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

Transcription

1 EXAMINERS' REPORTS LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 CERTIFICATES IN LATIN LANGUAGE AND LATIN LANGUAGE & ROMAN CIVILISATION SUMMER 2015

2 Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at: Online results analysis WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer at the centre. 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 Summer 2015 UNIT 9511 Principal Examiner: Ashley Carter General Comments The overall standard was high, with few candidates failing to follow the storyline to the end. Multiple-choice questions were handled well, and translations were competently done. Q.1 all answered correctly. Q.2 the first part was always answered correctly; the second part, although answered correctly by the great majority of candidates, generated two occasional errors: confusion between habitare and habere and between filius and filia. Q.3 a few candidates did not know dabat. Q.4 nearly all thought of a sensible reason; a handful could only repeat verbatim their answer to Q3, which is never a good policy. Q.5 there was some confusion between saepe and semper; the most prevalent error, however, was mishandling or omission of que; very frequent was Metellus invited his merchant friends, which lost two marks. Q.6 (i) nearly all answered correctly. (ii) common errors here were ignorance of the plural ending on statuas, omission of stabant; and (less frequently) making quae refer to the guests. Q.7 most coped with the arithmetic in the first two alternatives; some did not recognise the comparative divitiores followed by quam and chose F instead of E. Q.8 all but the weakest answered (i) correctly; there was more uncertainty about (ii), with weaker candidates omitting the superlative or making stolas singular. Q.9 the great majority correctly gave C. Q.10 this translation proved straightforward; a few misplaced hodie, taking it with laeta sum (and so losing a mark). Q.11 this multiple-choice question was almost always answered correctly. Q.12 nearly all answered correctly. Q.13 many did not know tum; weaker candidates made servus plural. 1

4 Q.14 this multiple-choice question was almost always answered correctly. Q.15 nearly all knew ridens in (i); for (ii) almost all thought of a sensible answer (but the occasional because she was amused was not accepted); (iii) proved the most challenging question on the paper, and very few scored all 7 marks: most omitted melius emit (or guessed the meaning wrongly), and there was some confusion about which wine was sold and by whom. Q.16 most translated correctly; some failed to recognise the comparative; even was accepted for iam. Q.17 all answered correctly. Q.18 most translated this sentence correctly, though many lost a mark for following the Latin word order, which makes nonsense in English. Q.19 this was handled very well, with the commonest errors being the use of a wrong past tense for emit (usually a range of tenses is allowed in comprehension questions, but when a change of tense alters the meaning, it is not credited). Q.20 all answered (i) correctly; in (ii) many omitted omnes; virtually all answered (iii) and (iv) correctly. Q.21 nearly all chose correctly. Q.22 nearly all noted the superlative. Q.23 a few translated ad hortum as if it were in hortum; a few omitted inquit. Q.24 both parts were answered well. Q.25 many candidates failed to handle the comparative ingentiorem, taking it to mean as huge. Q.26 the great majority showed their grasp of the storyline and so the psychology of Julia by giving a sensible response. Conclusion Examiners were pleased to see that almost all candidates were able to demonstrate their abilities to the full on this paper. 2

5 LEVEL 2 LATIN LANGUAGE Summer 2015 UNIT 9521 Principal Examiner: Ashley Carter General Comments This year the entry covered the full ability range, from those with barely any knowledge of Latin to those who produced faultless scripts. All three sections provided challenges, but it was the translation that caused the most difficulties. Q.1 (a) all but the very weakest (who gave the Trachin king ) answered correctly. Fortunately for many, because this section is comprehension not translation, the king of Trachinis was accepted. (b) (i) nearly all gave the superlative. (ii) (iii) all answered correctly. all but the weakest gave the correct fidelem, though many had no idea what the word means. (c) (i) this multiple-choice question, requiring a correct translation, was not well answered, with most candidates failing to recognise the pluperfect form of habuerat. (ii) all answered correctly. (d) (e) only the strongest candidates scored all three on this multiple choice, which required them to analyse the relevant sentences very closely and which did not lend itself readily to guesswork or common sense. only half the candidates could give complete answers; this was because few were familiar with the phrase in animo habere and could not make a sensible guess ( in his soul was common). Many went beyond the lemma to describe Ceyx s plan, which gained some credit. (f) (i) all correctly chose cucurrit. (ii) (iii) (iv) weaker candidates did not know the meaning of relinquere. most omitted the superlative. most understood that Alcyone was crying. 3

