Starting Latin

[specialkmom]

I was a little curious about teaching Latin eventually. I thought WTM recommended starting Latin around 3rd grade.

My ds is 5 and I wasn't planning to start him for a few more years. However, I've noticed many others have started earlier than 3rd grade with Song School Latin, Prima Latina, and Latin for Children. I was wondering the advantages to this and what program was preferred for 1st- 2nd.

[Laura Corin]

Personally I like to start with a modern foreign language for small children. They soak up accent and usage at that age. Latin can be added later with no ill effects.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

My son started Latin at 6, because he asked for it. I wouldn't really start a child before 3rd or 4th grade, unless he's not a first born and wants to follow the older kids.

 

However, any child can start Latin as soon as reading is well on its way. When a child becomes a fluent reader, you could start Latin. Modern languages do not depend on reading skills, since they're learned orally at first. So you could start a modern language right from birth. However, unless you aim for fluency in latin, that language does not require the advantages of youth ;)

[Ester Maria]

There are roughly 3 takes on this ("Latin" can also be replaced with "Latin and Greek" at your wish in these descriptions):

 

1. You want your children to receive a thorough classical education with literacy in Latin and you want them to grow up with Latin, literally. You want to start right away, gradually increase the difficulty and get them literate by 6th-7th grade, and then spend the remaining years on a thorough study of texts.

 

2. You want your children to receive a thorough classical education with literacy in Latin, but you're willing to take an "economic" approach - postpone the study until the point at which the total years of study will have the optimal effect. You realize that young kids learn differently, and cannot profit that much out of an analytical morphosyntax study at that age, that you cannot do much concrete and "meaty" stuff with them. So you take advantage of a modern foreign language or a few when they're young, and postpone starting Latin for sometime between 4th and 6th grade. When you start, you count with grammatical studies done by 7th-9th grade, and count with approximately 4 years left for texts. That way you ensure literacy and high level Latin, but don't sweat the small stuff with kids when they're elementary-aged, and when they start to study, they learn in a more "dense" way than kids from the option #1.

 

3. You aren't really interested in a thorough study or high level literacy, but would like your kids to learn "some Latin", not roots only, and you don't intend to make Latin a constant in their education and a fixed part of the framework. In that case, you can dedicate a few years to Latin at pretty much ANY point, but the time is used the best in middle school (since in elementary you can't go much concrete or very dense, and by high school they already have their interests and priorities and it might be too much to add Latin).

 

From what I've observed, most of the people on these boards do some variation of #3 at some point. Some do some variation of #2, which is IMO an optimal approach. I don't know if there's anyone other than me that does #1, wants grammar "finished" in 7th grade, and counts with 6 years left once the grammar is finished - there are those that start that early, but we usually don't share the same goal.

 

I was educated within a #2 framework and I still consider it optimal, despite my own experiment with #1 with my own kids. I don't think kids, on the long run, profit THAT MUCH out of early Latin, they end up being maybe 1-2 years advanced when compared with kids from #2 framework, but that's about it. OTOH, early modern foreign language can equipen kids with a LOT of advantages and should definitely be considered.

 

So, my suggestion is to clear up on your goals first, and if you indeed wish a thorough classical education with high level literacy in Latin, really consider option #2, as #1 is pretty misleading and on the upper levels of study the two aren't that different at all. IMO, 5th grade is the IDEAL start (not even 3rd as SWB says, but really even more postponed, 4th-6th), even though it took ME 20+ years to agree with that (I was educated that way).

 

So no, I don't recommend starting early, ESPECIALLY if your final goal is "some Latin" as opposed to "thorough Latin". You can't do much with the littles, but the littles soak up modern languages beautifully at that age.

[Diviya]

Hi Ester Maria,

 

I've seen a lot of your posts on Latin and I have a question for you.

 

Given a start point of 4th or 5th grade, and a mom with a pretty good background in Latin, what program would you recommend? I see that most recommendations assume no experience/comfort level in the parent. I prefer classical Latin.

 

I'd welcome suggestions from anyone else as well :)

 

Thanks!!

[Ester Maria]

Given a start point of 4th or 5th grade, and a mom with a pretty good background in Latin, what program would you recommend? I see that most recommendations assume no experience/comfort level in the parent. I prefer classical Latin.

Wheelock's, hands down, the best thing out there on the anglophone market - especially with an instructor/mom that knows what they're doing and why, and who can "adapt" it a bit to kids if needed. ;)

 

You can supplement it with lots of stuff, and if you read any other (Western) European language, look into the textbooks, German-speaking countries are notorious for good Latin textbooks and anthologiae, plus there are quite a few Italian ones which you can look into, etc. I personally made my own mishmash from various stuff I found, and once you've done with morphosyntax (cca. 8th grade, if you start 4th-5th and do it properly), you've got texts even online, and Wheelock's got a good selection too. :)

[Diviya]

Great!! Thank you!!

