If Latin can replace English grammar...what about Greek?

[Milknhoney]

I've been giving serious thought to the claim that the study of Latin grammar eliminates the need for English grammar study.

 

If this is true, I'm curious to know whether there is something specific to Latin in particular that makes it the exclusive language study that could replace English grammar, or if the study of another language's grammar would do the same?

 

We're about to finish level 2 of Elementary Greek. We tried Latin but it was just too much to do both and ds was hating it, so I decided to drop it. I'm looking ahead to a year from now when we'll finish EG 3 and move on to a more advanced curriculum - it looks like the limited choices available are all high school or college level. So I'm assuming our Greek grammar study is about to become fairly intense. 

 

My time is so limited (I work part time) that I'm always looking for ways to become more efficient. The thought of dropping English is very appealing. 

 

I'm assuming foreign language grammar covers all the same parts of speech, so the only area of grammar I can think of that might be lacking is in the area of style - when to use commas and semicolons, when to capitalize, and so on. We will be adding WWS next year and I'm hoping that the elements of style would be included (anyone?). We will also have finished R & S grammar 6 by the end of this school year.

 

Is there anything else to be missed that would not otherwise be covered in Greek, composition, or in our English grammar studies thus far?

[purduemeche]

Good question!  I have heard this claim as well but am honestly still skeptical.

 

I think the answer may be that Greek is not as regular as Latin, so is not as desirable, but since it's a regular inflected language it should certainly help teach grammar.

[Tanaqui]

If this is true, I'm curious to know whether there is something specific to Latin in particular that makes it the exclusive language study that could replace English grammar, or if the study of another language's grammar would do the same?

 

I've heard many people say they only really understood the whys of English grammar (descriptive grammar, not prescriptive, which is a whole different kettle of fish) when they learned another language. The language varies according to the person, but I've definitely heard the claim about learning French, Basque, Spanish, Mohawk, ASL, Italian, Latin, and German. So I'm going to go with yes, you can use another language for that purpose. Results, however, may vary.

 

I've been giving serious thought to the claim that the study of Latin grammar eliminates the need for English grammar study.

 

If this is true, I'm curious to know whether there is something specific to Latin in particular that makes it the exclusive language study that could replace English grammar, or if the study of another language's grammar would do the same?

 

I'm not sure that study of Latin (or any foreign language) eliminates the need for English grammar study, though it certainly helps.

 

However, Greek, and especially Attic Greek, is so much harder than Latin, that fewer people study it, and get to the same level of competency that they would in Latin.  And the alphabet is the least of the difficulties -- there's Greek's love of participles, the middle voice and much more complex vocabulary to deal with.

[Tsuga]

Latin and Greek are synthetic languages. English is (mostly) an analytic language. In that respect, I wouldn't say Latin grammar replaces English grammar.

 

Although I think that studying Latin or Greek obviates the need for a lot of grammar and linguistic theory early on (because you get the basics), English grammar can and should be studied later.

 

Tense is one area where English is more complex than Latin or Greek. I think Latin has three tenses and two aspects for a total of six time-related forms. Latin mood is similar to Russian moods in that each tense has one of two moods. Greek is more similar to English in that it has several tenses and the moods are timeless (i.e. you don't have the optative mood for every tense). At least, that's what I remember. English has twelve tenses in the indicative mood, plus the subjunctive, the imperative, and... I'm pretty sure that's it. Three moods. Greek has like, five moods but one was more or less obscure by New Testament times.

 

English tenses are a huge pain in the behind but understanding their relationships to mood is key, because Latin and Greek tenses and moods do NOT map 1:1 to English.

 

Likewise, there are a lot of aspects of English speech, particularly sentence order, which are not as important in synthetic languages like Latin and Greek. I also think it's important to appreciate the beauty of English as an analytic language like Persian or French. Though they may seem less complex than synthetic languages, in fact their idiomatic nature is really something to be appreciated. Planning out word order in advance is quite a challenge for speakers of synthetic languages! I think studying English grammar, for older students of course, is important in the appreciation of our own language. Without understanding the complexity of our own language it may appear inferior to Latin and Greek when in fact it is a very highly developed, beautiful language in itself.

 

And then of course understanding the difference between synthetic languages, with their common endings on like, everything, which make thousand-page poems not only possible but actually fairly easy, and analytic languages, with their paucity of common endings, which makes Shakespeare and Chaucer just so. flipping. amazing... well, this is really important for high schoolers, IMO. (I got it my second two years of college, sadly, as I wasn't homeschooled or in private school.)

[Tanaqui]

English has twelve tenses

 

Mainstream English is usually considered to have two tenses.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense

 

There are, however, other schools of thought.

