Latin question

[AimeeM]

We want to use Lively Latin for our fifth grader this year... but, from what I understand, it is a "grammar" Latin program; and we also want an immersion program. What is your favorite Latin immersion/conversational Latin program?

[SnMomof7]

I don't know if you'll get a lot of bites on this one :). Most homeschoolers aren't too happy with immersion/modern language techniques for Latin. One of the HUGE benefits of learning Latin is learning the grammar systematically and comprehensively. It is so good for the brain, and a very different process than learning the grammar intuitively through immersion.

 

I suppose that is why there aren't many conversational Latin programs out there. Rosetta Stone might be your best bet.

[AimeeM]

I can understand that. Does the grammar based program (like Lively Latin) teach word roots? I'm woefully ignorant in Latin.

Also, is there a modern second language that would be easy to learn alongside a grammar based Latin?

 

I don't know if you'll get a lot of bites on this one :). Most homeschoolers aren't too happy with immersion/modern language techniques for Latin. One of the HUGE benefits of learning Latin is learning the grammar systematically and comprehensively. It is so good for the brain, and a very different process than learning the grammar intuitively through immersion.

 

I suppose that is why there aren't many conversational Latin programs out there. Rosetta Stone might be your best bet.

[kristinannie]

I heard about this on another website. Here is what I was told:

 

Immersion: Lingua Latina per se Illustrata. I can't say enough good, but do bring the right attitude to the book. It is completely in Latin, but it cleverly written so that everything can be understood on its own (or should be).

 

HTH

[Spy Car]

We want to use Lively Latin for our fifth grader this year... but, from what I understand, it is a "grammar" Latin program; and we also want an immersion program. What is your favorite Latin immersion/conversational Latin program?

 

You could look at the highly regarded Lingua Latina by Orberg. It is a "reading" course. There is also a college companion book to supplement grammar questions that may come up. It is an adult level program, bout adaptable.

 

Aimed more for children are Cambridge and Ecco Romani. I have ER and don't love it (being neither enough immersion or enough grammar) but a good teacher (and classroom setting) might be better than self study.

 

Lingua Latina is really interesting. It gets hard about 10 chapters in (or so) if you don't really follow the grammar that's being taught through immersion. But something to consider.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I heard about this on another website. Here is what I was told:

 

Immersion: Lingua Latina per se Illustrata. I can't say enough good, but do bring the right attitude to the book. It is completely in Latin, but it cleverly written so that everything can be understood on its own (or should be).

 

HTH

 

We cross-posted, but yes everything (to a point) is understood via reading a story in Latin. I do think it best to use the College Companion book to make the grammar points 100% clear. This deviates somewhat from the mission to learn strictly through immersion, but for most people I think it makes more sense. Especially if one is without a teacher and doing self-study.

 

Bill

[AimeeM]

How do you feel about Latin immersion?

Would it be a better idea to do a Latin grammar based program and do another (modern) language alongside it - instead of "conversation" Latin?

 

I'm sorry for the questions. My husband's professional background has made him rather firm on this; Latin is important. I agree but I'm not personally sold on the necessity to be able to read and converse in Latin. I do understand the benefits in word roots, grammar, etc.

 

You could look at the highly regarded Lingua Latina by Orberg. It is a "reading" course. There is also a college companion book to supplement grammar questions that may come up. It is an adult level program, bout adaptable.

 

Aimed more for children are Cambridge and Ecco Romani. I have ER and don't love it (being neither enough immersion or enough grammar) but a good teacher (and classroom setting) might be better than self study.

 

Lingua Latina is really interesting. It gets hard about 10 chapters in (or so) if you don't really follow the grammar that's being taught through immersion. But something to consider.

 

Bill

[Janie Grace]

How do you feel about Latin immersion?

Would it be a better idea to do a Latin grammar based program and do another (modern) language alongside it - instead of "conversation" Latin?

 

I'm sorry for the questions. My husband's professional background has made him rather firm on this; Latin is important. I agree but I'm not personally sold on the necessity to be able to read and converse in Latin. I do understand the benefits in word roots, grammar, etc.

 

I'm sorry but I am confused here -- what is this about "conversing" in Latin? I took four years of high school Latin, and from my understanding, even Classics majors don't learn Latin so they can converse... they learn it so they can translate. Latin is not spoken.

 

For me, the translation part of Latin was a waste of time (except maybe as a mental exercise, kind of like code-breaking). I wasn't fascinated by Greek/Roman writings and I just sloughed through it. The portion that was really helpful was the grammar and the vocab. I still remember TONS of root words, which is great for unfamiliar English (or other Romance language) vocabulary.

[AimeeM]

Latin is used often in Church.

With that said, there is a program called "I Speak Latin" that does teach "conversational" Latin.

As stated previously - I am ignorant on the subject which is why I'm asking :o)

 

I'm sorry but I am confused here -- what is this about "conversing" in Latin? I took four years of high school Latin, and from my understanding, even Classics majors don't learn Latin so they can converse... they learn it so they can translate. Latin is not spoken.

