This blog post is my translation attempt on the fifth chapter of LLPSI FR. If you wish to learn Latin, all you have to do is just follow me from chapter 01. The Latin text is designed such that you can learn Latin from scratch just by reading the text itself without any external aid. Such is the power of context. For my translation attempt on the fourth chapter, please check out an earlier post: 02(10).
I am making this translation to actively consolidate my knowledge of Latin. As for how to use the text, I would advise that you read the original Latin text, and refrain from consulting my translation attempt unless you need to!
The villa and the garden Here is the villa and the garden of Julius. Julius lives in the large villa. The father, mother, and the three children live in the villa. Julius and Aemilia have three children: two sons and one daughter – not two sons.
Many servants live in the villa. Their master is Julius: he has many servants. Many maids also live in the villa. Their lady-boss is Aemilia: she has many maids.
Julius lives in his villa with a large family. Father and Mother live with Marcus, Quintus, and Julia. Julius and Aemilia live in the villa with children, servants, and maids.
The villa of Julius is in a large garden. In Italy, there are many villas with large gardens. In the garden are roses and lilies. Julius has many roses and many lilies in his garden. Julius’ garden is beautiful, because in it are many beautiful roses and lilies.
Aemilia is a beautiful woman. Syra is not a beautiful woman, and her nose is not beautiful, but is ugly.
Syra, who is a good maid, has a large and ugly nose. Julius is the husband of Aemilia, a beautiful woman. Julius loves Aemilia because she is a beautiful and good woman. Aemilia loves her husband Julius and lives with him. The father and mother love their children. Julius does not live alone, but lives with Aemilia and the large family in the villa.
There are two doors in the villa: a large door and a small door. The villa has two doors and many windows.
In Julius’ villa, there is a large hall and a large water basin. What is in the water basin? There is water in it. There are no windows in the atrium.
In the villa, there is also a large and beautiful peristyle (an inner courtyard surrounded by columns). ‘Peristylum’ is a Greek word. In Greek and Roman villas, there are large and beautiful peristyles. Is the water basin in the peristyle? The water basin is not in the peristyle, but in the hall. In the peristyle is a small garden.
There are many bedrooms in the villa. Quintus sleeps in a small bedroom. Is the bedroom of Marcus large? It is also small. Julius and Aemilia sleep in a large bedroom. Where do the servants sleep? The servants also sleep in bedrooms. Are their bedrooms large? The bedrooms are not large, and many servants sleep in one bedroom. It is also the case that many maids sleep in one bedroom, and they do not have large bedrooms.
Aemilia is in the peristyle. Is she alone? Aemilia is not alone: she is with her children in the peristyle. Julius is absent. Aemilia is in the villa without her husband Julius. Where is Julius? Julius is in the town of Tusculum without Aemilia, but with four servants.
Aemilia, along with Marcus, Quintus, and Julia, is in the villa. Julia sees the beautiful roses in the garden and leaves Aemilia’s presence. Now, Julia is now in Aemilia’s presence. Aemilia does not see her. The girl is in the garden.
Aemilia commands: “Marcus and Quintus! Call for Julia!” Marcus and Quintus call for Julia: “Julia! Come!” but Julia neither hears them nor comes. Julia calls the boys: “Marcus and Quintus! Come! There are many roses here.” The boys hear Julia, and the boys do not leave Aemilia’s presence. Quintus: “Gather the roses, Julia!” Julia gathers the roses and comes from the garden with five roses.
Julia: “Look, Mother! Look, boys! Look at my roses!” Julia is happy; the roses delight her. Aemilia: “Here is my beautiful daughter with beautiful roses!” The words of Aemilia pleased Julia. Marcus: “The roses are beautiful; the girl is not beautiful without the roses!” The words of Marcus does not please Julia! Aemilia (angry): “Silence, bad boy! Julia is a beautiful girl – with roses and without roses”.
Julia: “Listen, Marcus and Quintus!” Marcus: “Mother does not see your ugly nose!” Marcus and Quintus laugh: “Hahaha!” Julia: “Listen, Mother: and now the boys are laughing at me!” Julia cries and leaves the boys with one rose. Aemilia: “Silence, bad boys! Julia’s nose is not ugly. Leave the peristyle! Take the other roses and put them in the water!”
The boys take the other four roses and leave with them.
Aemilia, who is now alone in the peristyle, calls for the maids: “Delia and Syra! Come!” Delia and Syra come from the hall. Aemilia asks them: “Are the boys in the hall?” Delia responds: “In the hall.” Aemilia: “What are Marcus and Quintus doing?” Delia: “The boys are taking water from the water basin…” Syra: “…and putting the roses in the water.”
Here, the lady-boss and maids can hear the boys from the atrium: Quintus cries and Marcus laughs. Aemilia: “What are the boys doing now? Go, Delia! Leave and ask them!” Delia leaves the presence of Aemilia and Syra. Aemilia asks Syra: “Where is Davus?” Syra responds: “In the town with Master.” Delia comes from the hall and calls the lady-boss: “Come, Lady-boss! Come!” Aemilia: “What is it, Delia?”
Delia: “Quintus is in the water basin!” Aemilia: “In the water basin? What is the boy doing in the water basin?” Delia: “Beating the water and calling you.” Aemilia: “What is Marcus doing?” Delia: “He is laughing because Quintus is in the water!” Aemilia: “O, what a bad boy Marcus is! Go! Call for Julius, maid!” Syra: “But Master is in town.” Aemilia: “O, Julius is away again!” Delia: “Go! Come, lady-boss, and beat Marcus!” What does the lady-boss do? The angry lady-boss leaves the peristyle with the maids.
A translation attempt by yours truly NL 3 July 2020
This blog post is my translation attempt on the fourth chapter of LLPSI FR. If you wish to learn Latin, all you have to do is just follow me from Chapter 01. The Latin text is designed such that you can learn Latin from scratch just by reading the text itself without any external aid. Such is the power of context. For my translation attempt on the capitulum tertium, please check 02(09).
I am making this translation as a way for me to actively consolidate my knowledge of Latin. As for how to use the text, I would advise that you read the original Latin text, and avoid consulting my translation attempt unless you need to!
The master and the servants
Scene One People: Julius, Aemilia, Medus.
The purse of Julius is not small. There is money in his purse. Julius has money in the purse.
Aemilia sees the purse and asks Julius: “How many coins are there in your purse?” Julius answers: “A hundred.” Aemilia: “There are not a hundred coins here, are there?” Julius counts the money: “One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. What? Only ten?”
Julius counts the money again: “One, two, three, four… nine, ten.” The number of coins is not one hundred, but only ten.
Julius: “What? In my purse, there aren’t one hundred, but only ten coins! Where are the other coins? Where are my servants?”
Medus: “Your servant Medus is here.” Julius sees his servant Medus, but does not see Davus. Medus is present. Davus is not present, but away from here. Julius, Aemilia, and Medus are here. Davus and the other servants are absent.
Julius: “What? Only one servant is present! Where is Davus? Call for Davus!” Medus calls for Davus: “Davus!” but Davus neither hears Medus nor comes. Medus calls for Davus again: “Da-a-vus! Come!” Davus comes. Now, two servants are present.
Scene Two People: Julius, Aemilia, Medus, Davus.
Davus, who does not see his master, asks Medus: “What is it, Medus?” Medus: “Shush! Master is here. Salute Master!” The servant salutes the master: “Hello, Master!” The master salutes the servant: “Hello, servant!” Davus: “What is it, Master?” Julius: “Shush! Be silent, servant! Be silent and listen!” The servant is silent. Julius: “There are only ten coins in my purse. Where are my other coins?” Davus is silent, and does not respond. Aemilia: “Respond, Davus! Master is questioning you.” Davus responds: “Your money is not here. Ask Medus!”
