Madrid PAU Greek II (Griego II) common mistakes
Madrid PAU Greek II (Griego II) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the translation passage, the candidate renders a participle or infinitive as if it were a finite main verb, producing a string of coordinate clauses ("he arrived, he spoke, he left") where the Greek subordinates one action to another.
Spanish secondary-school habit of reading left to right and assigning every personal ending the status of a main verb; participles and infinitives are recognised morphologically but their syntactic dependency is never worked out before writing.
What to do instead
Before translating, do a two-pass parse: mark every finite verb with its clause, then bracket each participle/infinitive together with the noun it modifies or the verb it completes. Draft the translation clause by clause, deciding for each subordinate form whether Spanish needs a relative clause, a gerund, an absolute construction, or a subordinate with 'que'/'cuando'/'porque'.
The candidate leaves the article untranslated or translates it mechanically as a definite article in every occurrence, including articular infinitive, articular participle, and article + genitive constructions.
Textbooks drill the article as 'el/la/los/las' first, and the substantive functions (τὸ λέγειν = 'el hablar/speaking', οἱ παρόντες = 'those present') are learned later and practised less; under exam pressure the first gloss wins.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page checklist of article functions (anaphoric, generic, possessive, substantivising participle, substantivising infinitive, in genitive absolute) and, in the draft, write a literal gloss for each article before polishing. If an article governs an infinitive or participle, translate it as a noun or as 'el que/los que' rather than deleting it.
In morphological analysis the candidate identifies case and number correctly but misassigns declension or gives an ending with no stem, e.g. writing 'accusative plural' for a form that is dative plural, or labelling a third-declension form as second declension because the ending looks familiar.
Endings are memorised as isolated strings without the stem/theme contrast (e.g. -σι(ν) dative plural vs -ους accusative plural from -ο- stems vs -εις from -ε- stems), and contracted and athematic nouns are under-drilled.
What to do instead
For each form, state stem + ending + declension in that order before naming case and number. Practise a mixed list of ten forms per session drawn from all three declensions, including contract nouns and adjectives, and check the article or agreement in context as a cross-check.
The candidate analyses a verb form by its ending only, confusing, for instance, aorist and future, or middle and passive, or omitting the tense-stem marker (augment, reduplication, -σ-, -θη-, -κ-).
Endings overlap heavily across tenses and voices (e.g. -σατο, -θη, -ω), and the augment is often dropped in Homeric or literary prose; students learn paradigms as tables rather than as stem + tense marker + ending.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-step routine: (1) augment/reduplication present or absent, (2) tense-stem suffix, (3) ending. Write out the principal parts of the verb in question from memory and match the form to one of them. Use context (particles like ἄν, sequence of tenses) to disambiguate future vs. aorist subjunctive.
In syntactic analysis the candidate labels a genitive as 'possessive' or a dative as 'indirect object' by default, without checking the governing verb, adjective, or preposition.
Case labels are taught with a single prototype each (genitive = possession, dative = 'to/for'), and the lists of verbs taking genitive or dative of separation, interest, or respect are rarely revised systematically.
What to do instead
Always name the governing word first, then the case function. Memorise short verb lists by case government (e.g. verbs of ruling, touching, remembering + genitive; verbs of helping, obeying, trusting + dative). In the exam, write 'governed by X, therefore Y genitive' so the reasoning is visible and self-correcting.
The candidate misreads subordinate clause type, especially indirect question vs. indirect statement, or purpose vs. result, and therefore mistranslates the mood and the conjunction.
εἰ/ἐάν, ὅτι/ὡς, ἵνα/ὅπως and the infinitive after verbs of saying all look similar on the page; mood (optative in indirect question after secondary tense, subjunctive in purpose) is the real diagnostic and is often skipped.
What to do instead
Circle the conjunction and the mood of the verb together, then apply a decision table: ὅτι/ὡς + indicative = statement; interrogative word + optative/subjunctive = indirect question; ἵνα/ὅπως + subjunctive/optative = purpose; ὥστε + infinitive/indicative = result. Translate the clause in isolation first, then attach it.
The candidate ignores particles (μέν...δέ, γάρ, οὖν, ἄρα, δή, γε, οὐ μή) or translates them all as 'and'/'but', losing the argumentative structure of the passage.
Particles carry no lexical content and are treated as decoration; textbooks rarely give them dedicated practice, so they are skipped under time pressure.
What to do instead
Before translating, underline every particle and mark the contrast or inference it signals (μέν...δέ = on the one hand/on the other; γάρ = for; οὖν = therefore; ἄρα = then/after all). Translate the clause structure with the particle rendered explicitly, even clumsily, then polish. Never delete a particle without deciding why.
In the literary commentary the candidate retells the content of the passage instead of identifying its genre, author, work, and characteristic features (e.g. historiographic preface, forensic oration, philosophical dialogue, biographical anecdote).
Students prepare by memorising plot summaries and vocabulary rather than features of genre; the commentary question rewards recognition of topoi, narrative voice, and rhetorical structure, which are not drilled.
What to do instead
Build a genre grid: for each prescribed author, list genre, dialect/register, typical opening formulae, characteristic particles and rhetorical figures, and standard themes. In the exam, first name genre and author, then cite two or three concrete features from the text itself (a formula, an antithesis, a speech introduction) and only then summarise content briefly.
The candidate treats a myth or historical allusion as a bare name, giving no context (e.g. writing 'mentions Heracles' without saying who he is, his labours, or why the author invokes him).
Mythological and historical background is learned as a list of names to be recognised, not as narrative context that explains an author's argument or rhetorical point.
What to do instead
For each name in the passage, prepare a two-sentence card: who the figure is and the specific episode or institution relevant to this author's use. In the exam, link the allusion to the passage's argument (example, moral exemplum, aetiology) rather than merely identifying it.
In the etymology/lexicon question the candidate gives a modern Spanish meaning as the Greek sense, or invents a Greek etymon for a Spanish word without stating the transmission path (Greek → Latin → Spanish, often via a learned cultism).
Semantic change is assumed to be linear; students do not distinguish inherited popular words from cultisms, and do not check whether the Greek word actually had the modern sense.
What to do instead
For each word, state the Greek form and its attested classical sense, then the Latin intermediary, then the Spanish outcome, and flag any semantic shift explicitly (e.g. narrowing, pejoration, metaphorical extension). If you cannot confirm the intermediate stage, say so rather than guessing.