The Ablative Absolute That Wasn't: Marking a Livy Translation
You are marking the Latin written paper for the European Baccalaureate. The paper has two parts: a translation of a 95-word passage from Livy (40 marks: 25 accuracy, 15 style) and four commentary questions (20 marks). Candidate 17 translates a passage about Hannibal's oath. The translation is fluent, but the candidate renders the ablative absolute 'His auditis' as a finite clause, 'After he heard this', which makes the senate's reaction precede the oath rather than follow it. She also takes 'neque' as 'and' rather than 'nor', reversing the final contrast. Otherwise the vocabulary and syntax are sound. Her commentary answers are outstanding: 18/20, with precise references to Livy's rhetoric. The raw translation scores are accuracy 17/25 and style 12/15. A colleague says the ablative absolute is a 'minor slip' because the passage is still understandable. You must decide the final mark out of 60 and justify the treatment of the error.
1. Decide whether the ablative absolute and 'neque' errors are minor or serious under a mark scheme that distinguishes 'errors affecting sense' from 'errors of form'. Calculate the candidate's mark out of 60 and justify each component.
Read the worked answer
The ablative absolute is a serious error, not a minor slip. 'His auditis' sets the senate's fear after the oath; turning it into a finite clause reverses the narrative sequence on which the passage's argument depends. That is an error affecting sense. 'Neque' is also a sense error, though less central: it changes a negative contrast into a positive addition. Under the scheme, I would deduct 4 accuracy points for the ablative absolute and 2 for 'neque', giving 19/25 for accuracy, not 17. But the colleague's 17 is defensible if the department treats two sense errors as a 6-point deduction. I would accept 17/25 for consistency with the published grid.
Style is 12/15: the English is idiomatic and the error is not a style error, so do not double-penalise it. Commentary is 18/20 and stands: it assesses different skills. Total: 17 + 12 + 18 = 47/60. That is upper-middle, not a borderline top mark. The key judgement is that the commentary cannot rescue a translation whose central sequence is wrong, but the translation error cannot erase excellent commentary.
2. Write the examiner's feedback to the candidate (70–90 words) explaining the mark and one concrete revision habit.
Read the worked answer
Your translation reads well and your commentary is excellent (18/20). The mark of 47/60 reflects two sense errors: 'His auditis' is an ablative absolute, so the senate's fear follows the oath, not precedes it; 'neque' joins a negative contrast ('nor'). Before the exam, practise labelling every participle and its noun before translating, and check negative connectors. Do not change your commentary technique.