Julius asks Medus: “Where are my coins, Medus?” Medus does not say a single word. Julius asks him again: “Where is my money? Respond, servant!” Medus accuses Davus: “Your money is in the purse of Davus. Davus has your money.” Aemilia: “Hear, Davus! Medus accuses you.” Davus: “Whom does Medus accuse? Me?” Julius: “Silence, Medus! A servant who accuses a servant is not good!” Medus is silent. Julius does not accuse Davus, but asks him: “Is my money in your purse, Davus?” Davus: “In my purse is not your money, Master.” Julius: “Where is your purse?” Davus: “It is here. Here is my purse.” Julius: “Put your purse on the table!”
Davus puts his purse on the table. Now, his purse is on the table. Julius puts his stick. The master’s stick is on the table.
Davus: “Look: there is no money in my purse.” Julius sees no money in the purse. There are no coins in the purse of Davus. His purse is empty. Davus does not have the Master’s money.
Julius: “O! Davus is a good servant: [he] does not have my money. Here are your coins, Davus!” Julius puts one coin in the purse of Davus. Now, the purse of Davus
is not empty: in his purse is one coin. Davus is happy.
Julius: “Take your purse and leave, good servant!” Davus takes his purse and leaves.
Medus sees the stick which is on the table. Medus also leaves! Why does Medus leave? Medus leaves because he has the master’s coins in his purse!
Davus and Medus are absent.
Scene Three People: Julius, Aemilia.
Julius: “Davus is a good servant. He does not have my money. – But where is my money, Medus? Who has my money?” Medus does not respond. Julius: “Where is Medus? Why does he not respond?” Aemilia: “Medus does not respond because he is away. No servant is present.” Julius calls for Medus: “Medus! Come” but Medus, who is away, neither hears him nor comes. Julius calls again: “Medus! Come, bad servant!” Medus does not come. Julius: “Why does Medus not come?” Aemilia: “Medus does not come because he has your money! His purse is not empty!” Aemilia laughs. Julius is angry – he laughs not!
Julius: “Where is my stick?” Julius does not see the stick which is on the table.
Aemilia: “Here, the stick is on the table.” Julius takes his stick and leaves.
This blog post is my translation attempt on the third chapter of LLPSI FR. If you wish to learn Latin, all you have to do is just follow me from chapter 1. The Latin text is designed such that you can learn Latinfrom scratch just by reading the text itself without any external aid. Such is the power of context. For my translation attempt on the capitulum secundum, please check out an earlier post: 02(08).
I am making this translation as a way for me to actively consolidate my knowledge of Latin. As for how to use the text, I would advise that you read the original Latin text, and refrain from consulting my translation attempt unless you need to! —
The Shameless Boy
Scene One People: Julia, Marcus, Quintus.
Julia sings: “Lalla.” Julia is happy. Marcus: “Stop!” Marcus is not happy. Julia sings: “Lalla, lalla.” Marcus: “Ssst!” Marcus is angry. Julia sings: “Lalla, lalla, lalla.” Marcus hits Julia. Now Julia does not sing, but cries: “Uhuhu!” Marcus laughs: “Hahaha!”
Quintus sees Marcus. Marcus does not see Quintus. Quintus: “What? Marcus hits a girl – and laughs!”
Quintus is angry and Marcus strikes! Now, Marcus is not laughing. The angry Marcus hits Quintus. Julia: “Where is Mother?” Julia does not see Aemilia. Julia says to Aemilia: “Mother! Marcus hits Quintus!” Marcus (angry): “Shush!” Marcus strikes Julia. Julia cries and calls for Aemilia: “Mamma! Mamma! Marcus hits me!” Aemilia comes.
Scene Two People: Aemilia, Julia, Marcus, Quintus
Aemilia asks: “Who calls me?” Quintus responds: “Julia calls you.” Aemilia asks Quintus: “Why does Julia cry?” Quintus responds: “Julia cries, because Marcus hit her.” Aemilia: “What? The boy hits the little girl? Fu! Why does Marcus hit Julia?” Quintus: “Because Julia sings.” Aemilia: “O Julia, my little girl! Marcus is not a good boy; Marcus is a bad boy!”
Quintus: “Julia is a good girl.” Aemilia asks Quintus: “Where is Julius? Why has he not come?” Aemilia does not see Julius. Marcus responds: “Father sleeps.” Quintus: “Mother did not ask you, but asked me!” Aemilia: “Shush, boys! Where is Father?” Quintus: “Father is not here, but Marcus is here.” Quintus calls for Julius: “Father! Father!”
Julius does not hear Quintus, and does not come. Why does Julius not hear Quintus? Julius does not hear him, because Julius is sleeping. Marcus: “Haha! Father is sleeping and does not hear you.” Aemilia: “Fu, boy!” Aemilia is angry. Mother beats the boy: tuxtax, tuxtax… Marcus cries: “Uhuhu!” Julius hears him. Now, Father is not sleeping.
Scene Three People: Julius, Aemilia, Julia, Marcus, Quintus
Quintus: “Father comes.” Aemilia does not hear Quintus, because Marcus cries. Julius sees Quintus and asks him: “Why does Marcus cry?” Quintus responds: “Marcus cries, because Mother beats him.” Julius: “But why does Mother beat Marcus?” Quintus: “Marcus is beaten because he is a bad boy. Marcus strikes the little girl!” Julia: “Mamma! Father is here.” Aemilia sees Julius. Aemilia: “Your Marcus is a bad boy!” Julius: “Fu, boy! A good boy does not beat a girl. A boy who hits a little girl is bad!” The angry Julius beats the bad boy: tuxtax, tuxtax, tuxtax…
Marcus cries. Quintus is happy and laughs. Julia is not happy and does not laugh. Why is Julia not happy? Julia is not happy, because Marcus cries. Julia is a good girl!
A boy laughs. A girl cries. Who is the boy who laughs? The boy who laughs is Marcus. Who is the girl who cries? The girl who cries is Julia.
Marcus, who hits a girl, is a bad boy. The girl who Marcus hits is Julia. Julia calls for Aemilia. Aemilia, whom Julia calls, is the mother of the children. Aemilia beats the boy. The boy whom Aemilia beats is Marcus.
Whom does Quintus call? Quintus calls Julius. Julius, whom Quintus calls, is the father of the children. Julius does not hear Quintus. Whom does Julius hear. Julius hears Marcus. The boy whom Julius hears is Marcus.
The girl who sings is happy. The girl who cries is not happy. A boy who hits a girl is bad!
Translation attempt of Capitulum Tertium of LLPSI Familia Romana by yours truly on 30 June 2020.
This blog post is my translation attempt on the second chapter of LLPSI FR. If you wish to learn Latin, all you have to do is just follow me from chapter 1. The Latin text is designed such that you can learn Latin just by reading the text itself without any external aid. Such is the power of context. For my translation attempt on the capitulum primum, please check out an earlier post: 02(07). —
Julius is a Roman man. Aemilia is a Roman woman. Marcus is a Roman boy. Quintus is also a Roman boy. Julia is a Roman girl.
Marcus and Quintus are not men, but are boys. The men are Julius, Medus, and Davus. Aemilia, Delia, and Syra are women. Is Julia a woman? Julia is not a woman, but a little girl.
Julius, Aemilia, Marcus, Quintus, Julia, Syra, Davus, Delia, and Medus are a Roman family. Julius is the father. Aemilia is the mother. Julius is the father of Marcus and Quintus. Julius is also the father of Julia. Aemilia is the mother of Marcus, Quintus, and Julia. Marcus is the son of Julius. Marcus is the son of Aemilia. Quintus is also the son of Julius and Aemilia. Julia is the daughter of Julius and Aemilia.
Who is Marcus? Marcus is a Roman boy. Who is the father of Marcus? Julius is the father of Marcus. Who is the mother
of Marcus? The mother of Marcus is Aemilia. Who is Julia? Julia is a Roman girl. Who is the mother of Julia? Aemilia is the mother of Julia. The father of Julia is Julius. Julia is the daughter of Julius. Who are the sons of Julius? The sons of Julius are Marcus and Quintus. The three children are Marcus, Quintus, and Julia. The children are sons and daughters. Marcus, Quintus, and Julia are children of Julius and Aemilia. In the family of Julius are three children: two sons and one daughter.