 

For me, the translation part of Latin was a waste of time (except maybe as a mental exercise, kind of like code-breaking). I wasn't fascinated by Greek/Roman writings and I just sloughed through it. The portion that was really helpful was the grammar and the vocab. I still remember TONS of root words, which is great for unfamiliar English (or other Romance language) vocabulary.

[EKS]

We like Cambridge.

[Spy Car]

How do you feel about Latin immersion?

Would it be a better idea to do a Latin grammar based program and do another (modern) language alongside it - instead of "conversation" Latin?

 

I'm sorry for the questions. My husband's professional background has made him rather firm on this; Latin is important. I agree but I'm not personally sold on the necessity to be able to read and converse in Latin. I do understand the benefits in word roots, grammar, etc.

 

Let me preface by saying that I am not a great Latinist. I have been plunking along for years—on and off—with my Latin studies. I have made some progress, but you will find a good number of posters with much stronger Latin skills than I possess. I hope learning with my son (which we have begun recently) will focus my attentions on more self-study.

 

The argument for an immersion-based reading program is that it gets student to "read" Latin, something proponents claim "grammar based" Latin programs (which tend to treat the language as sort of "logic-language puzzles" that require translations into and out of English) often fail to achieve.

 

From my "non-expert" perch I tend to agree. Lingua Latina in contrast is exciting because there is so much reading (and learning though the context of reading) that it is a very natural activity.

 

I also did some Wheelocks (traditional grammar) in conjunction when I started. Then the College Companion wasn't available, and I ran into eventual trouble with Lingua Latina because I hit grammar point that were beyond me. I am about to start again (with my son) with the companion book.

 

I can see using a grammar based approach too. I see the upsides and downsides of both methods.

 

Bill

[Dmmetler]

I like combining Cambridge Latin with Latin For Children-Cambridge gives the opportunity to read in Latin, and to get to know a little bit more of the culture and characters, but LFC gives the grammar and vocabulary and syntax. And CL has nice recordings to go with the books, too. I was driving my DD and a little friend of hers to cheerleading camp this summer, and one of the CL recordings was on the Mp3 player. When I picked the girls up, DD's friend asked if they could hear "The silly story about the dog" again. I'm very confident that she didn't learn Latin in PS kindergarten :).

[Ariston]

How do you feel about Latin immersion?

Would it be a better idea to do a Latin grammar based program and do another (modern) language alongside it - instead of "conversation" Latin?

 

 

I'm a fan of immersion type programs because the aim is to think, speak and write in Latin instead of just reading along in English or Latin and translating in your head, word for word or phrase for phrase, into the other language. IMO, they aim at a much higher level use of the language. It is also the way we are designed to learn and use language.

 

Obviously the problem is that most of us don't speak Latin, so its a difficult goal. If I weren't already focused on Spanish at home, I'd be incorporating Latin vocab and phrases into our day. But I don't think it has to be 'either-or'. In Spanish, I speak to them every day in an 'immersion' type environment but also plan on teaching them formally when they're a little older. One major benefit to the immersion style is that kids are ready for it from birth. If I had only wanted to go the formal, structured grammar route, they would have learned almost no Spanish by now as they are too young for it. To me, language is language. And the best way that I know of to learn language is by incorporating hearing, speaking, reading and writing.

 

I plan on using I Speak Latin next year. When they're older, a friend of mine (who is a Latin teacher) recommended Lingua Latina and Latin for the New Millenium, which looks VERY interesting. But I also plan on using a traditional grammar like Henle.

 

By the way, there ARE pockets of Latin scholars who do converse in the language :)

 

Elena

[SnMomof7]

Ah, in light of what other posters have written I'll revise my answer a bit :). I don't consider Cambridge, Ecce Romani, Lingua Latina etc. 'conversational' Latin programs, though they are a more modern approach to the language. I think of conversational Latin as, "Hello, my name is Jennifer. How are you today?" etc. as commonly taught for modern languages.

 

There is a benefit to providing Latin reading alongside of Latin grammar, like Cambridge etc. but I would use that as a supplement to a grammar-based program. I had two years of Cambridge, supplemented with grammar my teacher gave us outside of the regular course of studies, and despite being a honors student in that class, being able to translate etc. I still never 'got' the big picture of Latin grammar until using a grammar-focused course of study myself.

 

Yes, if you'd like to teach a modern language, Latin will give you a tremendous head-start in any of: Italian, Spanish, French for starters :). I'm thinking of adding French in to give a modern language to the children that is complementary to Latin.

[Ester Maria]

The argument for an immersion-based reading program is that it gets student to "read" Latin, something proponents claim "grammar based" Latin programs (which tend to treat the language as sort of "logic-language puzzles" that require translations into and out of English) often fail to achieve.

They are wrong.