6 (g) (h) (i) nearly all correctly chose A, showing a familiarity with nonne. nearly all mentioned the dangers of the sea, but many struggled with tanta. most included difficult in their answer, but weaker candidates had no idea what it was that was difficult. Q.2 Alcyone Ceyci persuadere volebat ut domi maneret. This proved a straightforward start for the great majority of candidates; even the weakest usually got the main clause right. Many failed to recognise the indirect command ( so that was not acceptable for ut). Some did not know the meaning of manere. A few left Ceyci in the oblique case (always penalised in translation). quo modo inquit potes iam abire sine cura? This sentence discriminated very effectively, with many perfect translations and equally many offering almost no sense at all. Half the candidates did not know quo modo. Some had no idea who was speaking. Many failed to recognise the second person ending of potes. Most omitted iam. Many omitted the prefix ab-. Many did not know cura. iamne sum tibi carior absens? mare mortem semper fert. Half the candidates did not recognise ne. sum was regularly you are. Few knew the meaning of carus or noted the comparative. Most realised that absens had something to do with absence, but few could construe it. The second question was far more often correct, with fert being the main cause of difficulty. Despite this being the most demanding section (being largely unadapted Ovid), many top candidates rendered it perfectly. si tamen verba mea tibi persuadere non possunt, duc me tecum! This sentence brought welcome relief for candidates. Weaker candidates gave If I can t persuade you with my words... Nearly all recognised the imperative, but tecum was only accessible to the best candidates. Ceyx, quamquam verbis eius movebatur, quod Alcyonen amabat, nec consilium mutare neque eam in periculum ducere volebat. There were challenges here: the distance of Ceyx from his verbs meant that many lost the connection and so the mark. Most translated eius as these. Many made Alcyonem the subject. Only the best saw that mutare was an infinitive dependent on volebat; most converted it into a main verb. Alcyone, cum maritum in navem procedentem videret, erat tristissima. Nearly all correctly made Alcyone the subject of erat. in navem was regularly either to the ship or in the ship, neither of which was acceptable. Most noted the superlative. 4

7 in litore stans, navem discedentem spectabat. Many inverted the subordination ( she stood watching ), which lost a mark. Mostly this sentence was handled well. ubi navem videre non iam poterat, domum rediit miserrima. This was handled well, with the majority noting the superlative. paucas post horas tanta fuit tempestas ut navem deleret. Most handled the time phrase correctly, though there were some guesses at the meaning of paucas. Few knew the meanings of tanta or fuit, leading to near guesses such as a huge storm hit. Few noted the result clause. nautae, ut auxilium a deis frustra orabant, in mare iaciebantur. This sentence, coming towards the end of the gradient of difficulty, taxed the most able. Only the strongest knew the meaning of ut when followed by the indicative. Were begging the gods to help them gave reasonable sense, but was too remote from the Latin to gain full marks (but were begging the gods for help did gain full marks). The imperfect passive was unfamiliar to most, and many confused iacio with iaceo. plurimi statim perierunt. Ceyx tamen partem navis tenebat. Most failed to note the superlative. Weaker candidates treated the glossed part as a verb. Many did not know tenebat. Q.3 (a) (i-iii) the great majority answered all three parts correctly. (b) (c) few gained full marks here, perhaps because of the abstract concepts involved. Most mentioned the image of Ceyx s wife, but only the strongest could handle in animo tenebat or spem dabat. most chose all three correctly. (d) (i) fewer than half referred to the Latin here, referring instead to Ceyx s death. (ii) only the strongest gained all three marks here, with many confusing redderent with redirent, while others omitted sibi or confused vivum with ad vitam. (e) (i) candidates experienced fewer problems with this three-element question. Her husband appeared to be dead was not quite accurate enough for maritus ei apparuit mortuus. (ii) all noted that Alcyone was frightened, but many were unsure of surrexit ( woke up was not accepted). (f) (i) this was generally answered correctly. (ii) (iii) many simply wrote first, ignoring luce. the only difficulty here was for the many who did not know the meaning of peto. This verb seems to cause difficulties every year. 5