[specialkmom]

Thanks! I appreciate the response. As far as my goals, I think I am probably in camp 2 from what you described, Ester Maria. It may change to camp 3 depending on our future. But, for right now, camp 2. He is the oldest. Although he is a very quick learner, I would rather wait until later so I can include some of my younger kids in the study.

 

The other thing is that sometime in the next 2-5 years we plan to move overseas for a very long length of time, somewhat permanently. However, we haven't decided absolutely where yet, so I am not sure what kind of modern language to start at this age.

 

I guess one of my concerns is that my children would be confused/frustrated by learning a new modern language at the same time as beginning Latin. Moving, especially to a new country/culture/language, is a hard adjustment and I don't want to throw too much at them at once. But, I see you advise that even 5th is not too late to start, so that really does give me a broader window of time than I thought. Thanks! :)

[Ester Maria]

I guess one of my concerns is that my children would be confused/frustrated by learning a new modern language at the same time as beginning Latin. Moving, especially to a new country/culture/language, is a hard adjustment and I don't want to throw too much at them at once. But, I see you advise that even 5th is not too late to start, so that really does give me a broader window of time than I thought. Thanks! :)

Outside of the anglophone comfort zones, in the rest of the world, it's more of a rule than an exception to learn simultaneously multiple languages.

 

5th grade is not a "late start" at all. IMO, 8th-9th grade is the last train for a valuable classical education (and in that case you have to learn a lot more intensively while learning morphology and syntax, be quicker, to allow at least 2 solid years of texts only).

But that's exactly my point: there IS a noticeable difference between a start in 5th and a start in 8th grade, since kids that start in 5th pretty much have the system built up by 8th grade, so they have double as much time to spend on texts.

It ISN'T a noticeable difference between a start in K and a start in 5th, since those that start later catch up, as those that start so very early cannot learn much dense material, so ultimately, we're talking about a year or at most two years' worth of advantage - which is a lot less dramatic outcome than the above case, where it amounts to double as much.

 

That's why I say that roughly 5th grade is an ideal start, though nobody is doing anything "wrong" if they start later, or opt to completely save the classics for high school and consciously thus opt for only "half" of what would have been done with an earlier start.

[tennismomkelly]

Personally I like to start with a modern foreign language for small children. They soak up accent and usage at that age. Latin can be added later with no ill effects.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

:iagree: This is my plan for my 2 youngest. We're not going this route with my oldest but I really regret not following this plan with him.

[specialkmom]

So what foreign languages would be good to start at this age?

 

I took French in high school and my dh took Spanish, but what we remember is pretty limited. My mil and sil have taken a lot of Spanish and do pretty well with it. However, they live 9 hours away.

 

I think in America it really is becoming more important to learn Spanish. But, some of the big languages in other parts of the world are Arabic, Hindi, French, and Chinese.

 

Here, on my street, there is Amharic (Ethiopia), Somalian, Vietnamese, Spanish, and Arabic (Sudan). There is a couple other families that I am guessing are from Eastern Europe. I help ladies from Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan to learn English. I also have friends from India. There seems to be so many to choose from and I'd like to pick something that will help in the future.

 

Of course I would need something I could learn along with my children.

[Diviya]

We decided on Mandarin Chinese, with plans to also start Spanish some time this year. We personally feel that those are the two most valuable modern languages to learn, in the absence of any family languages. All educated Indians will speak fluent English.

 

Hope that helps!

[angela in ohio]

Here's a post I wrote on how to start teaching Latin less formally to littles:

 

Latin Without a Curriculum

 

If you started teaching him the chants of the conjugations and declensions, as well as memorizing some songs or verses in Latin, he would probably enjoy it at this age (more than they do at 12 yo, :D.)

 

I would agree to be exposing him to modern languages at that age, too. We do Spanish informally all through, as well as Latin (and now, finally, Greek.)

[Sahamamama]

There IS a noticeable difference between a start in 5th and a start in 8th grade, since kids that start in 5th pretty much have the system built up by 8th grade, so they have double as much time to spend on texts.

It ISN'T a noticeable difference between a start in K and a start in 5th, since those that start later catch up, as those that start so very early cannot learn much dense material.

 

Do you think the child's native language has any bearing on how readily the grammar is learned at later ages? For example, if a child already speaks Italian, and it's possible (at any age) to link Latin vocabulary to what the child already knows, does this not make learning Latin so much less "condensed" in 5th grade when learning the grammar? Contrast this with a child who speaks English. Every Latin word is "new" -- to the English-speaking child, that thing in the sky is moon, not luna; star, not stella; sun, not sol. The child who speaks a Latin-based, Romance language has an advantage... the vocabulary is familiar, natural. The grammar is the point.