 

Grammatical signalling is like training wheels. In a proper Latin education, it has its place - and its "date of expiry" as the primary approach to the text, translations become a lot more intuitive / free and less literal further down along the road. A rock solid knowledge of morphosyntax is an absolute must because you need to be able not only to "vaguely feel" the text but, upon request, to dissect it to pieces and demonstrate that you understand each piece in isolation - but it is only a part of the picture. In higher years poetic translations are much emphasized, as are the discussions on the needed / allowed freedom in translations, and some works are even read without translation or analysis which would require grammatical signalling.

 

I can read Ovid for my own joy as though it was in my language AND I can dissect it to you word-by-word, paraphrase or translate. That is the ultimate goal: BOTH. The analytic knowledge AND the developed intuition.

 

Programs which *start* with intuition and attempt to build the foundations on the rocky terrain of intuition, reading non-original and highly adapted texts (which are usually not even Latin, but a sort of Latin-based conlang with a syntax that is not genuine, culturally problematic content, etc.), or which have you chat in that conlang which they call Latin and apply to your cultural situation, usually do not have awesome results, lack solid grammar, usually have pedagogically bad sequence of topics, and most of all, they do not cover syntax. Yeah, I know people who are thrilled because they can undestand Vulgata after those courses. Cicero? Eh, they run away from him in big leaps. They simply do not know syntax. Poetry, forget it, you need rock solid morphosyntax to get through much of it (+ metrics, of course), even if you read it "intuitively".

 

At some point, one will have to switch to analytic curricula if one wants to learn Latin and read unadapted texts. For littles, it does not really matter what you use as your goal is exposure more than anything else, but in middle years already I would base my education on a grammar approach, or at least the mixed one (like LNM).

Edited July 31, 2011 by Ester Maria

[AimeeM]

I am open to any and all suggestions on this.

Autumn is dyslexic. According to the woman who did her testing, adding Latin to our curriculum will help, not hinder, Autumn. For a dyslexic fifth grader who spells on a second grade level, understanding word roots would add a logical sequence to her spelling and vocabulary instruction that would make it easier for her to understand.

You seem to be well versed on this topic. Would you suggest using a grammar based Latin program (like Lively Latin) alongside a program like "I speak Latin"?

 

They are wrong.

 

Grammatical signalling is like training wheels. In a proper Latin education, it has its place - and its "date of expiry" as the primary approach to the text, translations become a lot more intuitive / free and less literal further down along the road. A rock solid knowledge of morphosyntax is an absolute must because you need to be able not only to "vaguely feel" the text but, upon request, to dissect it to pieces and demonstrate that you understand each piece in isolation - but it is only a part of the picture. In higher years poetic translations are much emphasized, as are the discussions on the needed / allowed freedom in translations, and some works are even read without translation or analysis which would require grammatical signalling.

 

I can read Ovid for my own joy as though it was in my language AND I can dissect it to you word-by-word, paraphrase or translate. That is the ultimate goal: BOTH. The analytic knowledge AND the developed intuition.

 

Programs which *start* with intuition and attempt to build the foundations on the rocky terrain of intuition, reading non-original and highly adapted texts (which are usually not even Latin, but a sort of Latin-based conlang with a syntax that is not genuine, culturally problematic content, etc.), or which have you chat in that conlang which they call Latin and apply to your cultural situation, usually do not have awesome results, lack solid grammar, usually have pedagogically bad sequence of topics, and most of all, they do not cover syntax. Yeah, I know people who are thrilled because they can undestand Vulgata after those courses. Cicero? Eh, they run away from him in big leaps. They simply do not know syntax. Poetry, forget it, you need rock solid morphosyntax to get through much of it (+ metrics, of course), even if you read it "intuitively".

 

At some point, one will have to switch to analytic curricula if one wants to learn Latin and read unadapted texts. For littles, it does not really matter what you use as your goal is exposure more than anything else, but in middle years already I would base my education on a grammar approach, or at least the mixed one (like LNM).

[Ester Maria]

Would you suggest using a grammar based Latin program (like Lively Latin) alongside a program like "I speak Latin"?

Yes, if it is only dyslexia (i.e. if she does not have conceptual problems with grammar - studying Latin analytically requires certain cognitive nuances, which not all children master at the same pace, because of a different structure of the language), I think she will get a much more solid knowledge that way. However, I am not familiar with those particular two programs, so I cannot comment on that - this is just a general comment on the approach, not programs, therefore. :)

[Spy Car]

They are wrong.

 

Grammatical signalling is like training wheels. In a proper Latin education, it has its place - and its "date of expiry" as the primary approach to the text, translations become a lot more intuitive / free and less literal further down along the road. A rock solid knowledge of morphosyntax is an absolute must because you need to be able not only to "vaguely feel" the text but, upon request, to dissect it to pieces and demonstrate that you understand each piece in isolation - but it is only a part of the picture. In higher years poetic translations are much emphasized, as are the discussions on the needed / allowed freedom in translations, and some works are even read without translation or analysis which would require grammatical signalling.

