is "pre-church latin" more complex than "church latin"

[iona]

Sorry, I don't know the official names. I know there are pronunciation differences, but does the grammar or usage get less complex as well over time? Maybe another way to ask this is, is there a big difference in difficulty between liturgical latin and say something written centuries before?

[angela in ohio]

Ecclesiastical (Church) and Classical Latin are pretty close except for the pronunciation. Greek is a different story from what I understand. :001_smile:

[Ester Maria]

They certainly vary with regards to the complexity of the syntax. Classical Latin is usually harder in that aspect, which leads to the fact that students who studied it can usually read what you "Church Latin" and neo-Latin (Humanism and on) basically prima vista, because the syntax is clearer.

 

(Of course, this is a bit of generalization too, but that's the basic answer.)

[iona]

Sorry, my labels were chosen poorly. Thanks for the basic answer. Would most programs out there cover a variety of original texts from the various stages of latin.

I am looking into latin programs to learn myself. I'd like to be able to guide my children in learning as well as enjoy latin on its own. I am looking at henle and wheelock.

[asta]

The way I had it explained to me was that, if you wanted to have your child read Cicero and Homer, teach them Classical Latin (Wheelocks). If you wanted them to understand the writings of the Church, have them learn Ecclesiastical Latin (Henle).

 

Wheelocks has a ton of supporting resources (just do a search on the High School board), as well as online classes and some "in person" classes at community colleges.

 

Henle also has lots of resources, online classes, and courses at local Catholic high schools. There is also the entire Vatican website to read and listen to just to get the gist of pronunciation (they have streaming radio broadcasts). Depending on one's area, there is the chance of finding a local priest or nun who would be thrilled to tutor.

 

Beyond that, there are also completely free courses on the internet if you do some google-foo.

 

 

asta

[Faithr]

I have always been under the impression that there is very little difference between Church Latin and Classical Latin? You can read Church documents and Cicero by studying either.

[Ester Maria]

I have always been under the impression that there is very little difference between Church Latin and Classical Latin? You can read Church documents and Cicero by studying either.

In theory, yes.

 

In practice, it's a LOT easier to go from Classical to Ecclesiastical writings (easier as in, effortless; you can read those writings prima vista without preparation) than the other way round.

[iona]

Thanks for the helpful posts.

 

Would "church texts/hymns" be better to do first as a first step then moving onto the more difficult "classic texts", or studying the "classic texts" first would be more difficult initially, but would, if i'm understanding correctly, prepare me for most anything?

 

I'd like to read both eventually and help my children to as well...hmm...that is the plan at least.

[asta]

Thanks for the helpful posts.

 

Would "church texts/hymns" be better to do first as a first step then moving onto the more difficult "classic texts", or studying the "classic texts" first would be more difficult initially, but would, if i'm understanding correctly, prepare me for most anything?

 

I'd like to read both eventually and help my children to as well...hmm...that is the plan at least.

 

I honestly think it depends on what you intend to use it for.

 

If you want your children to read the classic texts, start with the Classical Latin. It isn't "harder", it is different. Cicero is the equivalent of something a person would study in an advanced English class. Church Latin is the equivalent of something a person would study in an advanced Theology class. Neither one starts at that level - they both start at the beginning, with basic grammar, etc. They just go in different directions as the progressively advance.

 

Since they evolved differently, their pronunciations are different. Classical Latin is, with few exceptions, no longer being utilized for published works. Ecclesiastical Latin is used every day by the Vatican. So reading isn't an issue - as Ester Maria pointed out - but speaking would be.

 

However.

 

If a person finds the Church befuddling, they will probably also find lessons that center around text from the bible, prayers, and Church dogma rather confusing and boring. The "living Latin" of today is Church dogmatics. It is technical theology. It is not the language of the "classic works" that SWB talks about in her books. But for a kid who intends to study theology in any way, shape or form (vs the ancients), it would be exactly what they need.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

 

a

Edited June 6, 2010 by asta

[iona]

I think it makes sense. I just have to figure out what my intentions are:)

I'd like to study both classic and "church latin" (can't seem to get away from that label) Just have to figure out which way I wan't to get there. Would all roads lead to Rome in this case?

[Luckymama]

My son just finished his 3rd year of Latin in a Catholic school (run by an order, not a diocese). The teacher uses Wheelock as a spine with additional texts depending on the grade and/or academic level. He teaches the langauage as Ecclesiastical Latin. Some boys enter ninth grade having taken Latin at a schmancy private school where they were taught Classical Latin. Those boys have to "relearn" pronunciation since Pater insists on readalouds and discussion in class :)

[Michelle in MO]

Yes, from what I've heard, it's easier to go from classical Latin to ecclesiastical and Church Latin. By the time of Augustine, classical Latin was starting to evolve into the various modern-day Romance languages. And, that's not to say that ecclesiastical Latin is inferior in any way to classical Latin. After all, most of the early saints of the Church wrote in ecclesiastical Latin, and many of the great early humanists and other Church authors, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, wrote in ecclesiastical Latin. I would imagine that reading Aquinas's Summa Theologica in the original would be quite a feat.