 

Do you think it might be wise for English-only families to get a head start on Latin vocabulary, or would we be better off learning Italian? :D

[lauracolumbus]

Do you think it might be wise for English-only families to get a head start on Latin vocabulary, or would we be better off learning Italian?

 

 

We have been learning Latin since 3d grade. With my youngest, I wouldn't mind following the advice to learn a modern language--esp. Italian. Does anyone have any suggestions on a good Italian program for non-native speakers?

 

Thanks.

Laura

[siloam]

2. You want your children to receive a thorough classical education with literacy in Latin, but you're willing to take an "economic" approach - postpone the study until the point at which the total years of study will have the optimal effect. You realize that young kids learn differently, and cannot profit that much out of an analytical morphosyntax study at that age, that you cannot do much concrete and "meaty" stuff with them. So you take advantage of a modern foreign language or a few when they're young, and postpone starting Latin for sometime between 4th and 6th grade. When you start, you count with grammatical studies done by 7th-9th grade, and count with approximately 4 years left for texts. That way you ensure literacy and high level Latin, but don't sweat the small stuff with kids when they're elementary-aged, and when they start to study, they learn in a more "dense" way than kids from the option #1.

 

That is us here. My kids don't do overly well with memorization, and it feels too me like most programs geared to young kids do a ton of memory work. That is tedious, IMO. I wait till 4th-5th (ish), and then have them work independently and do small pieces (in other words one page a day). It has worked for my oldest so far. She adores Latin.

 

Heather

 

 

 

[Tress]

Do you think the child's native language has any bearing on how readily the grammar is learned at later ages? For example, if a child already speaks Italian, and it's possible (at any age) to link Latin vocabulary to what the child already knows, does this not make learning Latin so much less "condensed" in 5th grade when learning the grammar? Contrast this with a child who speaks English. Every Latin word is "new" -- to the English-speaking child, that thing in the sky is moon, not luna; star, not stella; sun, not sol. The child who speaks a Latin-based, Romance language has an advantage... the vocabulary is familiar, natural. The grammar is the point.

 

Do you think it might be wise for English-only families to get a head start on Latin vocabulary, or would we be better off learning Italian? :D

 

I do think that if you already speak Italian, learning Latin vocabulary is a lot easier, BUT do not underestimate the amount of Latin in English :tongue_smilie:.

 

I'm Dutch, have learned English as a foreign language, and am now studying Latin. Almost every Latin word I'm learning I can connect with an English word, not a Dutch word, so no...not every word will be 'new' for an English speaker. Oh, and if you want a head start with learning Latin, do not study Dutch :lol:.

[Laura Corin]

Do you think the child's native language has any bearing on how readily the grammar is learned at later ages? For example, if a child already speaks Italian, and it's possible (at any age) to link Latin vocabulary to what the child already knows, does this not make learning Latin so much less "condensed" in 5th grade when learning the grammar? Contrast this with a child who speaks English. Every Latin word is "new" -- to the English-speaking child, that thing in the sky is moon, not luna; star, not stella; sun, not sol. The child who speaks a Latin-based, Romance language has an advantage... the vocabulary is familiar, natural. The grammar is the point.

 

Do you think it might be wise for English-only families to get a head start on Latin vocabulary, or would we be better off learning Italian? :D

 

We haven't found Latin grammar and vocab to be overwhelming, despite not starting until the boys were nine or ten. They hadn't learned a Latinate language before starting Latin - their first foreign language was Mandarin.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

[Ester Maria]

Do you think the child's native language has any bearing on how readily the grammar is learned at later ages? For example, if a child already speaks Italian, and it's possible (at any age) to link Latin vocabulary to what the child already knows, does this not make learning Latin so much less "condensed" in 5th grade when learning the grammar? Contrast this with a child who speaks English. Every Latin word is "new" -- to the English-speaking child, that thing in the sky is moon, not luna; star, not stella; sun, not sol. The child who speaks a Latin-based, Romance language has an advantage... the vocabulary is familiar, natural. The grammar is the point.

 

Do you think it might be wise for English-only families to get a head start on Latin vocabulary, or would we be better off learning Italian? :D

Actually, you took perfect examples for me to disprove your point. ;)

 

To an anglophone child, things in the sky ARE moon, star and sun... But a person that goes a little bit crazy, supposedly under the influence of the moon, is called a lunatic, their state is called lunacy, and just about every scientific concept related to the moon will be lunar something (lunar distance, lunar moth, lunar orbit, etc.). And what's the term for a bunch of stars grouped together? Constellation, right? Things that are shaped like starts are stellular, and concepts related to stars are stellar. Likewise, concepts related to the sun are solar something (solar day, solar eclipse, solar energy, solar year, etc.), and some women like to go to solarium to get some artificial sun there.