 

I can read Ovid for my own joy as though it was in my language AND I can dissect it to you word-by-word, paraphrase or translate. That is the ultimate goal: BOTH. The analytic knowledge AND the developed intuition.

 

Programs which *start* with intuition and attempt to build the foundations on the rocky terrain of intuition, reading non-original and highly adapted texts (which are usually not even Latin, but a sort of Latin-based conlang with a syntax that is not genuine, culturally problematic content, etc.), or which have you chat in that conlang which they call Latin and apply to your cultural situation, usually do not have awesome results, lack solid grammar, usually have pedagogically bad sequence of topics, and most of all, they do not cover syntax. Yeah, I know people who are thrilled because they can undestand Vulgata after those courses. Cicero? Eh, they run away from him in big leaps. They simply do not know syntax. Poetry, forget.

 

At some point, one will have to switch to analytic curricula if one wants to learn Latin and read unadapted texts.

 

You are supremely more knowledgeable on the subject than me. I take your points and think you are correct.

 

I see the limits of learning through immersion and deduction. But I also see how traditional grammar programs often leave introductory Latin students feeling incapable of "reading" the language, and how it tends to promote a limited approach.

 

Using both approaches strikes me as a good idea. Start "reading" and gaining a base understanding through use (where Lingua Latina is outstanding) and also use programs that promote an analytical understanding of the grammar.

 

This strikes me as a sensible Third Way. What do you say?

 

Bill

[HeidiKC]

I took 4 years of Latin in high school and loved it. I think it was one of the best courses I ever took, including those in college. I learned so much about grammar (that I never learned in English courses) and vocabulary. The grammar and vocabulary I learned has been useful to me my entire life and I can still figure out words I don't know because of my Latin.

 

Yes, we did translation and reading in Latin in high school. But other than translating Latin phrases on buildings or coins, etc., I have not "read" Latin since high school. Maybe some people would be interested in doing that on their own in their free time, but that's not for me! So I am not interested in an immersion program or being able to converse, and even the reading is much less important to me than the grammar and vocabulary. If we stick with Latin long enough my son will be doing reading and translating (well, he's doing some simple sentences now), but for me that is not the main goal of studying Latin or why I think it's so important and useful to study.

[Ester Maria]

Using both approaches strikes me as a good idea. Start "reading" and gaining a base understanding through use (where Lingua Latina is outstanding) and also use programs that promote an analytical understanding of the grammar.

 

This strikes me as a sensible Third Way. What do you say?

I actually do think that the third way is ideal, but not this third way. The problem is, in "their" way of doing things, you do not really read Latin. You read great amounts of text which is not authentic - or even if it is drawn from authentic sources, it is very altered. Now, of course, starting with small digestible chunks is always done, but I do see some harm in reading that much amounts of non-authentic texts, or dialogues pretending to be a Roman family and things of the kind.

 

What I do find a killer method is, of course, the Jewish one (:D), originating from yeshivot - do you know how Hebrew used to be learned? By reading to kids Hebrew text and translating it automatically to Yiddish / spoken language, in a very literal fashion. In fact, there exist extremely literal translations of Bible because of that reason - the point being to dissect the text to small pieces and translate small pieces and then with the time having children soak in those small units, start recognizing them, etc. It is a process over several years, of course, but actually, a somewhat different method to a grammatical tradition of Latin and Greek learning in the Western intellectual tradition.

 

However, as you can guess, this approach has a HUGE downside: it takes an active teacher, and a teacher who really knows his Latin cold and can do that - and then it takes a progression from easy to difficult texts, by difficult ones you will have learned grammar anyway AND have gained that type of intuitive understanding. I am not sure this is applicable to many, though Vulgata is an excellent choice for that because of the linguistic simplicity - actually, Catholics and their texts, probably have it the easiest if they know Latin and simply implement this method as a part of their home culture.

 

Another downside is that, of course, Vulgata does not really translate to Cicero, but Cicero does to Vulgata, so it makes sense to go analytic and cover the most complex texts as you progess. This is the same type of argument as why you should learn Attic, not Koine - because Attic does translate to the knowledge of Koine, but vice-versa not really.

 

I personally as a linguist find that THE method is the combination of THIS reading method from the early years, a thorough grammar education in upper elementary / middle school while continuing with this, and then a historical overview with some insights from historical linguistics at the beginning of high school (to get some more professional "cues"), and then you basically have the high school left for your own studies.

 

I usually do not recommend it here, though, as I am not sure most people can profit from that type of reading together texts with the child and automatically translating.

[Spy Car]

I took 4 years of Latin in high school and loved it. I think it was one of the best courses I ever took, including those in college. I learned so much about grammar (that I never learned in English courses) and vocabulary. The grammar and vocabulary I learned has been useful to me my entire life and I can still figure out words I don't know because of my Latin.

