Latin question about the 4th principal part for esse

[Heather in WI]

In a Latin resource that my middle son is using, it lists the fourth principal part of esse as futurum. The resource that my older son is using lists it as futurus. Could someone explain this?

[Ester Maria]

It's sum, es, fui, esse.

Or sum, esse, fui, depending on your preferred order of listing it. There should be no fourth principal part when listing this verb-

 

Futurus/a/um is a future participle. It's NOT the equivalent of the fourth principal part listed for other verbs, as this verb lacks supine, and therefore should NOT be listed that way.

 

I don't know which materials you're using, but this alone would make me seriously doubt their quality. Not a light mistake.

[Heather in WI]

Thank you, Ester Maria.

 

Latin for Children A for the middle. They chant: "sum, esse, fui, futurum -- I am, to be, I was, about to be."

 

My older is using Latin Prep 1, but we are using 501 Latin Verbs to make his flashcards.

 

It seemed off, but I couldn't wrap my head around it and thought it was just me.

[Ester Maria]

Latin for Children A for the middle. They chant: "sum, esse, fui, futurum -- I am, to be, I was, about to be."

Just out of curiosity - could you write what they chant about amo and do (the full forms, like you did here)? Doesn't make sense to me why anyone would do this, so I'd like to check something.

[Faithr]

My New First Steps Latin book that we use in our Latin class (teacher has been teaching Latin for 21 years) also lists the 4 principle parts of essere the same way. I'll ask my Latin teacher about this. I quickly googled this too and found other sources that also listed it this way. I don't pretend to have a grasp on Latin but apparently a lot of different sources make list it this way.

[Ester Maria]

I don't pretend to have a grasp on Latin but apparently a lot of different sources make list it this way.

It's theoretically possible to list it that way (albeit many classicists will scorn it for what I consider to be perfectly legitimate reasons), but then you have to list the other verbs that way too in order to be consistent, i.e. use future participles all along. Which is why I'm wondering how the rest of the verbs are listed - if it's do, dare, dedi, daturum/s, fine, at least they're consistent; but if it's datum, I quit using that material instantly, because in that case it's plain wrong to list sum, esse, fui the way they did.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Ester Maria

[Heather in WI]

Just out of curiosity - could you write what they chant about amo and do (the full forms, like you did here)? Doesn't make sense to me why anyone would do this, so I'd like to check something.

 

amo, amare, amavi, amatum - I love, to love, I loved, loved

 

do, dare, dedi, datum -- I give, to give, I gave, given

 

As far as I can tell, they list all of the verbs besides esse the regular way.

[Ester Maria]

amo, amare, amavi, amatum - I love, to love, I loved, loved

 

do, dare, dedi, datum -- I give, to give, I gave, given

 

As far as I can tell, they list all of the verbs besides esse the regular way.

With no explanation whatsoever? Quit the program. Seriously.

And then people ask me why I rave so much against those "innocuous" programs. :D

Edited September 12, 2010 by Ester Maria

[Lakeside]

With no explanation whatsoever? Quit the program. Seriously.

And then people ask me why I rave so much against those "innocuous" programs. :D

 

I know this is an old thread, but I came across it while doing Latin research. Is there a Latin curriculum that you recommend?

[Ester Maria]

I know this is an old thread, but I came across it while doing Latin research. Is there a Latin curriculum that you recommend?

You will NOT get scarred for life if you use a material that is a little inconsistent - regarding my dramatic "quit the program" :lol: - but preferably there are clear explanations.

 

I typically recommend two things: Wheelock and Latin for the New Millenium. The former because of its density and full coverage, without distractions (it is "business"; very low profile on fluff / elaborate pictures / whatever which the rest of the curricula are FILLED with; no modern pedagogical craziness, etc.), and it is pretty much the standard textbook. It is supposedly college level, but really, a grammatically literate high school student will be fine - just get online help when/if you get stuck, remember that the textbook is not the be all end all of all Latin and that you are free to search some extra help if you get the impression that at some point the text stops explaining things in depth, and you will be fine.