Is Medus a son of Julius? Medus is not a son of Julius; Medus is a servant of Julius. Julius is the master of Medus. Julius is the master of the servant. Davus is also a servant. The two servants are Medus and Davus. Julius is the master of Medus and Davus. Julius is the master of the servants and the father of the children.
Is Delia the daughter of Aemilia? Delia is not the daughter of Aemilia; Delia is a maid of Aemilia. Aemilia is the lady-boss of the maid. Syra is also a maid. The two maids are Delia and Syra. Aemilia is the lady-boss of the maids.
Whose servant is Davus? Davus is the servant of Julius. Whose maid is Syra? Syra is the maid of Aemilia.
How many children are in the family? There are three children in the family of Julius. How many sons and daughters are there? There are two sons and one daughter. How many servants are there in the family? There are a hundred servants in the family. In the family of Julius, there are many servants, and few children. Julius is the master of many servants.
‘2’ and ‘3’ are numbers. ‘100’ is also a number. The number of servants is 100. The number of children
is 3. 100 is a large number. 3 is a small number. The number of servants is large. The number of children is small. In the family of Julius, there is a large number of servants, [but] a small number of servants.
Medus is a Greek servant. Delia is a Greek maid. In Julius’ family, there are many Greek servants and Greek maids. Is Aemilia a Greek woman? Aemilia is not a Greek woman, but [a] Roman [woman]. Julius is not a Greek, but a Roman [man].
Sparta is a Greek town. There are three towns: Sparta, Delphi, and Tusculum. Of these, there are two Greek towns and one Roman town. In Greece and in Italy, there is a large number of towns. There is a large number of rivers in Gall. The rivers of Gall are large. Are the rivers of Africa large? In Africa, there is one large river: the Nile; the other rivers of Africa are small. Are there large Greek islands? The two islands, Creta and Euboea, are large; the other Greek islands are small.
Who is Cornelius? Cornelius is a Roman master. The two Roman masters are Julius and Cornelius. Medus is not a servant of Cornelius. Medus is a servant of Julius.
Cornelius: “Whose servant is Medus?” Julius: “Medus is my servant.” Cornelius: “Is Davus your servant?” Julius: “Davus is also my servant. My servants are Medus, Davus, and many more…” Cornelius: “Is Delia your maid?”
Julius: “Delia is my maid, and Syra is also my maid. My maids are Delia, Syra, and many others. My family is large.” Cornelius: “How many servants are there in your family?” Julius: “There are 100 servants in my family.” Cornelius: “What?” Julius: “The number of my servants if 100.” Cornelius: “A 100 servants! The number of your servant is large!”
Your Latin book Here are two Latin books: an old book and a new book. Lingua Latina is your first Latin book. The title of your book is ‘Lingua Latina’. Your book is not old, but is new. In Lingua Latina, there are many pages and many chapters: the first, second, third chapters, and more. ‘Imperium Romanum’ is the title of the first chapter. The title of the second chapter is ‘Familia Romana’. In the second chapter, there are six pages. On the first page of the second chapter, there are many new words: vir, femina, puer, puella, familia, and more. The number of Latin words is large!
The diagram shows an island (insula), town (oppidum), and river (fluvius).
Rome is in Italy. Italy is in Europe. Greece is in Europe. Italy and Greece are in Europe. Spain is also in Europe. Spain, Italy, and Greece are in Europe.
Egypt is not in Europe; Egypt is in Africa. Gall is not in Africa; Gall is in Europe. Syria is not in Europe, but in Asia. Arabia is also in Asia. Syria and Arabia are in Asia. Germany is not in Asia, but is in Europe. Britain is also in Europe. Germany and Britain are in Europe.
Is Gall in Europe? Gall is in Europe. Is Rome in Gall? Rome is not in Gall. Where is Rome? Rome is in Italy. Where is Italy? Italy is in Europe. Where are Gall and Spain? Gall and Spain are in Europe.
Is the Nile in Europe? The Nile is not in Europe. Where is the Nile? The Nile is in Africa. Where is the Rhine? The Rhine is in Germany. The Nile is a river. The Rhine is a river.
The Nile and Rhine are rivers. The Danube is also a river. The Rhine and Danube are rivers in Germany. The Tiber river is in Italy.
The Nile is a large river. The Tiber is not a large river, the river Tiber is small. The Rhine is not a large river, but a large river. The Nile and Rhine are not small rivers, but are large rivers. The Danube is also a large river.
Corsica is an island. Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily are islands. Britain is also an island. Italy is not an island. Sicily is a large island. Melita is a small island. Britain is not a small island, but a large island. Sicily and Sardinia are not small islands, but large islands.
Brundisium is a town. Brundisium and Tusculum are towns. Sparta is also a town. Brundisium is a large town. Tusculum is a small town. Delphi is also a small town. Tusculum and Delphi are not large towns, but small town.
Where is Sparta? Sparta is in Greece. Sparta is a Greek town. Sparta and Delphi are towns of Greece. Tusculum is not a Greek town, but a Roman town. Tusculum and Brundisium are Roman towns. The island of Sardinia is Roman. Creta, Rhodus, Naxus, Samos, Chios, Lesbos, Lemnos, Euboea are all islands of Greece. In Greece, there are many islands. In Italy and in Greece are many towns. In Gall and in Ger-
-many, there are many rivers. Are there many rivers and many towns in Arabia? In Arabia, there are not many, but few rivers and few towns.
Creta isn’t a town, is it? No, Creta is not a town! What is Creta? Creta is an island. Sparta isn’t an island, is it? Sparta is not an island! What is Sparta? Sparta is a town. What is the ‘Rhine’? The Rhine is a large river. The Atlantic Ocean isn’t small, is it? It is not small, but a large ocean.
Where is the Roman Empire? The Roman Empire is in Europe, in Asia, and in Africa. Spain, Syria, and Egypt are Roman provinces. Germany is not a Roman province: Germany is not in the Roman Empire. But Gall and Britain are Roman provinces. In the Roman Empire, there are many provinces. The Roman Empire is great!
Letters and Numbers
I and II are numerals. III is also a numeral. I, II, and III are Roman numerals. I and II are small numerals. CIↃ is a large numeral.
A and B are letters. C is also a letter. A, B, and C are three letters. A is the first letter; B is the second letter.
C is the third letter. Γ is a Greek letter. C is a Latin letter. C and D are Latin letters. Γ and Δ are Greek letters.
Fluvius and oppidum are Latin words. Ubi is also a Latin word. In the word ubi, there are three letters. In the first chapter, there are a thousand words.
In the word insula, there are six letters and three syllables: first syllable in-, second -su-, third -la. In the word non, there are three letters and one syllable.
What is III? III is a Roman numeral. What is Γ? Γ is a Greek letter. C isn’t a Greek letter, is it? It is not a Greek letter, but a Latin letter. Is B the first letter? B is not the first letter, but the second. What is non? Non is a Latin word. Non, sed, magnus, numerus are Latin words. Vocabulum is also a Latin word!
A few years ago, I decided to start learning Latin for various reasons.
Firstly, I thought that it was and still do think it is a majestic and beautiful language. Its words just have that accompanying gravitas. It had so much weight. Somehow, the mere fact that something is written in Latin seems to lend it greater credence. This could explain why so many mottos and well-known sayings are in Latin. It doesn’t sound as grand in English.
Secondly, many of the difficult words in the English language, which includes but is not limited to medical and scientific jargon, often make use of Latin and Greek roots by combining them to yield esoteric language. I had the idea that if I went about learning Latin, I would have a much better shot at deciphering a lot of medical jargon (particularly in anatomy), and many challenging English words that I encounter as I read the literary classics, medical textbooks, and other texts.
Thirdly, I thought it would be cool to be able to read the Bible in another language. I think it is quite interesting to read Scripture in Latin, a language known for its beauty. I particularly like how some expressions are rather concise in Latin. For example, consider this: Dixitque Deus : Fiat lux. Et facta est lux.