 

Yes, we did translation and reading in Latin in high school. But other than translating Latin phrases on buildings or coins, etc., I have not "read" Latin since high school. Maybe some people would be interested in doing that on their own in their free time, but that's not for me! So I am not interested in an immersion program or being able to converse, and even the reading is much less important to me than the grammar and vocabulary. If we stick with Latin long enough my son will be doing reading and translating (well, he's doing some simple sentences now), but for me that is not the main goal of studying Latin or why I think it's so important and useful to study.

 

I think your experience is extremely typical of American Latin students. Most people end up learning a good deal about English grammar "by proxy" and learn a good deal about English vocabulary "by proxy", but very few end up reading classics in Latin.

 

There is nothing "wrong" with re-enforcing English grammar and vocabulary skills via Latin, those are important skills to bolster, but if the goal is reading Latin authors in the original then one needs to question if the method is part of the problem with the way we tend to teach Latin. The one constant of Latin education in this country (to the extent it still exists) is that many study the language for years but are never really able to "read."

 

I don't have all the answers, and am no great Latinist myself, but I do have to ponder the question of how to develop a "reader" in Latin. That would be my goal. Whether we get there, or not, remains to be seen. But that would be my goal.

 

Bill

Edited July 31, 2011 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

I actually do think that the third way is ideal, but not this third way. The problem is, in "their" way of doing things, you do not really read Latin. You read great amounts of text which is not authentic - or even if it is drawn from authentic sources, it is very altered. Now, of course, starting with small digestible chunks is always done, but I do see some harm in reading that much amounts of non-authentic texts, or dialogues pretending to be a Roman family and things of the kind.

 

What I do find a killer method is, of course, the Jewish one (:D), originating from yeshivot - do you know how Hebrew used to be learned? By reading to kids Hebrew text and translating it automatically to Yiddish / spoken language, in a very literal fashion. In fact, there exist extremely literal translations of Bible because of that reason - the point being to dissect the text to small pieces and translate small pieces and then with the time having children soak in those small units, start recognizing them, etc. It is a process over several years, of course, but actually, a somewhat different method to a grammatical tradition of Latin and Greek learning in the Western intellectual tradition.

 

However, as you can guess, this approach has a HUGE downside: it takes an active teacher, and a teacher who really knows his Latin cold and can do that - and then it takes a progression from easy to difficult texts, by difficult ones you will have learned grammar anyway AND have gained that type of intuitive understanding. I am not sure this is applicable to many, though Vulgata is an excellent choice for that because of the linguistic simplicity - actually, Catholics and their texts, probably have it the easiest if they know Latin and simply implement this method as a part of their home culture.

 

Another downside is that, of course, Vulgata does not really translate to Cicero, but Cicero does to Vulgata, so it makes sense to go analytic and cover the most complex texts as you progess. This is the same type of argument as why you should learn Attic, not Koine - because Attic does translate to the knowledge of Koine, but vice-versa not really.

 

I personally as a linguist find that THE method is the combination of THIS reading method from the early years, a thorough grammar education in upper elementary / middle school while continuing with this, and then a historical overview with some insights from historical linguistics at the beginning of high school (to get some more professional "cues"), and then you basically have the high school left for your own studies.

 

I usually do not recommend it here, though, as I am not sure most people can profit from that type of reading together texts with the child and automatically translating.

 

A method that relys on a personal-tutor/parent with absolute mastery of a language (while obviously ideal) is impractical for those lacking the precondition (as you know).

 

So then what? It seems to me, and I would love your thoughts, that lacking a parent-teacher with mastery of a language the next best thing (not the best thing, but the best thing under the corcumstances) would be to move forward by trying to acquire analytical grammar skills and trying to read texts that promote understanding through context.

 

Have you ever seen Lingua Latina? I understand that it is not Cicero, but it does an admirable job of introducing grammar concepts through reading. That stride me as a good compliment to a traditional grammar program under the suboptimal circumstances of lacking an accomplished Latinist who serves as ones private tutor.

 

What do you think?

 

Bill

[HeidiKC]

I think your experience is extremely typical of American Latin student. Most people end up learning a good deal about English grammar "by proxy" and learn a good deal about English vocabulary "by proxy", but very few end up reading classics in Latin.

 

There is nothing "wrong" with re-enforcing English grammar and vocabulary skills via Latin, those are important skills to bolster, but if the goal is reading Latin authors in the original then one needs to question if the method is part of the problem with the way we tend to teach Latin. The one constant of Latin education in this country (to the extent it still exists) is that many study the language for years but are never really able to "read."

 

I don't have all the answers, and am no great Latinist myself, but I do have to ponder the question of how to develop a "reader" in Latin. That would be my goal. Whether we get there, or not, remains to be seen. But that would be my goal.

 

Bill

 

Well, we did read Cicero and Virgil. But that was in Latin class. What I meant is that I personally have no desire to continue to read classics in Latin. Call me lazy or soft-brained, I guess. Kind of like how I have no interest in working calculus problems anymore. It was challenging, interesting and somewhat fun at the time, but these days I'm not up for it and find that I need to direct my limited attention elsewhere (like keeping 3 boys from doing serious damage to the house or themselves, for one). I applaud you and others for continuing to educate yourselves in Latin and making your brain WORK. I can barely keep my brain working at 50% some days. When I do have time for self-education, I'd rather spend the time on other things that I am newly interested in. There are just too many subjects, too little time!