8 (g) almost all candidates answered all three parts correctly. (h) nearly all correctly chose B and D. A few, ignorant of vultus, chose C. (i) (i) virtually all candidates gained the mark here. (ii) virtually all candidates gained the mark here. (j) only a minority gained all three marks here. Many ignored tantus. se in mare iaceret was often she lay in the sea. Conclusion As usual, vocabulary weaknesses were responsible for many lost marks. Parenthetical subordinate clauses which split subjects from their verbs caused many errors. A strong storyline helped, and it was noticeable that very many candidates, including some of the weakest, after struggling with the translation and the first part of Question 3, found their feet again in the second half of Question 3. 6

9 LEVEL 1 ROMAN CIVILISATION Summer 2015 UNIT 9512 Principal Examiner: Margaret Thorpe General Comments This year the candidates once again achieved a pleasingly high standard and there were very few poor scripts. Topic 3: The Roman Army proved much less popular than Topic 4: Entertainment and Leisure, but there were some excellent answers to both topics. The questions in Section A are based on the source material which appears on the WJEC website. The images and texts are all drawn from this material and the information given in the bullet points accompanying each source is intended to help candidates to answer the questions on both sections of the paper. It was pleasing to note that this year most candidates had studied these sources carefully. There were fewer rubric errors, where candidates answered questions from both topics, than in previous years. My advice in last year's report had clearly been passed on to the candidates. Some candidates still omitted to number their essays and the examiner had to work out which ones they had answered. One candidate combined two questions in one long essay! The questions in Section B were generally well answered. A few candidates wrote far too much on individual questions, but this year virtually everyone finished the paper. The answers of the weaker candidates sometimes lacked detail. Candidates merely repeated the bullet points without saying what these actually involved. Topic 3: The Roman Army Section A Q.1 Those who had studied the source material for this topic had no problem identifying the soldiers jobs in (a) and most candidates produced good answers to (b). Q.2 (a) and (b) were very well answered and there were some good answers to (c) with many candidates also noting that H stood for hic or here. Q.3 In (a) there was some uncertainty about the amount of money a legionary soldier normally received on his retirement. A few candidates confused the 3000 denarii with the 300 he earned each year under the emperor Domitian. (b)-(d) produced some excellent answers. 7

10 Q.4 This question proved a good discriminator. (a) was generally well answered, although not all candidates found it easy to give four different ways in which the fort was defended. In (b) some candidates were unsure about the identity of the buildings named in the question and only the best candidates gained full marks. Q.5 In (a) most candidates gave the correct answer. The question actually stated these lavatories and in the accompanying picture they are clearly visible and made of stone. The few who failed to read the question carefully thought that the seats were of wood. (c) and (d) were generally well answered, but in (d) some candidates did not make it clear whether they were referring to Roman or modern lavatories in their answers. One wrote greater privacy for the users without stating who the users were. Section B Q.6 Many candidates either omitted to read the question carefully and included tasks which were outside the fortress or wrote about training and marching rather than giving details of particular jobs. Some answers were too vague. When candidates mentioned building they needed to say precisely what the soldiers built. Q.7 This was the most popular question and was generally well answered. Candidates in this instance remembered to give equal weight to both parts of the question. Q.8 This question posed a problem for some candidates, who were uncertain which officer to choose. For those who chose a centurion or optio the question proved straightforward, but was much more challenging for those who opted for a military tribune or legatus. The bullet points generally proved helpful, although the suggestion about the organisation of the army gave rise to some lengthy accounts of how the soldiers lives were organised. Q.9 The positive side of the soldiers leisure facilities and opportunities in the fortress was generally well answered, but many candidates omitted to suggest any possible improvement to their quality of life. Topic 4: Entertainment and Leisure Q.1 This question was well answered although in (a) a few candidates did not mention the colonnade. Most, however, were able to name the sports which took place in the palaestra in (b) and mentioned other activities in (c). Q.2 In (a) the most frequent answer was that pantomime actors wore masks to identify the characters they played. As the actors did not speak they did not wear them to amplify their voices. Most candidates gave the correct answers to (b), but in (c) a few confused the plots of pantomime with those of comedy. (d) produced good answers. Most opted for stamina, for which they gave good supporting reasons. Q.3 In (a) and (b) quite a number of candidates were surprisingly unable to give the weapons carried by a Thracian or to say how one could identify a murmillo. Some thought that the latter could be recognised by his sword and shield, forgetting that a Samnite was similarly armed. (c) caused few problems. Q.4 Everyone named the sport in (a) correctly, but in (b) a few thought that yellow was one of the team colours, rather than the gold introduced by Domitian. Everyone answered (c) correctly. 8

11 Q.5 Candidates either knew how the hypocaust system worked or they did not. A few placed the furnace directly beneath the floor, some placed it on the floor and a few could not identify the brick piles correctly. The flow of air, however was generally correctly labelled. Section B Q.6 This was a very popular question and there were some excellent answers. Quite a number of candidates, however, did not answer the question, which asked them to explain which facilities they enjoyed at the baths and which they disliked. They wrote all they knew about the baths and included irrelevant details about how the hypocaust worked and the purpose of the grooves on the barrel-vaulted ceiling. The best candidates used a very good range of Latin terms and gave lively accounts of their experiences, including their dislikes, which were often based on Seneca s account of all the noise. Q.7 This question was the least popular and the least well answered. Candidates were invited to write about different kinds of play, in which they expected to perform, but most concentrated on just one type without mentioning the rest. The candidates who wrote about pantomime were able to give some details of this performance, but few had good knowledge of the types of plot or characters portrayed in a comedy. Once again some candidates did not address the question. Q.8 This was another popular question, which was well answered. Some candidates could have given more details of the fights in the amphitheatre, including the types of gladiator and the weapons they used. Most answered both parts of the question equally well, but a few omitted to mention the most obvious reason for retirement, the prospect of death! Q.9 Those who answered this question showed an impressive knowledge of the technical terms connected with the Circus including carceres, mappa, pulvinar, meta and spina. The best candidates did not forget to mention the sheer thrill of the race and the rivalry between the teams with their different colours. Conclusion This was a pleasing set of papers with a high standard of achievement on both topics. In Section B it was good to see candidates using many well-known Roman names including Barbillus, Caecilius and Flavia as their characters. Their answers showed a strong personal response and the lively and imaginative accounts of life as a legionary soldier, visitor to the baths, gladiator or charioteer were often a joy to read. 9

12 LEVEL 2 ROMAN CIVILISATION Summer 2015 UNIT 9522 Principal Examiner: Margaret Thorpe General Comments The standard achieved this summer was once again extremely pleasing. Candidates made excellent use of primary source material and produced a strong personal response. Topic 3: The Roman Army was less popular than Topic 4: Entertainment and Leisure, but there were some excellent answers to both topics, with very few weak candidates at all. It was gratifying to see that there were very few rubric infringements this year, as previous comments had obviously been noted. Spelling, legibility and general presentation were marginally better than last year. There was also a pleasing improvement in the use and spelling of Latin terms. Topic 3: The Roman Army Q.1 (a) There was plenty of scope for candidates to score full marks on this first question and the only ones who did not were those who could not give three different items. (b) was well answered with most candidates mentioning the need for soldiers to build up stamina and the fact that they had to be self-sufficient. In (c) most candidates were able to give an approximate number of miles for the daily marches. (d) required candidates to assess the contribution the various types of training made towards success in battle. Some described weapon training with wooden shields and swords in great detail to the exclusion of everything else. The best candidates included details of physical training, the long marches to build up fitness and battle tactics such as the testudo in addition to weapon training. Q.2 Candidates generally gained very good marks for the first part of this question. They observed the picture closely and gave a strong personal response when answering (b) and (c). Answers to (d), however, were more variable. The best candidates gave excellent details about the position and role of the cavalry in battle and noted that they supported the legions, which were the main fighting force in the Roman army. Some candidates, however, could give only the bare minimum of information. Q.3 (a) was a very straightforward question, whereas (b) and (c) proved good discriminators. A few candidates had not deduced from the source material that Agricola was the legatus of the twentieth legion and gave legatus as one of the answers to (b). Candidates found (c) quite challenging, but the best were able to give two of the legionary commander s duties. The most frequently quoted answers referred to meetings with local people, meetings with officers and the administration of justice. In (d) some answers were too vague. Some candidates gave building as a job, without specifying what the soldiers built when they were not fighting. They also included training as a job, repeating much of what they had written in their answer to Q.1 (d). The best candidates gave details of several different jobs and explained exactly why each was important for the success of the Roman army. 10

13 Q.4 Most candidates gave good answers to (a), using information from the picture and went on to gain full marks for (b). Q.5 This question was probably answered the best of all. Candidates had no problems with (a), and in (b) the only fault was the excessive length of some of the answers. Candidates should make points concisely and then give supporting information for each one. For example, if they gave pay as a reason for joining the Roman army, the best candidates then went on to state how much the salary was for a legionary soldier. There was repetition even in some of the best answers to this question. Topic 4: Entertainment and leisure Q.1 In (a) most candidates knew that the recesses in the wall of the apodyterium were for storing the bathers clothes or belongings, but not everyone knew in (b) that bathers usually entered the tepidarium next. (c) was generally well answered as was (d). The fact that few homes had running water, which made a visit to the baths essential in order to get clean, was given by many candidates To show that it was also an enjoyable experience, it was not sufficient merely to describe a visit to the baths, listing the different rooms. Candidates had to say which procedures were pleasant and which were not. Some candidates omitted to mention the less enjoyable part of a visit to the baths, although some excellent answers included detailed references to thieves and pickpockets as well as the noise and distractions mentioned by Seneca. Q.2 (a) and (b) were probably the least well answered questions on the whole paper. In (a) everyone mentioned the mask and a few the long robes. Only if candidates said that the mask appeared to belong to a woman, could they deduce from the picture that men played women s parts. In (b) there were some vague answers with many candidates going no further than saying that comedies were funny and tragedies were depressing. There was considerable confusion about whether pantomime was comedy, and whether complicated plots and stock characters belonged to comedy or tragedy. A few candidates, however, had revised this topic well and produced excellent answers, in which they mentioned the typical plots of the plays of Plautus and Terence. Q.3 (a) presented few problems, but in (b) some candidates found it difficult to make three points about the awnings. There was a certain amount of guesswork about how much of the amphitheatre they covered. (c) was a straightforward question and the most commonly mentioned pairing of gladiators was a retiarius against a murmillo. (d) proved a good discriminator and candidates had to think hard to come up with good points to explain what might have made a fight difficult for a gladiator. Some gave vague answers about dropping a shield or losing a sword. (e) was well answered and in (f) most candidates gained reasonable scores. There was, however, once again too much repetition and a lack of precise information about the types of gladiator and the weapons they used, all of which could have made the fight exciting for the spectators. A few candidates did not read the question carefully and wrote about what made the show enjoyable rather than exciting. Q.4 (a) - (c) were all well answered, but answers to (d) sometimes lacked precise details. Most candidates mentioned fame, fans, money and the prospect of death, but quite a few made no mention of the different teams and the competition between them, which would have been an important attraction for the charioteers. Conclusion This year once again centres are to be congratulated on the high standard of achievement. Candidates had been well prepared and it was pleasing to see that in the longer essays in particular they were making good use of primary source material from writers including Ovid, Pliny and Seneca. There was a strong personal response to the issues raised in the questions and candidates wrote with obvious enjoyment and enthusiasm. 11

14 LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2 ROMAN CIVILISATION Summer 2015 UNITS 9513 & 9523 Principal Moderator: Margaret Thorpe General Comments Candidates are to be congratulated on their choice of a wide range of topics for Roman Civilisation Controlled Assessment at both Level 1 and Level 2. These included Roman medicine, the baths and public health, Roman jewellery, religion and superstition, and crime and punishment in ancient Rome. Candidates had clearly enjoyed researching their chosen topics, and their essays at both levels reached a pleasingly high standard. This year once again there were some excellent comparisons between Roman and modern society. Some candidates, however, still need to be reminded to give equal weight to both sides of the comparison, if they are to be given good marks for evaluation. Some candidates compared life in Rome to life in the countryside. They gave excellent accounts of life in Rome, but very little information about life in the countryside. When choosing a question candidates need to consider whether they have access to sufficient primary sources. It is pleasing that almost all centres are now submitting well-presented A4 sheets complete with primary sources, notes and an essay plan. The range of primary sources was often impressive and one centre in particular had candidates who made excellent use of Latin inscriptions. A few candidates, however, perhaps from new centres, did not appear to be aware of this requirement. Primary source material should include a variety of images and texts. These sources can be numbered on the A4 sheet to make it easy for candidates to incorporate them into the text without the need to quote them at length. Candidates should have only the A4 sheet with them when they are writing the assignment and there should be no access to the internet or any storage facility. It is preferable if candidates from one centre do not all choose the same title. We recommend that not more than two or three answer the same question. This avoids any overlap in the selection of primary source material and essay plans. Teachers are required to submit all titles to the Principal Moderator for approval before the candidates start their research. They should do this on the proforma, which they can obtain from the Latin page of the WJEC website. This year most scripts were very well presented. One or two, however, were handwritten and very untidy. It always helps the moderation process if scripts are either word-processed or handwritten clearly and legibly in ink. It is also helpful if candidates observe the recommended word count for each level and record it at the end of their work. Most assignments were the correct length, although a few were too long. Candidates should also be reminded to keep to the title of their essay, to avoid repetition, and to include examples to support their arguments. 12

15 Conclusion Teachers wrote helpful supporting comments, based on the assessment criteria. They generally placed the candidates work in the correct assessment bands for factual knowledge, the use of primary sources and evaluation. The final marks on the front of the script and the teacher s comments should always be in ink. If any changes have been made to the marks, these should be clearly indicated on the front cover and the addition carefully checked. One such change resulted in an incorrect final mark. Annotation on the scripts was excellent, which made the moderation process very straightforward and is much appreciated. The overall standard of the work was very pleasing. Candidates had acquired detailed knowledge of their chosen topic, and their use of primary sources and personal response was generally excellent. Centres are to be congratulated on the candidates high standard of achievement this year, which should give them confidence to enter further candidates for Roman Civilisation Controlled Assessment in the future. 13

16 LEVEL 1 LATIN LANGUAGE Summer 2015 UNIT 9514 Principal Examiner: Ashley Carter General Comments The standard, as in previous years, was very high. Nearly all candidates were able to follow the storyline through to the end. Errors tended to be focused on individual words and phrases (as indicated below), but confusion of singular and plural nouns and verbs was widespread. Half the candidates were unable to spell the singular of women, but they were not penalised if it was clear that the singular was intended. Many candidates showed a clear reluctance to add definite articles or possessives to nouns to generate natural English; again this was not penalised. Comments on individual sections Lentulus per viam festinabat. subito femina adiuva me! clamavit. Apart from a few streets, this was generally correctly translated. femina, ubi Lentulus ad eam cucurrit, eum in domum vocavit. Weaker candidates failed to link femina to vocavit. ubi was widely unknown. Weaker candidates could not make anything of ad eam. in domum was sometimes in the house. quid vis? rogavit Lentulus. ubi est maritus tuus? ubi sunt servi? Only a small minority of candidates identified vis: what is it was the most frequent offering. The rest was translated correctly. maritus respondit femina omnes servos ad forum duxit; nam est candidatus. Husband, replied the woman, he lead... was a very frequent rendering here; again, because mistakes of English are not penalised, lapses of this type were generally ignored. hodie candidati orationes in foro faciunt; The frequent error here was to make orationes singular; a few also made faciunt past. servi cum marito exierunt, quod saepe fautores pugnant. Many omitted the prefix in exierunt, giving simply went. Many made fautores the object rather than the subject. sed cur tu me in domum tuam duxisti? rogavit Lentulus. Nearly all translated this correctly. 14

17 filia mea abest. saepe eam vocavi, sed non respondit. The frequent I am missing my daughter gained half the available marks, as much of the sense is still there. Many made the other two verbs present. ego eam quaerere non possum, quod caeca sum. nonne tu potes eam quaerere? A few gave find for quaerere, which doesn t give the required sense here. Nearly all translated the usually difficult nonne correctly. Lentulus per domum ambulare coepit. Nearly all translated this correctly. tandem in horto parvam puellam, quae erat exanimata, conspexit. Many confused tandem with tamen. Many failed to promote conspexit to make it govern puellam. quae proved difficult for many. puellam ad matrem portavit. This was nearly always correct. feminae anxiae filiam tradidit. deinde maritus eius domum intravit. Weaker candidates tried to make feminae the subject. Many turned anxiae into an adverb; this, although not in itself an error, often indicated that it was Lentulus rather than the mother who was anxious. eius caused many errors, the most frequent being his house. simulac Lentulum conspexit, iratissimus erat. Apart from the many who made Lentulus the subject, all translated this correctly. quid facis, uxor? rogavit. hic homo quoque est candidatus. Very many had trouble with quid facis, including many who did not recognise the 2nd person ending. Almost all recognised the vocative. hodie fautores eius me oppugnaverunt. nunc eum necare volo. Most translated this correctly. Weaker candidates could not handle the pronouns. noli id facere, inquit femina. ille nostram filiam servavit. Very many had difficulty with noli id facere; only a small minority recognised the function of noli + infinitive to make a prohibition. The rest was translated correctly. Conclusion Congratulations are due to Centres and candidates for the excellent standard achieved. 15

18 LEVEL 2 LATIN LANGUAGE Summer 2015 UNIT 9524 Principal Examiner: Ashley Carter General Comments This year the translation proved slightly more challenging than the comprehension. Vocabulary was a major problem for some candidates. The other main hazard was the range of constructions. On the whole though the standard was high, with very few candidates unable to make any headway with either section. Comments on individual questions Q.1 (a+b) all but the very weakest candidates answered both questions correctly. (c) (i) weaker candidates ignored the superlatives. Many were unfamiliar with dives. (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (ii) most gave a sensible meaning for the potentially difficult abegerat. about half the candidates gained all four marks here. Many rendered naves quasdam as a ship. Many failed to recognise the perfect infinitive. ut cognosceret was frequently rendered to understand or to know, neither of which was accurate enough. Many failed to recognise the pluperfect tense. it was anticipated that this question would provide nearly all candidates with three easy marks. In the event, many were unfamiliar with liberi. while most correctly gave C, E and H, few gave the correct B, choosing instead A. The key to the correct choice was the dative ending on spectanti, agreeing with reginae, and clearly most were confused by the complex usage. most correctly chose B, but the popularity of C indicates that a large proportion of candidates do not know how to translate se correctly in an indirect statement. Q.2 Aeneas Didonem adlocutus est. There were many more or less reasonable guesses at the meaning of adlocutus est, though nearly half the candidates worked it out correctly. sumus Troiani, o regina. Troia deleta, novam urbem quaerimus. Many translated sumus as I am. All recognised the vocative. Most turned the ablative absolute into a main clause, without adjusting the link with the true main clause. This year, nearly all knew the meaning of deleo. 16

19 Conclusion si nos adiuvabis, maximas gratias tibi agemus. nos was often me. Most knew adiuvo. Many omitted the superlative. The future tense (agemus) was unfamiliar to many, who wrote If you help us, we give you..., where common sense should have suggested a future tense. Most were familiar with the phrase gratias ago. haec verba Didoni persuaserunt ut Troianos in urbem acciperet. Many made Aeneas the subject: with these words he persuaded... About half failed to handle the indirect command correctly. But this sentence was largely accessible to even the weakest candidates. eodem die regina Aenean principesque Troianos ad cenam invitavit. Only half knew eodem: that day was very common. Only half could put que in the correct place in their translation: prince Aeneas and the Trojans was very common. dum cibum consumunt, Aeneas narrabat quid Troiae accidisset. Very many did not know dum when they had eaten was common. For Troiae both at Troy and to Troy were accepted: they were equally common. regina, ubi cognovit uxorem eius ex urbe incensa fugientem occisam esse, lacrimare coepit. This long and complex sentence was handled superbly well by a very large proportion of the candidates, who correctly made regina the subject of coepit. The main difficulties here were incensa (often omitted or rendered as in the fire ). The identity of the person fleeing was also a puzzle to many. Aeneas se tam fortem fuisse ostendit ut Dido amorem conciperet. As always, se defeated most candidates ( Aeneas himself... was very frequent). Few recognised the perfect infinitive. Only the strongest recognised the result clause. Weaker candidates had Aeneas falling in love with Dido. cum timeret ne Troiani discederent ad urbem novam condendam, consilium cepit. With time was common among weaker scripts. Only the strongest could handle the gerundive of purpose. si me in matrimonium duxeris, inquit, tibi et Troianis urbem meam libenter tradam. Many did not know si. Many weaker candidates thought this was Aeneas speaking, and they went on to make tibi et Troianis the subject. Most knew that libenter means willingly or gladly and not freely. This time most recognised the future. noli me relinquere. Only half the candidates were familiar with noli. Centres are once again to be congratulated on the high level of attainment. Level 1 and Level 2 Certificate in Latin Language and Roman Civilisation Report Summer 2015/ED 17

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