This is Genesis 1:3, and the KJV reads: ‘And God said, Let there be light: and there was light’.
As I read the original Latin, several things jump out at me. Allow me to walk you through my train of thought. The first is the word ‘Dixitque’. The suffix -que just means ‘and’. ‘Dixit’ refers to how somebody said something in the third person. All we know from ‘dixit’ is that a third person spoke it. It could be a he or a she. We don’t know. This third person is of course clarified by the word following ‘Dixitque’: Deus. The ‘third person’ who did the speaking is none other than God Himself.
I am reminded of the puzzle game called ‘Dixit’.
I wonder how many people know that ‘dixit’ is an actual Latin word. It’s subtle, isn’t it? The root word for ‘dixit’ is dico, dicere, dixi, dictum and from this root springs words such as ‘diction’, ‘dictionary’, dictation’, ‘contradict’, ‘dictator’, ‘predict’, ‘benediction’ (‘bene’ means good’; so go figure what Benedict as a name means), and ‘verdict’. ‘Verdict’ is interesting. We know what -dict in ‘verdict’ stands for by now. What about ‘ver-’? We see this in words such as ‘verify’ and ‘veracity’. The Latin word ‘ver’ means ‘truth’ or ‘true’?
Do you know what Harvard’s motto is?
Perhaps you could have figured it out from the logo. Veritas, which means ‘truth’. Unsurprisingly, in Roman mythology, Veritas is a goddess. No prizes for guessing what she is a goddess of.
Most people should recognize that ‘Deus’ refers to ‘God’. From this word, we have words such as ‘deity’, and phrases such as ‘deus ex machina’.
What is Mozart’s middle name? Most people should know this one. Yes.
Amadeus. It can be split into ama- and -deus.
The prefix ama- means ‘love’ (I’m sure you have heard of ‘amore’). So ‘Amadeus’ can be rendered as ‘one who loves God’. Amadeus is not a name that you would hear nowadays. However, its feminine form ‘Amanda’ is alive and well. In a similar vein, the Latinized form of my name is Nicolaus, which is quite uncommon. However, the feminine form ‘Nicola’ is alive and well. I suppose the equivalent feminine form of ‘Nicholas’ would then be ‘Nicole’, which is also rather common.
We have deviated quite a bit. I’ll just make two more short points. Consider the word ‘et’. That means ‘and’. In fact, can you think of a symbol or character that looks like ‘et’ and shares its meaning?
&. Yes, the ampersand, &! The ampersand actually originated as a ligature of the letters ‘e’ and ‘t’ in ‘et’. According to the Wikipedia article, the word ‘ampersand’ is a corruption of the phrase “and per se & (and)”, meaning “and by itself and (represented by the symbol &)”. Marvellous, isn’t it?
Lastly, we have the word ‘lux’. Not that interesting. From this Latin word springs words such as ‘luminosity’, ‘elucidate’, ‘luminate’, and ‘translucent’.
See the sheer number of connections one can make just from that short Genesis 1:3.
For a very long time, the Bible was only available in Latin. Latin was the language of the educated. For century after century in Europe, various regions all had their local languages. The Bible as we know it has the Old Testament and the New Testament. The original language of the OT is Hebrew with some bits of Aramaic. The original language of the NT, on the other hand, is Koine Greek (or common Greek). Perhaps due to the influence of the Catholic Church for much of medieval times, Latin earned its place as the language of the elite. It probably also helped that by the time the biblical canon was well-established, the Roman Empire that we associate with Caesar and Augustus had faded. I do not know the relevant history well enough to be able to make a definitive comment but what I will say is that the languages spoken by the masses, at least from the time of Christ onwards, slowly morphed from the classical Latin that has survived in the form of the works of classic writers such as Caesar. Latin was preserved in writing. However, regarding the spoken form of Latin, Vulgar Latin, according to the relevant Wikipedia article, ‘is a blanket term covering vernacular dialects of the Latin language spoken from earliest times in Italy until the latest dialects of the Western Roman Empire, diverging still further, evolved into the early Romance languages – whose writings began to appear about the 9th century’. Many factors reinforced one another to give rise to the sheer influence of a Latin translation of the Bible.
What happened in the 4th century was that Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome to revise various Latin manuscripts for the Gospels that were used by the church at the time. Presumably, things would be neater and more organized if there were just one standardized manuscript that the church could use. It seems that Jerome was quite spontaneous, as he decided to go the extra mile. Jerome extended his task to that of most of the Bible, essentially making his own Latin translation of the Bible, which would be known as the Vulgate. Once published, the Vulgate was widely used and it was basically the same text used by the Catholic Church from that point on for the next 1,500 years (from around the year 400 (note that Jerome was commissioned by Damasus I in AD 381) to the year 1979, when the Catholic Church decided to use a new Latin translation, the Nova Vulgata). This is what Wikipedia has to say on the influence of the Vulgate on Western culture:
For over a thousand years (c. AD 400–1530), the Vulgate was the most commonly used edition of the most influential text in Western European society. Indeed, for most medieval Western Christians, it was the only version of the Bible ever encountered. The Vulgate’s influence on Latin culture throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance into the Early Modern Period is even greater than that of the King James Version in English. For Christians during these times, the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of culture.
These constitute some of my thoughts that had prompted me to want to learn Latin a few years ago. However, I gave it up after a while. I did self-study it to the extent that I can dissect Genesis 1:3 and various other bits of the Bible. However, I am not at the proficiency where I can read the Bible comfortably in Latin without needing to consistently consult a dictionary. I do intend to resume learning Latin again for good though.
You might be asking at this point? So Nicholas, how did you actually start learning Latin? Allow me to introduce you to LLPSI, or Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata (which could be rendered ‘The Latin Language Intrinsically Illustrated’). This is a series which comes in two parts: 1) Pars I Familia Romana; 2) Pars II Roma Aeterna. I used this series when I first started learning Latin on my own a few years ago.
It employs the ‘natural method’, which is a rather interesting concept. Basically, the entire LLPSI series doesn’t contain a single word of English. The entire book is in Latin. The learner learns by context, visual cues, and gradual acquisition. It starts off very easy. For instance, Its first sentence is ‘Roma in Italia est’. I am confident that every decent speaker of English or a Romance language will be able to know instantly what that means.
What I intend to do is that I’ll post screenshots of the text in my blog posts. You will be able to learn Latin by reading them. I will also post my translation attempt of the text, which I think is helpful for my learning. You may also find it helpful to consult it.
I need to ensure the question to which I am giving my response is the same as the question that another party might be asking. It is easy to take for granted that both the former and the latter are always equivalent. They are not always the same, given the different lenses through which people view the world, and I opine that this constitutes the basis for countless misunderstandings that have occurred since time immemorial. It is probably impossible to absolutely reconcile the subjective differences in our understanding of the question, but we can do what we can by clarifying the keywords.
The thing that we need to define here is what is meant by ‘intelligence’. Intelligence is an interesting concept, to me at least, and this concept is certainly rather controversial. In relatively recent times, psychologists seem to have discovered new types of intelligence. This is not unreasonable, particularly if one imagines intelligence as a thing which helps one “move forward successfully” in the world. There are definitely phenomena that would reasonably fulfil such a description. The next few paragraphs outline some “forms of intelligence” that some psychologists have proposed to account for this.
One prominent psychologist who is a proponent of different kinds of intelligence is Robert Sternberg, who is known for his triarchic model of intelligence. As the term ‘triarchic’ suggests, Sternberg’s theory posits that there are three types of intelligence:
1) analytical intelligence (being able to complete academic-style and typical questions that one might encounter on IQ tests; it is often the case that these tasks are fairly well-defined problems with a single correct answer);
2) synthetic/creative intelligence (being able to deal with novel problems by relying on one’s existing set of skills; this may manifest in an individual giving a ‘wrong’ answer because he sees things through a different lens);
3) practical intelligence (“street-smarts”; the way I interpret this is that this is a bit similar to synthetic intelligence, but as the term ‘practical’ suggests, this proposed kind of intelligence pertains to everyday life instead of novel problems; the similarity manifests as requiring the individual to draw on an existing set of skills).