 

I guess my main point was that for most people, unless you go out of your way beyond university to continue to read Latin classics, it probably isn't going to happen. But coming across English words from Latin in every day reading happens all the time!

[Beth in SW WA]

My older dc took Lingua Latina via TPS w/ Mr. Spotts in 6th/7th. Intense course (following LC 1&2). It requires a knowledgeable teacher, imho.

[Ester Maria]

Have you ever seen Lingua Latina? I understand that it is not Cicero, but it does an admirable job of introducing grammar concepts through reading. That stride me as a good compliment to a traditional grammar program under the suboptimal circumstances of lacking an accomplished Latinist who serves as ones private tutor.

I actually own most of the programs I dislike, Orberg included, LOL. At some point in time I wanted to inform myself in great detail about the supposed merits of the natural / reading method, to see how they actually work, etc. So I am familiar with them quite a bit, but... but I still vote against them. Though in combination, I imagine they can be used to solidify what is learned.

 

Look, at the end of the day, whatever floats your boat, as you guys say: the exact same things I dislike may be an excellent choice for you, and I do imagine Orberg has the potential of solidifying grammar structures.

I am personally not fond of him, I would much rather practice via bilingual Bible (because of the simplicity of the language and familiarity with stories) and attempt to deduce things myself in addition to a grammar course, but if you think Orberg will fit that bill for you, sure, go for it. :)

[Spy Car]

Well, we did read Cicero and Virgil. But that was in Latin class. What I meant is that I personally have no desire to continue to read classics in Latin. Call me lazy or soft-brained, I guess. Kind of like how I have no interest in working calculus problems anymore. It was challenging, interesting and somewhat fun at the time, but these days I'm not up for it and find that I need to direct my limited attention elsewhere (like keeping 3 boys from doing serious damage to the house or themselves, for one). I applaud you and others for continuing to educate yourselves in Latin and making your brain WORK. I can barely keep my brain working at 50% some days. When I do have time for self-education, I'd rather spend the time on other things that I am newly interested in. There are just too many subjects, too little time!

 

I guess my main point was that for most people, unless you go out of your way beyond university to continue to read Latin classics, it probably isn't going to happen. But coming across English words from Latin in every day reading happens all the time!

 

I feel so brain dead today I can barely respond to threads :D

 

You got way beyond any level of Latin education than I've ever had. In high-school my counsellor called me into the office to tell me I was the only student to sign up for Latin, and I was crushed when the realization that this did not mean I was getting my very own personal tutor began to sink in ;) :D

 

But reading Latin authors in the original would be a personal dream, it is one that remains unrealized, but it remains part of my aspirational goals for my son's education as we begin introducing Latin.

 

It just doesn't seem to me that the academic establishment (and many self-learning programs) have reading, as opposed to grammar analysis, as a main goal. Ideally I would like to promote both.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I actually own most of the programs I dislike, Orberg included, LOL. At some point in time I wanted to inform myself in great detail about the supposed merits of the natural / reading method, to see how they actually work, etc. So I am familiar with them quite a bit, but... but I still vote against them. Though in combination, I imagine they can be used to solidify what is learned.

 

Look, at the end of the day, whatever floats your boat, as you guys say: the exact same things I dislike may be an excellent choice for you, and I do imagine Orberg has the potential of solidifying grammar structures.

I am personally not fond of him, I would much rather practice via bilingual Bible (because of the simplicity of the language and familiarity with stories) and attempt to deduce things myself in addition to a grammar course, but if you think Orberg will fit that bill for you, sure, go for it. :)

 

I may need to work on my child's biblical literacy before we can assume a familiarity with the stories ;)

 

The last attempt—reading R Cumb's marvelous illustrated version of Genesis—which my son loved, was abruptly terminated by Mrs Spy Car for being inappropriately graphic. I did ask if she'd read the text, but I did not prevail :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[HeidiKC]

But reading Latin authors in the original would be a personal dream, it is one that remains unrealized, but it remains part of my aspirational goals for my son's education as we begin introducing Latin.

 

Well, I'm sure you'll do it! Especially since that's the goal for your son. Kind of like how I always planned "next year" to read about Ancient Rome. Well, years went by, but when my son was studying it last year I was forced to jump in and of course it was so much more fun that way. Your son is lucky to have a dad who wants to read Latin, and it will make it much more enjoyable for him to have you along for the ride!

[wapiti]

At some point, one will have to switch to analytic curricula if one wants to learn Latin and read unadapted texts. For littles, it does not really matter what you use as your goal is exposure more than anything else, but in middle years already I would base my education on a grammar approach, or at least the mixed one (like LNM).

 

:iagree:

 

I can see using a grammar based approach too. I see the upsides and downsides of both methods.