 

http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Tenses_of_English

 

Counting up tenses seems about as productive a task as counting up total words.

 

[Tsuga]

Here is a case where Wikipedia is truly unreliable, though it does say at the top that it is in need of experts for this article. It is probably a case of the linguist's failure to understand English as an analytic language rather than synthetic language. Honestly, I think that this is like saying some languages don't have a past tense or something.

 

The point is not the number of tenses, the point is that understanding one grammar and type of grammar does not allow you to fully appreciate every grammar. In this case the failure to map tenses 1:1 is simply one example of why both grammars are needed eventually. It is not to say that Greek grammar is totally irrelevant or that somehow, the number of tenses is important in and of itself.

 

In some languages, tense is expressed by adding on to the word itself, but in English we use particles.

 

http://www.myenglishteacher.eu/blog/12-all-english-tenses-with-examples/

 

I go, I am going, I have gone, I have been going.

I went, I was going, I had gone, I had been going.

I will go, I will be going, I will have gone, I will have been going.

 

English's being analytic is one reason that our verb forms come together like this, and this is one reason one would not want to forgo English grammar for the sake of Latin and Greek, though I can see postponing it especially if I worked part-time and homeschooled.

 

"I will have gone" is a beautiful construction. I demand it be acknowledged. :)

 

Edited to add: I realize that sometimes, these are interpreted as aspect--and I'm willing to give up six tenses if you give me two aspects--however, that was not how it was described in books I used to teach. Two tenses! So there really is no future in the English language? Haha. Seriously though, it's like the zombie split infinitive. You can't split a Greek infinitive because, and again this comes back to the synthetic / analytic distinction, it's one word.

 

You CAN split an English infinitive, though not on the entrance exam to Cambridge, where you have to convince someone you know Greek grammar using an essay written in English.

 

But I'm a descriptivist who views language as a biological phenomenon, so we will probably just have to agree to disagree on a lot of things.

[SarahW]

 

 

"I will have gone" is a beautiful construction. I demand it be acknowledged. :)

 

 

I love this.

 

The question I see is whether English speakers learn grammar better by experiencing an entirely different system of grammar.

 

To use your example - why is it bad to split an infinitive? How do you construct a sentence without doing that? Latin tells you. Because it must.

 

FWIW - many of the LCC-based curriculums roll English grammar into their Latin and composition courses. So it is still being taught, just not as its own subject. Whether that is enough, overall or for a particular student, can be debated.

 

To the OP - as far as I can see, EG does not do a lot of this english-grammar-along-the-way method. MP (who has picked up EG) fulfills that method in their other products. GfC might fulfill it, but they still only have A out, so...I can't tell, and that doesn't help you anyways.

 

Now, nearly all the grammar I know I learned from Athenaze. (Well, knew, I've learned a lot more from FLL and GI.) Personally, I don't think that's a good way to learn grammar. Traditionally, Greek was learned after Latin, and though modern texts say they don't presume that, I think the legacy is still there. They will use grammar terms and not explain them, and there's not much help like "English Grammar for Latin Students" for Greek students. I remember my prof giving us handouts with words like "whither" and "whence" on them to explain what the Greek was trying to do (we also had to figure out the English! lol). 

 

My advice is to do "light" grammar. If he's translating Greek you don't need to spend lots of time on the basic parts of speech. But at some point do a "deep" English grammar study, preferably before doing a text like Athenaze. You want to cover how English shows mood and tense, and also position and intransitives. Stuff like that.  It's easier to learn those in English first, and then the Greek way will reinforce it.

[MamaSprout]

 

FWIW - many of the LCC-based curriculums roll English grammar into their Latin and composition courses. So it is still being taught, just not as its own subject. Whether that is enough, overall or for a particular student, can be debated.

it.

This is us. We did both English and Latin grammar last year, and everything Dd knew at the end of the year was from the Latin (which built in grammar for both -LL) since we also use CAP for writing, English grammar is redundant and unnecessary for this kid. So, I can't comment on Greek, but I would say it also depends on the materials you use.

To use your example - why is it bad to split an infinitive? How do you construct a sentence without doing that? Latin tells you. Because it must.

 

 

 

Hang on a second here.  Many (most?) English usage experts now tell us that it is fine to split an infinitive in English.  Latin's grammar rule are somewhat different than those for English.  It is just silly to say that we shouldn't split infinitives in English, just because it is structurally impossible in Latin.  Indeed, the periphrastic verbals in Latin are frequently split, even in the formal Latin of poetry.  This "split infinitive" example is a place where we can't directly apply Latin grammar to English.