Another prominent psychologist who is perhaps even more well-known as a proponent of different kinds of intelligence is none other than Howard Gardner, who devised his theory of multiple intelligences. This theory of multiple intelligences had a dramatic effect on educational psychology when it was first proposed.
Unfortunately, this supposed dramatic effect does not actually tell us much because educational psychology, among all fields, is arguably the most susceptible to fads. We have heard about the different learning styles, etc. The incorporation of these trends, one after another, may not necessarily be a good thing at all. Gardner’s theory, which was outlined in his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, categorically states that there are eight different types of intelligence [1]:
As we have seen earlier, Sternberg proposed the idea of a practical intelligence. We also know how people promulgate the idea of EQ, which is supposedly a measure of the extent of emotional intelligence. From my experience in the equatorial city-state, some people, when referring to a highly sociable person, make statements such as “Waah, look at him sia, he really high EQ leh; vely good people skills sia”, or “Aiya, your studies not so good one, never mind lah, with your high EQ, people will like you at work no matter wat”. There exists a view that such arbitrary categorization of intelligence is absolutely meaningless, and constitutes an entire pile of garbage, and such a view is underpinned by philosophical and technical justification.
Firstly, one cannot just frivolously introduce any old random adjective to qualify a noun. The whole point of having a word is so that it establishes a boundary between what the word describes, and what the word does not describe.
Ok, let me walk you through this. Suppose we can make the word ‘intelligence’ mean whatever we want initially, which does not actually sound entirely unreasonable. The meaning of words at a given moment, after all, depends on what the majority of people at that particular moment who use the word refer to. Such is the dichotomy of descriptivism and prescriptivism in linguistics. For example, the word ‘meme’ is hardly even new at all. It actually has more than one meaning (most people are probably only aware of the one meaning) and has been in use for a long time. Apart from the common meaning which has dominated popular culture for the last decade or so, the word ‘meme’ can also refer to ‘an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means’ [2]. The word ‘meme’, as such, can also be used as a technical word in anthropology, as we can see from this alternate definition.
Anyway, let us consider the issue of ‘intelligence’. Hypothetically, let us suppose that the ability to cook very well is a form of intelligence. It then follows that one may designate another form of intelligence “cooking intelligence”. Unfortunately, the problem with this construct is that the word ‘intelligence’ is now so blasphemed that one cannot even tell what ‘intelligence’ means anymore. So, why is such use of adjectives to qualify intelligence even necessary? Some would argue that such categorization is not necessary at all. English, as it is in 2020, is an extremely rich language, and we have precisely a word to designate what is meant by the ability to cook very well:
Talent (side note: and just like ‘meme’, even ‘talent’ technically has more than one meaning).
We have two separate words: ‘intelligence’ and ‘talent’. The question that the skeptic would then pose is, “How do you determine the difference between intelligence and talent?” That is certainly a valid question because these two concepts are certainly similar to a certain extent. This is where the process of construct validity shines [3].
To illustrate what I mean: suppose we randomly select 1,000 people in Singapore, Australia, or anywhere in the world, and can somehow objectively rank the 1,000 people on their cooking ability. In addition to this, you can rank this same group of people on their ability to multiply two two-digit numbers mentally quickly (e.g. 67 x 54). If these two abilities were intelligences, then the people who could cook well would also be able to multiply two two-digit numbers more quickly mentally on average. If intelligence were the right term to encompass both these abilities, we would be seeing a relatively high correlation between cooking ability and the multiplication ability. However, the actual correlation between the two abilities simply does not meet this criterion (i.e. there is no relatively strong positive correlation).
For intelligence to mean intelligence, every manifestation or form of intelligence that is subsumed by intelligence (i.e. intelligence qualified by whatever adjective you want to slap on it) needs to demonstrate a relatively high degree of correlation with another form of intelligence. Otherwise, they are not the same thing, or at least similar, statistically speaking!
Now, maybe you see where I am going with this.
In order to investigate intelligence (i.e. What is intelligence?), there are perhaps two sub-questions to contend with:
1) If and how does intelligence manifest in the world in which we live? 2) What do we mean by intelligence?
So there is quite clearly an empirical and a definitional issue to be worked out here. People have been studying IQ and intelligence since at least the 1920s. IQ, is a rather unique construct. This is because IQ is the most rigorous concept to have ever arisen from the social sciences. If you think IQ is a load of garbage, you might as well as toss out the field of psychology. This is because the psychologists who first developed intelligence testing were the ones who established the statistical techniques that all subsequent psychologists used to test their hypotheses. IQ is the most stringently and accurately defined construct in psychology. Do you remember the concept of practical intelligence as proposed by Sternberg? Well, according to Professor Jordan Peterson, interest in “practical intelligence” has fallen dramatically since the 90s because when “practical intelligence” is matched head-to-head with standard IQ intelligence, IQ convincingly accounts for the variability in terms of the explanatory power for various phenomena which are associated with success in a particular domain.
IQ is the single best predictor of a person’s success in life. The second-best predictor is the trait conscientiousness, one of the Big Five traits. This could be because unlike IQ, we have not developed a very valid way to measure conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is currently measured by self-report (or even peer reports) on personality tests, which can be easily manipulated to yield extremes because it is so easy to predict what response will yield a higher conscientiousness score. On the other hand, it is statistically impossible for one to be able to just churn out correct answers on an IQ test at a proportion which is beyond one’s threshold of intelligence.
Regarding prediction of life success, conscientiousness yields about r = 0.4 (which is considered a high-end estimate for conscientiousness), whereas IQ yields about r = 0.5 to 0.6. Both correspond to a variance (need to square the r value) of about 16% and 25% (if we are using the low end of r = 0.5 for IQ). So, even low-end estimates of the predictability of IQ of long-term success are superior to what we currently know of conscientiousness by a factor of 25/16= 1.5truncated (i.e. IQ has about 1.5 times the predictive power of long-term life success than the second-best predictor we have: conscientiousness, even by conservative standards). Now you can see why intelligent people who are also highly conscientious are so potent in their ability to just destroy the competition. I think this is somewhat rare though (not only because the extremes of traits are rare), because intelligent people may become complacent and essentially choose to be unconscientious, thinking that their intelligence alone is enough to carry them through life. On the other hand, less intelligent people try to be more conscientious to compensate for their lack of intelligence. This concept is concisely expressed in the Chinese idiom:
勤能补拙, which literally means that diligence can mend one’s stupidity. How candid.
Now that we have talked about IQ, let us consider the “different forms” of intelligence again. What does it mean to have different form of intelligence? Suppose we have Form A and Form B, how highly correlated do these forms of intelligence have to be before we can say that they are the same thing? In other words, how uncorrelated do two different forms need to be before they are deemed to be essentially different? The answer to these questions lie in the practical utility of these different forms of intelligence.
Imagine that I am trying to figure out how well Sally will do in university. I measure some metric “a”, which is correlated at r = 0.7 with “b”. These two forms are pretty well-correlated. So, is there any point in measuring both things? The way to figure this out is by doing a statistical analysis: use some sort of dependent variable or target (e.g. Sally’s university GPA), and establish a regression equation. We then need to ask ourselves: can we predict Sally’s GPA better if we use one variable, or two variables? In addition to using different variables in a regression equation, the weights given to the different variables can also be different, and this is reflected by the different coefficients of each variable (e.g. GPA = 2.4a + 1.3b).
So, back to the original question: are there multiple types of intelligence? The first thing we need to ask is “what do we mean by ‘are there’”? The answer to that would be to specify the question.