 

It just doesn't seem to me that the academic establishment (and many self-learning programs) have reading, as opposed to grammar analysis, as a main goal. Ideally I would like to promote both.

 

If both is what you want, then that is what you should do. I don't think you'd omit a grammar approach to Latin any more than you'd fail to teach English grammar to your ds explicity. However, it sounds as though you may underestimate the value and goals of the traditional grammatical approach - look again at the typical high school sequence (e.g., Wheelock, et al.) - reading is the goal, even though it doesn't happen overnight.

 

My dd's using Henle but occasionally this summer, for fun, she has been reading some Lingua Latina (with a dictionary by her side). It does reinforce what she's learning in Henle. We're not in any rush, so it wouldn't even hurt if I were to require her to read from there on a regular basis, though I don't see the need right now.

 

I can still strongly recommend GSWL - I'm sure your ds would have no trouble with it, being bright and already having had some nice grammar exposure of late ;). What to do afterward is another question entirely....

[Dawn E]

We are very much enjoying Visual Latin as a supplement to our grammar-based program. I'm not skilled enough in Latin to critique it fully or to contribute to the immersion vs. grammar discussion, but I thought I'd mention it as an option. I personally think the grammar-based route is key, but I have seen how VL has opened my daughter's eyes to the language in new ways and helped her see it in a more "big picture" way. It is a wonderful addition to our Latin studies.

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

 

 

 

 

If both is what you want, then that is what you should do. I don't think you'd omit a grammar approach to Latin any more than you'd fail to teach English grammar to your ds explicity. However, it sounds as though you may underestimate the value and goals of the traditional grammatical approach - look again at the typical high school sequence (e.g., Wheelock, et al.) - reading is the goal, even though it doesn't happen overnight.

 

My dd's using Henle but occasionally this summer, for fun, she has been reading some Lingua Latina (with a dictionary by her side). It does reinforce what she's learning in Henle. We're not in any rush, so it wouldn't even hurt if I were to require her to read from there on a regular basis, though I don't see the need right now.

 

I can still strongly recommend GSWL - I'm sure your ds would have no trouble with it, being bright and already having had some nice grammar exposure of late ;). What to do afterward is another question entirely....

 

Yes, you are right. I, personally, would not leave out a grammar approach. But I also enjoy the learning through reading approach of Lingua Latina. So, I'd go for both. A private tutor would be even better, but that ain't happening.

 

I don't know Getting Started with Latin. I just looked at the sample pages and did not get a feeling for what it's like. Did they choose odd pages to preview?

 

You know what I would love? Sentences taken from Latin literature that were then parsed in an MCT-like style. Maybe something like what Ester Maria might do with her children?

 

Something like that, with notes and explanations that built in a natural progression would be a wonderful way for me to learn Latin in sort of a hybrid of reading, parsing, and learning grammar from reading "real" (as opposed to fake) Latin with the grammar point built in.

 

I guess we will have to prevail upon our friend Ester Maria to producing something like this (quickly) in her spare time :D

 

Good idea?

 

Bill

[wapiti]

I don't know Getting Started with Latin. I just looked at the sample pages and did not get a feeling for what it's like. Did they choose odd pages to preview?

 

Except for the random "concept explanation" lesson, most lessons in GSWL are a single new Latin word, followed by ten sentences in Latin to translate. The previews of "Lesson 50" and "Lesson 101" are what almost all of the 134 lessons look like. We did them orally (nice couch activity - you can do as many or as few lessons as you have time for; we did it right before bed when we were afterschooling). It's all grammar and translation, in tiny bites. I rarely say something this unequivocal about a curriculum, but you really can't go wrong with GSWL. The only downside is figuring out an age-appropriate program to follow it with that is heavy on translation. IMO, for the young student, the translating is the fun of Latin. GSWL starts out easy and gets more difficult about halfway through, which is a good time to slow down and do fewer lessons per day - one is enough (it took us roughly 10-20 minutes per lesson; maybe an average of 15 min). It's good not to skip many days in a row, so that your student doesn't forget.

 

You know what I would love? Sentences taken from Latin literature that were then parsed in an MCT-like style. Maybe something like what Ester Maria might do with her children?

 

Something like that, with notes and explanations that built in a natural progression would be a wonderful way for me to learn Latin in sort of a hybrid of reading, parsing, and learning grammar from reading "real" (as opposed to fake) Latin with the grammar point built in.

 

I guess we will have to prevail upon our friend Ester Maria to producing something like this (quickly) in her spare time :D

 

Good idea?

 

It's an interesting thought, though I don't know if we can look at learning Latin grammar in quite the same way as English, because we already know the English language. It may be a fun activity for a more advanced student who has already mastered the basics. Reading Latin literature certainly is something to look forward to down the road. Don't forget that in Latin, the endings are right there, making certain aspects of grammar explicit in the words themselves.