[Milknhoney]

Now, nearly all the grammar I know I learned from Athenaze. (Well, knew, I've learned a lot more from FLL and GI.) Personally, I don't think that's a good way to learn grammar. Traditionally, Greek was learned after Latin, and though modern texts say they don't presume that, I think the legacy is still there. They will use grammar terms and not explain them, and there's not much help like "English Grammar for Latin Students" for Greek students. I remember my prof giving us handouts with words like "whither" and "whence" on them to explain what the Greek was trying to do (we also had to figure out the English! lol). 

 

My advice is to do "light" grammar. If he's translating Greek you don't need to spend lots of time on the basic parts of speech. But at some point do a "deep" English grammar study, preferably before doing a text like Athenaze. You want to cover how English shows mood and tense, and also position and intransitives. Stuff like that.  It's easier to learn those in English first, and then the Greek way will reinforce it.

 

This is the kind of feedback I was looking for, thanks!

 

Now the hard part is, Athenaze is about the only Greek curriculum I've seen mentioned on this board as a follow-up to EG. As far as I can tell, the only other option I have is the one by Mounce. Both are college level. I was assuming that it must be doable for a 6th grader, even if at a reduced pace, or I wouldn't see it mentioned around here. But from what your saying, a more advanced knowledge of English grammar would be really beneficial for success with Athenaze. How does everyone handle that? Or is there another in-between option out there that I don't know about? Or is R & S in-depth enough? (I know I've been stumped with it a few times myself, and I skated through English as a kid).

[SarahW]

This is the kind of feedback I was looking for, thanks!

 

Now the hard part is, Athenaze is about the only Greek curriculum I've seen mentioned on this board as a follow-up to EG. As far as I can tell, the only other option I have is the one by Mounce. Both are college level. I was assuming that it must be doable for a 6th grader, even if at a reduced pace, or I wouldn't see it mentioned around here. But from what your saying, a more advanced knowledge of English grammar would be really beneficial for success with Athenaze. How does everyone handle that? Or is there another in-between option out there that I don't know about? Or is R & S in-depth enough? (I know I've been stumped with it a few times myself, and I skated through English as a kid).

 

 

Athenaze is...sort of fun. At first. You follow the life of a Completely Average Greek Nuclear Family. It's rather non-threatening. But in Book 2 you hit histories, and politicians yammering on about war, and optatives, and passive voice aorist optatives. lol. 

 

I...don't like Mounce. I think after EG3 you would be spinning in place with Mounce.

 

Another option is Reading Greek by JACT. But it is designed for independent learning, and not as non-threatening looking. 

 

To edit my previous advice: The first section of Athenaze doesn't require extensive grammar. But I would have grammar in place by Book 2.

 

I don't know much about middle school grammar. I think Analytical Grammar is supposed to be thorough?

[MamaSprout]

I don't know much about middle school grammar. I think Analytical Grammar is supposed to be thorough?

You only do AG for a few weeks each year. It might fit your need. We looked at it. I decided to wait and make a run through Warriner's in a year or so. Lukieon also has Barbarian Diagramarian class, which would be a once-and-done kind of option.

 

Galore Park has a newish Classical Greek- samples are here: https://www.galorepark.co.uk/Product?Product=9781905735884

 

It looks like book depository carries it http://www.bookdepository.com/search?searchTerm=Galore+park+Classical+Greek+&search=Find+book

[EndOfOrdinary]

Athenaze does not directly require grammar, but it definitely does not teach it. It is expected to be known and intuitively implied. As for sixth grade, you just have to slow the pace down. There are great online exercises and YouTube feeds using Athenaze. Again, there is almost no instruction however. It is a curriculum designed to be learned almost intuitively through using the language and words.

 

Here is a link to what I mean: http://abney.homestead.com/athenaze.html

 

Lots of practice, not much explaining about why or how it came to be. One of the facets that my son likes so much with our Latin is that there is a lot of language explanation, not just stacks of memory work. Athenaze feels like LOTS of memory work.

 

ETA: I feel like I did not explain clearly enough. Here is a passage from book 1, lesson 1, page 6, 2nd edition: "In this exercise you will be asked to label words based upon their specific functions. Label the subject S, the component C, and the direct object DO. Linking vebs are to be labeled LV. Verbs that take direct objects are to be labeled transitive T and verbs which do not take direct objects are to be labeled intransitive IV. Note: the complement can either be and adjective as here (example given in Greek) or a noun as here (example in Greek)." It is completely expected that not only do all these grammatical terms have meaning, but that you are then able to identify them in a passage without really having been give instruction in word order other than verb stems and endings. You are to take the vocab, memorize it, and then use that to read the passage. After further studying the passage in translation, you go back to label the word functions.