Jump to content

Menu

ElegitNos

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 Good
  1. Henle is a fine grammar --- I like it. Can I recommend that you use Lingua Latina Par I Familia Romana --- by Orberg --- the reason being is that it gives you extended practice reading. It starts out *very* easy and slowly adds vocabulary and more complex grammatical forms. It is a nice supplement to Henle
  2. vocatus is the perfect passive participle, vocatum is the supine. There's a debate in Latin pedagogy which is better to use as the fourth principal part. The neuter nominative singular of the perfect passive participle and the nominative singular of the supine look exactly the same. This needs be no source of confusion.
  3. Ultimately it has to be a matter of personal preference and what works --- so, if Wheelock's works for you and it's what you prefer, have at it! To the point, I do not understand the pedagogical point of Wheelock's, in a number of places. I'll give three examples: First, in chapter one (if memory serves) there's the expression, amabo te --- literally, I will love you; it means please. The verb is a future active indicative, followed by a pronoun --- this is in chapter one in which the present active indicative is (mostly) the issue. To be honest, in a sense, I'm all for "amabo te" being thrown in --- my main problem is that it's never heard from again. Second, the vocabulary is littered with copious parenthetical English words --- many of which the student will not know, or rarely use. I fail to see how this helps the student with Latin. (Yes, I use Latin to build English vocabulary, but not when I'm teaching Latin. To some extent, Henle suffers this problem, too.) Third sentences and passages to translate are littered with notes, which to me indicates that sufficient material has not been covered to give the sentence in the first place. The student is left in a quandary --- is he suppose to know the note? Is he suppose to memorize the note? What? To Henle --- I agree with you about questioning some of the more overt religious elements in Henle, but pedagogically it seems more on point then Wheelock's. I also like the separation of the grammar from the exercises into different books (you buy the one Henle grammar and use it with all four (?) of the "year books.") Finally, in support of Wheelock's, I know one adult learner who used Wheelock's ("I did every exercise"), and seems to have liked it and benefited. For me, I don't use a grammar based approach, though if I need to look up a grammatical point for teaching, Henle's grammar usually fits the bill.
  4. Sebastian --- of course good teachers and methods sometimes fail, and bad teachers and methods sometimes succeed. Most of the time modern languages are taught in a direct-immersion approach and most of the time Latin is not. If the student loves French, but hates Latin, perhaps it's more the way these foreign languages are being taught. Based on my own experience, as I indicated, this seems a real possibility. I certainly wouldn't give up and assume that it's just Latin that she hates. That would be a disservice to the child.
  5. What does "solid foundation" mean? Does it mean fluency, or does it mean repeating paradigms? For me and my kids, it means fluency. So, what I'm doing is a direct-immersion approach. For thirty minutes a day we speak in Latin. Yes, our vocabulary is limited, our expressions are limited, our fluency is limited, but we actually use the language rather than learn about the language, and we are growing. As a guide we use Lingua Latina, Familia Romana Pars I. Grammar comes only after active experience with the language. If you're interested the direct approach was pioneered by Rouse (editor, Loeb Classics) headmaster at the Perse school (in Cambridge, I think) c. 1900. Anyway, you can find plenty if you google Rouse, Orberg. Vale!
  6. Bear with me, too, but I would strongly urge you not to use Wheelock's. In my experience, the examples and practices exercises are too short to build the skills necessary to actually read Latin. If you are set on using a grammar based approach, I'd recommend Henle over Wheelock's. Though, the truth is that Latin should be taught in the same way we teach modern languages, by immersion.
  7. I have read Latin stories to all my children --- the younger the better --- they run around the house spouting Latin words and expressions, just like they do learning English. But, yes, they get it, and they love it. And no, it's not pressure, and no it doesn't confuse them. Of course, I wouldn't think of inundating young children with Latin paradigms and grammar. But words, expressions, stories --- absolutely, yes.
  8. If she loves French, but hates Latin, it means that Latin was not being taught in a correct manner. I experienced something similar with my daughter when we sent her into a private school that used a grammar based Latin course. She didn't like it. When we started homeschooling again, I switched to a more direct-immersion approach and very quickly she become excited about Latin. The French she loves is probably taught (as most modern languages) in a direct-immersion approach. If it were me and as bright as your daughter sounds, I would just hand her Lingua Latina, Pars I, Familia Romana (see Amazon, for example) and let her have at it. And if you can find friends, or a tutor, or yourself, to start speaking Latin with her, she'll be hooked.
  9. Getting rid of Wheelock's (IMO) is a great first step. I looked at the Learn to Read Latin book on Amazon. Is it grammar based or more of a direct-immersion approach? It looks interesting and I'll probably get it ---- however, at around $70, it seems a bit steep --- For that price, I can get (and would recommend) Orberg's Lingua Latina I and II (on Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/7jwxjcl and http://tinyurl.com/6wlmt6q ), Miragli's Fabulae (http://tinyurl.com/7wb5vox ) and Epitome Historae Sacrae (http://tinyurl.com/7jdzg8t ). Of course, Orberg is the direct-immersion approach and not everyone's cup of tea.
×
×
  • Create New...