PAU Latin II (Cantabria) common mistakes
PAU Latin II (Cantabria) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Translating a subordinate clause with a subjunctive as if it were indicative, e.g. rendering a cum-historicum clause as a plain past-tense statement without the causal/temporal nuance, or translating an indirect question as a direct one.
Candidates learn the subjunctive as a set of endings to be recognised morphologically but never internalise the clause-type-to-mood mapping; under time pressure they default to the indicative meaning that 'sounds natural' in Spanish and lose the syntactic signal entirely.
What to do instead
Before translating, bracket every subordinate clause and label its type (cum, quod, ut, ne, quin, indirect question, purpose, result). Build a one-page decision table: connector + mood + tense → Spanish structure. Practise by translating ten short sentences per clause type aloud, saying the label first, then the Spanish.
Leaving the main verb of a long periodic sentence untranslated until the end and then misassigning it, so the whole sentence gets a subject-verb-object order that does not match the Latin; or producing a Spanish sentence with no finite main verb at all.
Latin suspends the main verb to the end of the period, while Spanish expects it early. Candidates translate left to right word by word and never re-plan the Spanish sentence, so the final verb arrives after they have already committed to a structure.
What to do instead
Use the 'hunt the verb first' routine: scan for all finite verbs, identify the main one (the one not introduced by a subordinator), then find its nominative subject. Only then translate. Write the Spanish main clause skeleton (subject + verb) before filling in the subordinate material.
Mixing up the functions of the ablative (instrument, agent, manner, absolute, comparison, locative) and translating an ablative absolute as an ordinary prepositional phrase, e.g. 'his rebus confectis' rendered as 'with these things finished' in a context that needs 'once these matters were settled'.
The ablative is the most overloaded case and textbooks present its uses as a list rather than as a decision procedure; candidates recognise the ending but stop at 'with/by' as a universal gloss.
What to do instead
Learn the ablative as a branching test: is there a participle with no finite verb? → ablative absolute. Is there a comparative? → degree of difference. Is there a passive verb plus a-person? → agent. Otherwise test instrument, manner, means, respect. Drill with twenty short phrases and require the label before the translation.
Confusing deponent and semi-deponent verbs with passive forms, translating 'hortatur' as 'is encouraged' instead of 'encourages', and similarly mistaking the passive of 'fio' or the perfect of 'audere' (ausus est).
The form looks passive, so the eye overrides the memory; deponents are memorised as vocabulary items without their grammatical tag, so the passive-looking ending wins.
What to do instead
Keep a running list of deponents and semi-deponents (hortor, loquor, sequor, patior, morior, proficiscor, vereor, gaudeo, audere, solere, fieri) and mark them in the dictionary as 'passive form, active meaning'. When you meet a passive-looking form, check the verb's dictionary entry before assigning a passive translation.
Producing a fluent but invented translation when a passage is hard, filling gaps with plausible content that is not in the Latin, and thereby losing comprehension marks as well as translation marks.
The marking scheme rewards a coherent Spanish text, so candidates prioritise fluency and let inference substitute for parsing; they also run out of time and write what the passage 'must' mean from context.
What to do instead
Adopt a discipline of literal-first drafting: translate every word, leave a bracket where you are unsure, and only then smooth the Spanish. Mark uncertain words clearly and return to them. In practice, translate unseen passages and compare against a literal key, counting invented content as an error.
Treating the set authors as a list of names and dates, so a question asking how a genre convention works in a specific author (e.g. the role of the chorus, the epistolary persona, the epic simile) is answered with biography instead of literary analysis.
Revision is dominated by memorising chronology because it is easy to test oneself on; candidates do not practise explaining how a text works, only who wrote it and when.
What to do instead
For each set author, prepare three columns: genre conventions, how this author uses or bends them, and two short quoted examples with line references. Practise writing four-sentence answers that begin with the convention, then the author's variation, then the effect.
Attributing works to the wrong author or period, e.g. placing the 'Aeneid' in the Republic, assigning the 'Satyricon' to Seneca, or confusing Plautus and Terence in date and style.
Authors are memorised in isolation without a timeline, so works float free of their century and adjacent names merge.
What to do instead
Build a single horizontal timeline from Livius Andronicus to the sixth century AD and place every set author and work on it with a colour code for genre. Test yourself by covering the names and reciting author, work, genre, and approximate date from the timeline alone.
Explaining a Spanish word's etymology by sound resemblance rather than by the actual Latin etymon and its phonological development, e.g. deriving 'trabajo' from a Latin word that does not exist, or ignoring the difference between learned cultismos and popular patrimonial words.
Candidates rely on intuition and modern Spanish similarity; they do not apply the regular sound changes (f- > h-, -ct- > -ch-, vowel syncope, etc.) that distinguish inherited from borrowed words.
What to do instead
Learn the core sound-change rules with example pairs (factum > hecho, oculum > ojo, plenum > lleno, clavem > llave) and always classify a word as patrimonial, cultismo, or semicultismo before explaining it. For each etymology, state the Latin accusative form and the rule applied.
Answering questions about Roman institutions with modern analogies, e.g. calling the consul a 'prime minister', the senate an 'upper house' with legislative initiative as in a modern parliament, or the tribune a 'union representative'.
Modern political vocabulary is the only frame candidates have, and textbooks often translate terms without explaining the differences in power, mandate, and religious sanction.
What to do instead
For each magistracy and body, write a five-line card: number of holders, term, election body, powers (imperium, potestas, veto, auspicia), and what it could NOT do. Compare explicitly with the modern analogue and state the difference in one sentence.
Confusing Greek and Roman elements in myth, cult, and material culture, e.g. naming the Greek equivalents as if identical, or misdescribing the Roman house, baths, or army equipment with generic 'ancient' details.
The exam's cultural questions often test Roman specificity, but revision material presents 'classical civilisation' as a single blend; candidates also study images superficially without learning the Latin terms for rooms, garments, and ranks.
What to do instead
Learn the Latin vocabulary for the house (atrium, impluvium, tablinum, peristylium), army (legionary, auxiliary, signum, aquila), and religion (pontifex, augur, flamen) alongside the Greek comparanda, and note one explicit contrast for each. Practise labelling from memory, not from pictures.