 

Regarding LNM, that is what is theoretically high school level, but a middle school kid will do just fine (or an older learner, for that matter). It is a solid program and for many reasons, I consider it the least of all evils if one does not want to go the "traditional", "boring" route - i.e. if one still wants some color, some fluff, some pics, some conversational method, BUT, paired up with the solid traditional explicit and systematic grammar instruction and text work. A huge plus of this program is the coverage of post-classical Latin in the second book, something typically absent from Latin programs. In short, LNM gets you where it needs to get you if you are more of a modern type of learner. It also has excellent additional materials. In fact, probably the majority of middle and high school kids should use LNM.

 

Henle is supposedly very, very good - I have heard it positioned "in the middle" between Wheelock and LNM - but I have so little experience with it that I cannot really comment it.

 

Based on the rest of the English-language market that *I* have some experience with, those are the only three I would even consider, although other people have had good experiences with other stuff too (e.g. people tend to like Latin Prep and it seems to be good if applied consistently, yet I pedagogically prefer how the above programs flesh out some of the material and their textual choices and depth). I would NOT use a reading / natural method based course (Cambridge, Oerberg), though again, there are people who swear by that. Too bad that I do not know a single classicist that does swear that they bring about equivalent and efficient results :lol:, but some people really like them, especially for younger kids. If anything, I might very carefully use some of that stuff to supplement a "proper" course.

 

The bottomline is, it is completely secondary WHAT you use if it is efficient and gets you to the texts. The problem with most programs is that they are too fluffy, too colorful, spend too much time essentially on nothing, you are paying watered down content and you get six books on what should be ONE single volume approached with due concentration, the process gets slowed down (the standard is 2 years for grammar in high school, 3ish in upper elementary / middle school, 1 year in college - ALL of the grammar should be finished in that time, it should NOT take longer, Latin III and further should be TEXTS, only with metrics and syntax revision as needed), kids give up, parents get sick of it, they invent rhymes to supposedly help with memorizing but kids do not get WHAT they are memorizing and why because they are cutting on useful explanations, grammar explanations are not enough in depth, there is just too much distractions (there are probnably programs which could effectively be considered "Latin appreciation" rather than Latin itself!), etc.

 

So, if you can find something else to teach you grammar in due time, with needed detail, and equipen you to proceed with the textual work - great, use whatever floats your boat. The point of learning Latin is not to be stuck with a Latin textbook. The REAL learning and appreciation BEGINS once the grammar is DONE. So, use whatever you need to use to get the grammar down well, and I recommend what I recommend pretty much based on my personal view of clarity, coverage nuanced enough to equipen for textual work, and efficience.

[Brenda in MA]

Henle is supposedly very, very good - I have heard it positioned "in the middle" between Wheelock and LNM - but I have so little experience with it that I cannot really comment it.

 

My son and I used Henle at a very slow pace, Henle I over 5th to 8th grades and & Henle II in 9th grade. He is now taking a Latin III (reading) course where many of the students used Wheelocks over the two previous years. He's holding his own nicely in the course with his grammar background from Henle I & II. He hasn't come across any new grammar this year, but Henle and Wheelocks do have different names for a few grammatical constructions (e.g. gerundive + sum (Henle) vs. passive periphrasic (Wheelock)), and that has led to a few brief periods of confusion.

 

We have a copy of Wheelocks, and I do like the looks of it, but I know that back in the 5th grade, it wouldn't have worked for us. Henle has a lot more exercises in it, which gave him a lot more practice and allowed him to spend more time learning the declensions & conjugations. I also found that Henle does a nice job of building the grammar slowly and reinforcing old concepts as you learn new ones. We used the MP syllabi for the first two years, then the MODG syllabi for the rest of Henle I and Henle II.

 

If you want your student to take the National Latin Exam, and you use Henle, you will need to supplement a little on Roman culture & mythology. Since Henle is designed to help the student learn to read Caesar's Gallic War, a good bit of the vocabulary is war related, and there is very little emphasis on Roman Culture.

 

I haven't seen LNM, so I can't compare it to either Wheelock or Henle.

 

HTH,

Brenda

[Lakeside]

Ester Maria,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think my husband has a copy of Wheelock around here somewhere. For some reason I wasn't able to see the samples of LNM, but I will look into that one.