 

The differences in pronunciation between classical Latin and ecclesiastical Latin can be managed with some study.

 

ETA: It's not my practice to comment on things which I've not personally studied, so I may well be speaking out of turn here. No, I have not studied Church Latin, but I have only heard (i.e., through readings in Wheelock's) that classical Latin evolved over time into the various Romance languages, and that the syntax also changed over time. So---take my comments with that understanding in mind.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Michelle in MO
caveat

[Faithr]

I'm going to ask my Latin teacher about this. She has never made any comment about it. And she has read both Latin classics and also sings in a church choir and teaches Latin classes in Ecclesiastical Latin. Now she has said that in Medieval Latin there are lots of shortcuts or vernacular, so that when you are trying to read it, you have to become familiar with the colloquialisms, for instance, when studying Gregorian Chant. She even showed us an antique page from an incredibly old piece of parchment with Gregorian Chant written on it. To me it was unreadable but she went through and explained all the Latin and why they wrote the way they did. I thought she had said that the Church actually went back to more classical, uniform Latin in its writings because Latin was transforming into the different Romance languages. In order to keep it a language that everyone in the Church could use they deliberately made sure to stick with/return to a more classical form of the language. That said, there were always two levels, if you will, the kind that Cicero or the great writers wrote in and the Vulgar Latin and there are differences there. But the Vulgar was used concurrently with the classical in society. So there is really little differenetiation. I think the big thing might be differences in vocabulary. That's why there are two words for horse for example. But my teacher, for instance, reads Cicero or Ceasar right alongside the Vulgate Bible. So my impression was that there was not a significant difference. And in fact the most pointed difference is in pronunciation (the Church's is Italianized) which is also a very minimal and easy to handle difference.

[Ester Maria]

I think it makes sense. I just have to figure out what my intentions are:)

I'd like to study both classic and "church latin" (can't seem to get away from that label) Just have to figure out which way I wan't to get there. Would all roads lead to Rome in this case?

The pronunciation is a matter of choice (a lot of people also switch them depending on the text, the differences are rather small), but I would certainly recommend to start, texts-wise, with classical writings. You won't need anything additional to switch to Church writings, and you will be very well prepared for that. Or you can combine - do one classical text, than one Church text, then one classical text again, and so on. Some people I know do it that way with kids, and it seems to work fine as well.

 

Various forms of vulgar Latin coexisted with the standard classical form for centuries (and long after the fall of Rome). A lot of classical writings themselves don't reflect the speech of the epoch but are stylistically marked - that's also one thing to have in mind. Same goes for a lot of literary works written in Latin after the classical epoch.

[MyFourSons]

I think it makes sense. I just have to figure out what my intentions are:)

I'd like to study both classic and "church latin" (can't seem to get away from that label) Just have to figure out which way I wan't to get there. Would all roads lead to Rome in this case?

 

I have heard the argument made that it is easier to study Ecclesiastical Latin early on (3rd, 4th grade) and then move to Classical Latin (such as Wheelock) in middle school or high school as you start to study the Classics first hand. I have heard it argued to do it this way because EL is a living language in that it is still used today. So prayers, hymns, and familiar (to Christians) works such as scripture can be studied, and that this approach works well to solidify the language for younger ages. Of course, if you are not Christian, the Bible may not be familiar to you and so this argument may not hold up.

 

I have heard the same argument made about Greek, that it is easier to teach Koine as you study the NT in elementary school, and then study Ancient Greek as you study Homer and Plato in high school.

 

We are using Latina Christiana I and II from Memoria Press with my 3rd and 4th graders, and then we will move on to Henle through middle school. I plan on using Wheelock to teach myself Classical Latin while they are working on Henle so I can use it with them in high school. I plan on having them study Classical Latin using Wheelock as they also study Cicero and Virgil.

 

Of course, this is not from the point of view of a linguist, and my own understanding of Latin and Greek is still at a very early stage!

[asta]

Ok - I cornered a Jesuit-educated priest and asked him what his advice would be (you can thank me later :lol: ).

 

He said that, IHO, the best route would be to start with Classical Latin, and then, once there was a solid grounding, to "pick up" the ecclesiastical differences. He was referring to some pronunciation differences and (obviously) the weird bits that only the Catholic Church utilizes.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

a

[iona]

thank you asta! (better late than never)

 

:lol: glad you cornered him