a weakness that has been commented on before. (c) (i) A widespread ignorance of secutus generated many wild guesses. The glossing of sero enabled all candidates to gain this mark. (d) (e) The difficult word here was suis, which was omitted in many answers; the rest of the key words were handled successfully. Most chose correctly. (f) (i) Most answered correctly, but weaker candidates omitted any reference to cognovit. Most knew contendit; those who didn t guessed its meaning, giving travelled or went, which at this level was not close enough. Q.2 Caesar, simulatque ad portum pervenit, copias in novis navibus celerrime transportavit, The first half of this caused few problems. The compound verb, transportavit, proved surprisingly challenging, with many candidates apparently unwilling to render it as transported, which ought to have been the obvious meaning. The most frequent error here was ignorance of the meaning of in when followed by the ablative: about half the candidates gave into the ships. Weaker candidates often omitted the superlative. ne Pompeius cognosceret quid faceret. The conjunction ne was widely unknown, nearly always being rendered with an extra not. A few gave what to do for the indirect question, which was nonsensical in the context. 15

18 Caesar enim timebat ne copiae suae, e navibus egredientes, oppugnarentur This and the following section were the most poorly handled ones. Only the strongest candidates could cope with enim; many of those who did know its meaning gave Caesar was afraid for his troops. Again ne was rarely handled correctly. The interruption of the fearing clause by the participial phrase defeated all but the very strongest candidates; most removed oppugnarentur entirely from its syntactical context. Most knew the meaning of egredi, but the weaker half of the candidature could not cope with the participle. priusquam instrui possent. Surprisingly few knew priusquam, while only a handful recognised the passive infinitive. The fact that many wrote before they could draw up into battle indicates that the gloss was misunderstood. legionibus paratis, statim pugnare valde cupiebat, sed Pompeius, quamquam plures legiones quam Caesar habebat, primo pugnare nolebat; Most coped with the ablative absolute, while weaker candidates turned the participle into a finite verb without proper compensation. Pugnare was often mistaken for oppugnare. Many did not know quamquam. The rest of this long sentence was handled well, apart from primo, which was often treated as if primus. intellegebat enim milites Caesaris multo meliores quam suos esse. This complex sentence caused far fewer problems than anticipated (partly because enim was ignored this time). Even middle-ability candidates tended to translate this correctly. The only regular errors were treating multo as if multos and giving stronger for meliores. tandem pauci senatores, qui Roma discesserant ut Pompeio auxilium ferrent, ei persuaserunt ut pugnaret. Vocabulary weaknesses were the only common errors here, with tandem frequently confused with tamen; auxilium and ferrent sometimes led to wild notions. Most candidates, however, gave correct translations. milites Caesaris tam ferociter pugnaverunt ut Pompeius, exercitu victo, in Aegyptum fugere cogeretur. tam caused confusion among weaker candidates, often leading to a misrepresentation of the result clause. Most handled the ablative absolute correctly, though many did not know victo. Many did not know cogeretur. Conclusion It is worth making a few observations about this paper, to remind Centres of what they may expect to find. First of all, this is intended to be much more challenging linguistically than the Level 2 Core Paper, as the additional grammatical and syntactical content should make clear. Secondly, in the limited space available (around 140 words), it is inevitable that constructions will be packed closely together, sometimes with two or three in one sentence. Thirdly, since the subject matter of these unseens will be either mythological or historical, it will happen from time to time that military themes appear. Centres are advised that their students need to be prepared to cope with these features. In the event, the great majority of candidates did cope well with this paper, and deserve commendation for their achievement. Level 1 & Level 2 Certificates in Latin Language and Latin Language & Roman Civilisation Examiners Report - Summer 2012 JF

19 WJEC 245 Western Avenue Cardiff CF5 2YX Tel No Fax website: