Latin Continuers 2016 HSC exam pack (archive)

Characteristics of better responses:

• clear and fluent translations which accounted for every word and demonstrated a precise understanding of the relationship between the complex clauses (Q1)
• an appreciation of the sense of irony and outrage reflected in the use of the phrase vos idoneos habitos (Q2aiii)
• recognising that the focus of the question was on the portrayal of the crime of parricide and not just on the perpetrator; addressing all three extracts and clearly linking them to this portrayal and Cicero’s defence of his client (Q3).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• omission of words and phrases, for example atque eius modi, praeclare, saepe (Q1)
• misunderstanding the precise function and meaning of quod (supplicium), pro quo … ipsum, quod (ita); this resulted in confusion over who and/or what was being talked about (Q1)
• erroneously identifying multa indigna as accusative (Q2aii)
• confusing Titus Roscius Magnus and Titus Roscius Capito (Q2b)
• discussing in general terms Cicero’s strategy in the speech and not focussing on the extract given (Q2c)
• inserting too much detail on the language techniques of the extracts without linking them to the question; at times this detail was irrelevant (Q2c and Q3).

Characteristics of better responses:

• going beyond the mere identification of three stylistic devices and actually explaining how they enhance the vividness of the scene, as required (Q5aii)
• identifying a range of specific and relevant examples of linguistic and/or literary devices, such as vocabulary use, and clearly linking them to the creation of pathos (Q5biii)
• analysing Aeneas’ changing relationship to destiny, demonstrating an awareness of what precipitated the development in his understanding of it, and showing how Virgil explores this (Q6).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• not recognising the elision in line 799 (Q5bi)
• writing unnecessarily lengthy responses for short-answer questions which were marred by the insertion of irrelevant material (Q5)
• not taking careful note of the wording of the question and simply giving an outline of Aeneas’ destiny; attempting to address the ‘how Virgil explores’ aspect of the question by focusing on largely irrelevant stylistic devices
• answering the question only with reference to two of the three extracts given; confusing the speaker in the first extract, Hector, with Creusa or Venus (Q6)
• quoting liberally from the Latin text without demonstrating understanding of how the Latin is relevant to the argument; when not quoting, responses should be written in English and not half Latin, half English: the frequent insertion of Latin words into the English response can mar the flow of the argument (Q5 and Q6).

Characteristics of better responses:

• selection of vocabulary most appropriate to context (Q7 and Q9)
• avoiding translations that were too literal for homines magni pretii (Q7) and quaerenti talibus, si prima … pergam pectora (Q9)
• recognising the ellipsis of the verb in sed vos qui tandem and inserting ‘are you’ appropriately in the English translation (Q9).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• misreading the question by providing the three adjectives in English rather than Latin as required (Q8b)
• taking Tullio Philinus to be the name of one person (Q7 and Q8c)
• misinterpreting the case of quaerenti, believing it to agree with ille (Q9)
• not recognising tempestas as nominative and the subject of the clause (Q9)
• not recognising matre as part of an ablative absolute (Q10c)
• not accounting for every word and omitting words and phrases (Q7 and Q9).