 

You are correct to claim that the basic, everyday layer of the English language is predominately Germanic of origin, but even in many of those cases quite often we can see the Latin influence in the names of derivations or concepts - there's a lot more Latin in English than it seems at the first glance. Granted, there's more, and more obvious, Latin in Italian, but English speakers still have it good when compared to speakers of some other IE languages (Germanic or Slavic ones, mostly, not to mention Greek which is its own little world inside the IE group). Not to mention that a great deal of you teach your littles a foreign Romance language (Spanish, French) and thus get some additional advantage.

 

Vocabulary is learned along the way. Children that are born into Romance languages have the opposite problem - they need to learn that the mindset of Latin is different from the one of Italian, that lexical equivalents often aren't semantic equivalents in the full sense, and they need to grow out of the simplified concept that Latin is "just an old form of Italian". If you want to learn Latin well, at some point you have to 'forget' all other languages when approaching a Latin text - and that's much harder to do, that "step outside", if your native language is Italian.

 

Whether it's valuable to get a head start on vocabulary... I don't know, it probably won't hurt, but there's no particular need to do so, kwim? If I may be completely honest, most of the Latin things aimed at children I would never buy, since I would categorize them as "a waste of money" (not to support the industry of such trends which make you buy 10 books to learn something rather than 1) - lots of colorful pages that essentially teach nothing, or teach very limited and decontextualized knowledge. Great if kids are having fun that way, why not, but if I had to choose between one and the other, I'd still opt for a modern (even if not Romance) language at an early age, and postponing Latin for a few years, so that kids can learn in a mode that's better suited for them.

[JadeOrchidSong]

What Ester Maria said is really so true.

I really wanted to start French, but dh went ahead and bought Song School Latin and Minimus. So we are doing SSL. The kids are soaking it all up and singing the songs all day long. We haven't done any written worksheets yet.

I still want to start French so that they can learn the accent more accurately.

they are learning Chinese from me now, which is a huge task already!

[Sahamamama]

Children that are born into Romance languages have the opposite problem - they need to learn that the mindset of Latin is different from the one of Italian, that lexical equivalents often aren't semantic equivalents in the full sense, and they need to grow out of the simplified concept that Latin is "just an old form of Italian". If you want to learn Latin well, at some point you have to 'forget' all other languages when approaching a Latin text - and that's much harder to do, that "step outside", if your native language is Italian.

 

I never looked at it that way before. Interesting.

 

Thanks to everyone for responding to my question.

[Haiku]

Oh, and if you want a head start with learning Latin, do not study Dutch :lol:.

 

I used to speak Dutch. Sadly, once I moved back to the States and had no one to speak with, I lost most of it. I remember only een beetje. :(

 

Tara

[Tress]

I used to speak Dutch. Sadly, once I moved back to the States and had no one to speak with, I lost most of it. I remember only een beetje. :(

 

Tara

 

Heeee, you could teach my children English (please, please, pretty please), I could re-teach you Dutch :D. ( Is re-teaching actually a word :confused:.)

[FairProspects]

Esther Maria -

 

Do you still recommend a romance language first if there are no native speakers in the home and no one to converse with? We plan to do both Latin and Spanish, but I was thinking we would go with Latin first, simply because we can learn how to deal with writing a foreign language before introducing a second language with auditory and verbal components.

[Haiku]

Heeee, you could teach my children English (please, please, pretty please), I could re-teach you Dutch :D. ( Is re-teaching actually a word :confused:.)

 

Uitstekend! I think re-teaching is a word. :)

 

Tara

[Ester Maria]

Esther Maria -

 

Do you still recommend a romance language first if there are no native speakers in the home and no one to converse with? We plan to do both Latin and Spanish, but I was thinking we would go with Latin first, simply because we can learn how to deal with writing a foreign language before introducing a second language with auditory and verbal components.

It depends on how well you know Spanish and what are you going to use I suppose, but generally, yes. Even if your children cannot get much active practice, they'll absorb a lot from exposure to, say, cartoons (without subtitles in English, of course), TV, music. They'll learn it by immersion, even if without too much output - but input, at that point, is more crucial anyway.

 

The problem with Latin is that you learn it analytically, and children need to reach a certain cognitive level to be able to profit from such an approach - otherwise you can only do it in small, digestible chunks with the littles. A modern language is a much better idea to start at an early age - and then continue all the way, of course.

 

In your case I'd go with Spanish first, then add Latin - and work on my own Spanish in order to provide the best model possible for the kids. :)