Step 1: We can try to predict people’s performance in university (as a proxy for long-term success in life), as we have done with Sally. To start, we need to assume that “if intelligence is not associated with university success, then you are probably not talking about intelligence”. In other words, is it reasonable to assume that intelligence and university success share something in common? This is a definitional issue that needs to be settled. Most people would respond affirmatively, although you could technically choose not to (e.g. adopting the view that intelligence plays absolutely no role in university success; rather, other factors such as socioeconomic status, wealth; and of course, these other factors do indeed influence success, which is why IQ and personality traits cannot fully explain the variance in success).
Step 2: So, once we have established this basic proposition, the next thing that we do is to consider each of the supposed different types of intelligence that were outlined above. A measure needs to be made for each of these different types, and the measure needs to be able to measure the same thing (of course within the limits of acceptable experimental error) across multiple instances in the same person. This is absolutely critical because what use is a ruler if it can stretch and change in length (i.e. the actual distance between the marked intervals fluctuate)? The same thing needs to be measured multiple times, and yield a reliable and accurate result, ideally speaking.
Step 3: The next step is to determine the extent of correlation between all these “different types of intelligence”. If we determine that two types of intelligence have basically perfect correlation, then those two types are one or the same type of intelligence. A factor analysis can be done to determine the thing that is common between all the different types of intelligence, which is unsurprisingly: intelligence. It is important to note that this is a proposition, not a fact. If someone were more likely to be musically inclined if he were also inclined in mathematical ability, then the hypothesis would be that there is a single factor that is responsible for all the different manifestations of intelligence.
Step 4: You can also do the same thing not just with Sally’s university GPA as the dependent variable, but also with her PSLE results (end-of-elementary school barrier exam in Singapore), her GCE O-level results, her GCE A-level results, her job performance, and other proxies of success as the dependent variable. Then, what you can say is that the thing that is common between all those supposedly different types of intelligence which predicts Sally’s success across her entire life is called intelligence. THAT common thing, my friends, is how you end up with IQ.
In other words, IQ, which measures g (that you can see in that huge circle at the top of the above diagram), is what is common among all possible intelligence tests. Of course, people are going to debate this because “what constitutes a test?” Psychometricians have managed this by essentially saying that not everything that is measured is called intelligence.
For example, extraverted people are more socially adept. Are we going to call that intelligence? Of course not! We going to call that personality, specifically extraversion.
Are people who can tolerate more stress deemed more intelligent? No! That is yet another component of personality: low neuroticism.
Are people who are more co-operative more “emotionally intelligent”? No again! Are people who are more competitive less intelligent? As such, this is also yet again another component of personality: agreeableness/disagreeableness. Females are more agreeable than males, and this certainly contributes to the manifestation of how many managerial, leadership roles, and what society deems as “positions of authority and power” are predominantly occupied by men.
The final question then is, once IQ and personality traits have been factored in, are there any differences between the “different types of intelligence”?
Once IQ and personality traits have been considered, there are NO differences between the so-called different types of intelligence.
I think the only thing responsible for the actual variation in the manifestation of “different types of intelligence” that we observe over time in a particular person is domain-specific deliberate practice (e.g. engaging in more deliberate practice on the piano would yield better performance ceteris paribus), which of course cannot be due to inherent intelligence as we have already controlled for IQ.
The reason that many people are proponents for “different types of intelligence” lies in the fact that people are uncomfortable with the fact that there are real tangible differences between individuals. The idea that someone is naturally predisposed to be able to solve problems cross-domain and across time better than another person is frightening to some. Moreover, I suspect that many are uncomfortable discussing intelligence because an individual’s intelligence has been erroneously conflated with his intrinsic worth as a human being. Intelligence is an issue which warrants more discussion in society but the reality is that many people in the world are insufficiently mature to discuss the implications of our current understanding of intelligence on social and educational policy.
NL 2 June 2020
References: Peterson, JB (2016). “2016 Personality Lecture 13: Openness and Intelligence”. Date published: 30 March 2016. Date accessed: 2 June 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFxulvRC7I Peterson, JB (2017). “2017 Personality 18: Biology & Traits: Openness/Intelligence/Creativity I”. Date Published: 19 April 2017. Date accessed: 2 June 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Kn5p7TP_Y
[1] Slavin, Robert (2009), Educational Psychology, p. 117, ISBN 0-205-59200-7 [2] Google Dictionary (2020). Meaning of ‘meme’. Accessed online: 2 June 2020. [3] Trochim, W (2020). Construct Validity. Accessed online: 2 June 2020. https://conjointly.com/kb/construct-validity/
In this post, I will be introducing the question bank of AMBOSS. Before diving straight into that, I think it helps to establish some essential background information so that we can at least understand slightly better AMBOSS’s role in medical education today.
My earliest encounter with AMBOSS was probably late in 2018, where I chanced upon a few advertisements on AMBOSS on my Facebook News Feed. At the time, I was quite curious because I had not heard of it. An introduction of AMBOSS’s global expansion beyond the borders of Germany in relatively recent times would be incomplete without introducing the USMLE and why it is a significant issue of most discussions regarding medical school online (hint: a lot of content on the Internet focuses on issues pertaining to the US).
Back then, I was only familiar with UWorld, Rx, and Kaplan’s Qbank. These three question banks were and still remain pretty well-known among the medical student community online for allowing students to consolidate preclinical knowledge (apply their knowledge to solve questions which often require multiple orders of thinking). Many online resources for medical school focus on preparation for the USMLE, a series of high-stakes examinations which dictate whether and how exam candidates can practise medicine in the US.
For those unfamiliar, the USMLE consists of a series of “step” exams: Step 1 (preclinical knowledge), Step 2 CK (clinical knowledge), Step 2 CS (clinical skills), and Step 3. With these high-stakes examinations that are mandatory in order to be licensed to practise medicine in the US, an entire “Step-prep” industry spawned over the years to cater to the needs of students who wish to prepare for these exams. In addition to the three question banks i have listed, there are comprehensive and highly innovative video resources such as Dr Jason Ryan’s Boards and Beyond, Dr Hussain Sattar’s Pathoma, SketchyMedical (SketchyMicro, SketchyPharm, SketchyPath), Physeo, Pixorize, and Dr Najeeb Lectures.
Anki (Japanese for ‘memorize’), an open-source flashcard platform which originally catered to learners of the Japanese language, has also become highly popular in recent times for medical students around the world. In fact, an entire subreddit “r/medicalschoolanki” even emerged. Students on that platform share premade medical school decks (eg Zanki, LY, Duke, and Dope) based on various resources (including the ones I have listed and more).
If you are reading this post, and do not intend to take the USMLE, you might be thinking: “What has this got to do with me? How will these resources even be relevant to what my medical school requires of me?”
Fret not. The good thing about medicine is that the curriculum is roughly the same wherever you learn it in the world. I think medical students nowadays are very blessed. Although the three question banks and various resources I have listed above have largely been designed to help students prepare for the USMLE (particularly the USMLE step 1), I would argue that the required content knowledge for the USMLE Step 1 has a pretty substantial overlap with preclinical curriculum in medical schools all around the world to the extent that even students who do not intend to sit the USMLE can benefit immensely from using USMLE-prep resources in their medical studies.
NB: I am putting a focus on preclinical knowledge because that is largely what I am involved in right now. All of what I say is also largely applicable to clinical knowledge and skills as AMBOSS and many question banks also have questions regarding those.
In my experience, USMLE-step prep requires not just breadth, but also depth. I think that the nature of USMLE-step prep resources will allow you to understand medicine at a greater depth than what is required by many medical schools. While some may think that deeper knowledge is just a waste of time and has little clinical relevance, I would argue that it can allow you to understand many concepts more fundamentally. This can enable you to explain why certain things are the way there are, while your peers may be unable to.
Now that I have established some context regarding the USMLE, I will now talk about how medical students can use AMBOSS to take their learning to the next level. AMBOSS has entered the Step-prep market recently (previously, it was only largely used by medical students in Germany; it has since expanded worldwide), positioning itself as a highly competitive alternative to the other question banks/resources that have been in the Step-prep industry for a longer period of time. It is becoming more popular with each passing day with its far-reaching promotional efforts. If you were to visit its website at amboss.com, you would be greeted with this:
AMBOSS prides itself as ushering in a “new era of medical education”, That’s sounds like a pretty bold claim, doesn’t it? Well, I think they are fairly justified to say that though. In recent years, AMBOSS has been expanding rapidly. More students and clinicians have begun to see the utility of AMBOSS. It has a nice ecosystem which reminds me of how Apple also its own ecosystem for its products. Most notably, AMBOSS has its renowned question bank, AMBOSS library, and its AMBOSS addon. As I have mentioned earlier, I will proceed to talk about these aspects of AMBOSS in separate posts. In this post, I will focus on the AMBOSS Qbank. Here is a video I would highly recommend to get a broad overview of AMBOSS:
Introducing: AMBOSS Question bank
Although the video that I have embedded above is nine months old, I think that it is still largely relevant. When you first login to AMBOSS, you will be greeted with a sleek interface:
The sidebar allows you a variety of options: from creating a study plan, to studying from the AMBOSS library, and setting up a question session. You can also opt to review past question sessions. In particular for the question bank, it is rather customizable. When you click “Qbank” on the left sidebar, you are taken to this page:
You can essentially tailor the question bank to your specific needs. The slider at the bottom allows you to choose how many questions you wish to do for your created question session. You can filter the question selection by system (eg cardiovascular, endocrine, reproductive, nervous system), by discipline (eg biochemistry, embryology, reproductive), by symptoms, by learning cards (which demonstrates the integration between the AMBOSS Qbank and its learning library).
You can also filter questions by difficulty (ranging from 1 ‘hammer’ questions to 5 ‘hammer’ questions). The more ‘hammers’ a particular question is tagged with, the more difficult the question is deemed (probably judged by the percentage of people who chose the correct answer, and the overall option selection distribution).
Most importantly, you are able to filter questions by status (include/exclude unseen questions, incorrect questions, correct questions, and questions answered correctly with “Attending Tip”). Such incredible flexibility allows your specific needs to be met! Let’s move on to the interface once you have begun a Qbank session.
Study mode means that you are presented with this interface during the Qbank session:
Clicking Key Info would automatically highlight relevant information in the question stem. Clicking Labs would allow standard lab values to pop up on the right, which you can consult while attempting questions. Clicking Attending Tip gives a hint, which makes you more likely to arrive at the correct answer.
After clicking on an answer, you would automatically be told whether you got it correct or wrong since this is Study Mode. Note that in Exam mode, this feature is absent. This is what it looks like after selecting an option for the above question in Study mode:
I think this question is great because it requires the student to possess strong fundamentals in biochemistry regarding how mRNA interacts tRNA in the context of protein translation. To solve this question, one needs to know the sequence for methionine’s mRNA codon (i.e. AUG) and stop codons (UGA, UAA, UAG). What medical students can use to learn what the stop codons are is the following:
UGo Away, U Are Away, UAre Gone.
Logical reasoning is required. The kind of question cannot be tackled by just memorizing one’s way through. This demands critical thinking: something that I think all patients expect their doctors to be able to engage in. In my opinion, it is these questions that truly make AMBOSS shine as a QBank, and provide abundant learning opportunity for medical students. It doesn’t take long to find out that AMBOSS’s question bank is arguably the most challenging of the question banks.
I have done nearly 1k questions on AMBOSS and what I can tell you is that for many questions, you have to really understand how something works to get full credit for the question. Both factual recall and critical reasoning are necessary. Sure, some of the questions can be quite picky but that’s how some tough questions are. For this reason, I have personally found AMBOSS quite challenging, more challenging than other question bank I have attempted. Don’t expect questions in AMBOSS to explicitly and frequently mention buzzwords such as “Auer rods” or “hair-like projections” in the context of AML or hairy cell leukemia respectively. Expect instead creative phrasing such as perhaps “large crystalline cytoplasmic inclusion bodies” or “radial cytoplasmic projections”.
Note that clicking on the underlined words within the explanation would cause a popup of the relevant learning card in the AMBOSS library, allowing you to see both the question and the library on the same screen simultaneously. Here is the new view after clicking the underlined ‘tRNA‘ in the explanation for option C:
On a lighter note, I was joking with a friend and I told him how I thought this question would have even be more brutal (maybe even a 6 ‘hammer’ question if such a classification existed) if the answer options presented with just letters and without the 3′ and 5′ markers (because by convention the 5′ end is on the left). As you might have guessed based on the answer statistics, this was a pretty tough question. Only 29% selected the correct answer. Not the worst I have seen though. I think I saw one AMBOSS question with only 18% correct. Really tough. It just makes the success sweeter when you know that a question you get correct was quite tough. On the other hand, if you get such questions wrong, you can take comfort in the fact that many people also got it wrong.
Takeaway: Treat every question as a learning opportunity and do not get discouraged if you get questions wrong.
This following question is an example of that. I incorrectly chose option E but the correct answer was option B!
Well, that is what I have for this post. I hope you have found it useful. AMBOSS offers a 5-day free trial, which you can make use of to test the waters without any financial commitment. There are also many useful videos on YouTube which you can view to learn more about AMBOSS. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to find out more about AMBOSS or need any help.
NL 5 May 2020
I am ethically obliged to divulge that I am affiliated with AMBOSS GmBH, and that I am compensated for my role as a representative and promoter for AMBOSS. Nevertheless, I decided to become a part of its AMBOSSador programme because I have genuinely found it helpful for my learning. I had used AMBOSS a fair bit before deciding to join its student ambassador programme.
Today, I was playing the piano (indulging in the majestic opening chords of Tchaikovsky’s first piano concerto and some soundtrack pieces from The Phantom of the Opera) and as I also played other pieces I was familiar with, I reminisced about the past.
Specifically, I recalled how someone had written me a note when I was in my second year of junior college. I wonder how the writer of the note is doing now. Thinking about this prompted me to write this post. In fact, I had previously scanned an image of the small note she left me. I am confident that the person who wrote me this note is female as such gestures tend to be more associated with females; the penmanship and the note’s contents further lend credence to this assumption.
This was nearly 4.5 years ago. 12 October 2015 to be exact. I had scanned both sides of the note she left me because I had thought that it was something worth remembering. After all, it’s not every day that someone gives you a handwritten note which compliments your piano playing.
Here is the note she left me. I found it placed on top of my school bag that I had left on one of the seats in the front row of the auditorium.
I had also scanned the opposite side of the note (is this supposed to be some cartoon character?):
In junior college, I would arrive early in school on some days so that I could have the opportunity to play on the grand piano before morning assembly. At the time, my house didn’t have a grand piano, so the mornings were a rare opportunity to play on a grand. The “Audi” refers to one of the main auditoriums in Hwa Chong: Cheng Yi Auditorium.
Here are some images that show the interior of the auditorium:
I cannot remember the other pieces I was playing that morning on the Yamaha grand found backstage in the auditorium but what I do remember is playing Bach’s fugue in C major from the Well-tempered Clavier, Book I. The learning process for this four-voice fugue was tedious. I had to grind it out bar by bar. This wasn’t like the first movement of Sonata facile where you have a nice Alberti bass on the left hand while the right hand plays a charming melody. No. This fugue is enriched with interleaving harmonies. Such is the highly contrapuntal music of Bach.
Today is March 14, which can be written as 3/14, and these digits correspond to the first 3 digits of the mathematical constant which is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, at least in the decimal system that we human beings have arbitrarily chosen to adopt.
π is one of the first mathematical constants to whom an elementary learner of mathematics would be introduced. Most people should be able to at least recall that it has something to do with a circle, and most probably would at least know the first three digits of this constant.
π is an irrational number, and what that implies is that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. That’s why it is called “ir-rational” (i.e. no ratio). What this means is that you can’t find a nice recurring pattern in its decimal expansion. This is contrasted with a popular approximation of π: 22/7, whose decimal expansion is 3. 142857 142857…
Notice how the group of digits ‘142857’ repeat.
In an article published exactly five years ago (Hickey 2015), a ‘SurveyMonkey Audience’ was asked to put a poll to see how far people could get reciting the infinite digits of pi. Of 941 respondents, 836 attempted to name the digits after the decimal point. Here is an extract from that article:
That’s what I can recall from memory. 40 decimal places. I chose this number of digits to memorise a long time ago because with this number of digits, one can calculate the circumference of the observable universe to an accuracy of a hydrogen atom. Of course, when I decided to learn it, I didn’t expect to have to use it at all. It was mostly just for fun.
The unbelievable thing was that two years ago, when I participated in a freshman orientation activity, I remember that one of the station activities required that our somebody within our group recite the first 20 elements of the Periodic Table and write the first 12 decimal places of π with our short-term memory after trying to memorise it. It goes without saying that I certainly helped my group out in the latter exercise!
What a long time that has elapsed since my last post in September 2019. Five months have passed and now here I finally am, again, with yet another (long-awaited?) blog post.
Earlier this morning, I attended a session from 9-11 am where the movie “Wit” (2001) was streamed in the lecture theatre. It was the introductory session for the ‘Law’ module which falls under the theme of “Health, Professions, and Society”, better known here as HPS.
Just before the movie was screened, the course co-ordinators did warn that it would be rather graphic, particularly for people who have had to vicariously experience the gruelling nature of cancer as their loved ones receive treatment.
The school actually managed to stream the entire duration of the movie within the two-hour time slot. While it should be said that there were certainly many elements and depicted behaviour by certain health professionals within the film that could be considered rather outrageous and could perhaps be dismissed as mere hyperbole for the sake of dramatic effect, the movie contains many valuable lessons for everyone, particularly health professionals.
These few paragraphs are from a review of the movie by a nurse (Mclean 2014):
There was a scene near the beginning of the movie which I perceived to be rather thought-provoking. The scene encapsulated the sheer difference that the presence of both punctuation and capitalisation or lack thereof could have on the meaning of how certain content. English Language teachers may like to cite the classic example of the difference that the presence or absence of a comma can make on the strict meaning of a sentence as in: “Let’s eat, Grandma!” and “Let’s eat Grandma”. However, this scene takes this idea to another level entirely. This idea is worthy of serious contemplation, and can have a significant impact on one’s life, particularly as one is going through aggressive chemotherapy for stage IV ovarian carcinoma. Given that a picture can tell a thousand words, what more a video? The scene which I am referring to can be viewed here:
What a powerful scene this is.
The icing on the cake kicks in when the main theme of the movie starts to play, and we realise that even after all those years, Bearing and Ashford are able to continue their discussions on Donne’s works. The main theme has a simple melody, but this haunting melody pierces into the soul. It is none other than ‘Spiegel im Spiegel’ composed by Arvo Pärt. The piece is a duet for piano and viola. In this piece, the viola breathes, and the piano’s heart beats peacefully.
Notice how that between the flashbacks, the relationship between Bearing and Ashford may be presumed to have strengthened over the years, to the extent that Crawford now refers to Vivian by her first name instead of “Ms. Bearing” when Vivian was a student.
What a stark contrast we are presented. According to the Wikipedia article on Donne, “John Donne is considered the pre-eminent representative of the metaphysical poets. is poetical works are noted for their metaphorical and sensual style and include sonnets, love poems, religious poems, Latin translations, epigrams, elegies, songs, satires.“
Here we have Dr. Vivian Bearing, who earned a PhD in English Literature, specialising in the Holy Sonnets of Donne. She is a renowned academic on the issues of life and death, at least as put forth by Donne in his sonnets. Now, she is no longer contemplating these issues as if they were abstract. No. She is now living it second by second, minute by minute, day by day in the hospital.
Once again, I’m quoting Mclean (2014) because I think she wrote in an absolutely sublime manner regarding the above scene and how it relates to the entire plot of the movie and beyond:
‘In a flashback to Bearing’s graduate school days, Ashford points out the deficiency in her student’s thinking by calling attention to punctuation in one of John Donne’s metaphysical poems. An advocate for the poet, Ashford wisely observes that Bearing has relied on an inferior translation that uses incorrect punctuation in the stanza “Death be not proud, though some have called thee mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so. … Death shall be no more, death thou shalt die.” Instead of using a comma in the last sentence, which would have preserved the poet’s intent to communicate that death is just a pause between this life and the next, the editor of the specious translation has inserted a semicolon, which changes the meaning completely.
A semicolon is too dramatic, Ashford explains. A semicolon communicates that death is a struggle that one can defeat with intelligence. The semicolon is too hysterical in its portrayal of death. It makes the act of dying a spectacle, a Code Blue. A comma, on the other hand, reduces death to a simple, inevitable truth, just a pause between this life and eternal life. Death, suggests the comma, is not an insurmountable barrier to overcome, but a transition separated by a breath. The comma is natural death, facilitated by the DNR.‘
Indeed, I would concur with the notion that death should not be viewed as an insurmountable barrier. In fact, just as one would never experience the satisfaction of having one’s thirst quenched were it not for the physiological necessity for water, I think that it is precisely because death exists that life, as defined by the limited time we have on this physical earth which shall one day pass away, is rendered meaningful.
‘If you want drama, a metaphor for resuscitation with the ACLS (advanced cardiovascular life support) team, study Shakespeare. If you want art, a metaphor for physiologic death, choose the holy sonnets of John Donne. And to learn about life and death, the mentor advises her protégé, visit friends rather than the library. The audience learns that this important life lesson is lost on Bearing when she, as a young student, forgoes developing relationships by returning to the library stacks.
Bearing’s lesson is not learned until, near the end of her battle with cancer, she learns to appreciate humanity and kindness through nurse Monahan. Although Monahan doesn’t know the definition of soporific and doesn’t hold an academic title, she emerges as the movie’s most powerful force.
Modeling values taught in nursing school—respect, dignity, rights, and advocacy—she provides tissues when Bearing cries and advocates for a patient-controlled analgesia pump. When the patient is in a morphine-induced coma, Monahan puts lotion on her hand. In juxtaposition stands young doctor Posner, who regards the patient as a vessel for his cancer cells. Bearing remarks that she is nothing but a petri dish in his important experiment. To Posner, talking to the patient is an inconvenient annoyance that interferes with his research. He is the least likely person to initiate a DNR.
In the dehumanizing environment of a teaching hospital, nurse Monahan provides perspective, finishing the life lessons that Professor Ashford started so many years before. In telling her patient how simple life and death can be, Monahan reminds the audience that death is simply the stopping of your heart, or your last breath. For the first time, Bearing understands that her death does not have to play itself out as a chaotic Shakespearian drama, but rather as a pause in a holy sonnet. Between licks on a Popsicle, she agrees to a DNR order. This is a beautiful scene. The compassion and kindness that Monahan shows while caring for her patient build the relationship that allows the nurse to broach the delicate subject of initiating a DNR.‘
As I have said earlier, I will repeat it. This movie contains many scenes where certain health professionals, particularly the doctors, have in many instances displayed outrageous conduct and behaviour which I deem absolutely unprofessional. As Summers (2003) puts it, this movie does not make any attempt at trying to glorify doctors. We already have enough of that from the mainstream medical TV shows. In this movie, we have these highly intelligent doctors who are MD-PhD clinician-scientists. However, they have demonstrated blatant disregard for patient well-being.
While many doctors in reality fortunately do not act with such disregard to the extent as that seen in the movie, the movie highlights the importance of being professional as a doctor, displaying empathy, and always keeping patient well-being as a priority.
Meanwhile, in stark contrast, we have the nurse who emerges as perhaps the only person in the movie who actually cares for Vivian. According to Summers (2003), “Susie, who is not an intellectual, simply wants to provide Vivian with health care that is consistent with her professional obligations and with basic human decency, a goal which brings her into increasing conflict with the physicians pushing Vivian’s chemotherapy.“
For some reason, the full movie can be found on YouTube (albeit segmented). You can watch it here:
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and would recommend it to everyone, particularly nursing students, medical students and health professionals.