 

You'd probably like LNM, which is a hybrid approach of both grammar and immersion. (My personal preference is to do without the reading of passages that include grammar one hasn't yet been taught how to read, but that's just me.) I don't know what age LNM is appropriate for - I'd guess late middle school and high school. Last time I looked at it, I recall a lot of vocab per lesson, probably too much for elementary school. I recall that I very much liked the grammar explanations in the samples.

 

Henle has a systematic grammar approach and lots of translation in both directions. It even has a bit of sentence diagramming :). At the elementary level, it seems there are not very many programs that are heavy on translation, which I think is a shame. Henle, as you may know, was written for high school with no prerequisite knowledge, but I think it's accessible to most middle schoolers and some late elementary students, if they've had some prior exposure and a decent bit of English grammar. (plus, it can feed your inner altar server ;)).

 

I'm sure Ester Maria will be happy to write us a dream Latin curriculum in her spare time :)

[cloversandlions]

So, for a parent who has not studied Latin, but who has a respectable comfort level with Latin roots (I have a fondness for reading word etymologies) and (at least) Romance language grammar, what would you recommend as a curriculum for a highly motivated middle schooler? I have Eccentric Romani, but was thinking of replacing with Lingua Latina.

[Spy Car]

Except for the random "concept explanation" lesson, most lessons in GSWL are a single new Latin word, followed by ten sentences in Latin to translate. The previews of "Lesson 50" and "Lesson 101" are what almost all of the 134 lessons look like. We did them orally (nice couch activity - you can do as many or as few lessons as you have time for; we did it right before bed when we were afterschooling). It's all grammar and translation, in tiny bites. I rarely say something this unequivocal about a curriculum, but you really can't go wrong with GSWL. The only downside is figuring out an age-appropriate program to follow it with that is heavy on translation. IMO, for the young student, the translating is the fun of Latin. GSWL starts out easy and gets more difficult about halfway through, which is a good time to slow down and do fewer lessons per day - one is enough (it took us roughly 10-20 minutes per lesson; maybe an average of 15 min). It's good not to skip many days in a row, so that your student doesn't forget.

 

OK, I will look again. At first glance it seemed odd to me. I will take a second look.

 

 

It's an interesting thought, though I don't know if we can look at learning Latin grammar in quite the same way as English, because we already know the English language. It may be a fun activity for a more advanced student who has already mastered the basics. Reading Latin literature certainly is something to look forward to down the road. Don't forget that in Latin, the endings are right there, making certain aspects of grammar explicit in the words themselves.

 

I understand that there are inflected ending in Latin. I would just enjoy seeing real Latin sentences (as opposed to fake ones) parsed in context with commentary and notes, rather that than only running through declensions and conjunctions in isolation, or within the narrow confines of fake-Latin.

 

For a beginning student there are enough ambiguities even with the inflected ending to cause confusion at time (at least for me) and I would love to see a multi-level parsing of real Latin sentences or paragraphs with notes that would show how genuine Latin sentences (and not just simple ones) are constructed.

 

 

You'd probably like LNM, which is a hybrid approach of both grammar and immersion. (My personal preference is to do without the reading of passages that include grammar one hasn't yet been taught how to read, but that's just me.) I don't know what age LNM is appropriate for - I'd guess late middle school and high school. Last time I looked at it, I recall a lot of vocab per lesson, probably too much for elementary school. I recall that I very much liked the grammar explanations in the samples.

 

I looked at the previews when it first came out. I should look again.

 

Henle has a systematic grammar approach and lots of translation in both directions. It even has a bit of sentence diagramming :). At the elementary level, it seems there are not very many programs that are heavy on translation, which I think is a shame. Henle, as you may know, was written for high school with no prerequisite knowledge, but I think it's accessible to most middle schoolers and some late elementary students, if they've had some prior exposure and a decent bit of English grammar. (plus, it can feed your inner altar server ;)).

 

I prefer "inner altar boy" :D

 

Unless you can tell me the Latin for "altar boy"? That would be cool!

 

I'm sure Ester Maria will be happy to write us a dream Latin curriculum in her spare time :)

 

I'm glad were in agreement on this point. Hopefully she can jump on that right away. With the addition of personalized tutoring from Ester Maria via Skype we ought to be gold!

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

So, for a parent who has not studied Latin, but who has a respectable comfort level with Latin roots (I have a fondness for reading word etymologies) and (at least) Romance language grammar, what would you recommend as a curriculum for a highly motivated middle schooler? I have Eccentric Romani, but was thinking of replacing with Lingua Latina.

 

Eccentric Romani :lol:

 

I purchased ER. Useless for self-study (at least for me). Some say it works in a classroom with a great teacher. But there is not enough "reading" to learn by immersion and not enough grammar to learn that way either. Not for me anyway. It is one of those neither fish nor fowl approaches that puts together the worst of both.

 

But I know some teachers like and and seem to make it work.

 

Lingua Latina at least has enough reading that one gets the point.

 

Bill

[dragons in the flower bed]

I've used Song School Latin, Lingua Latina and Rosetta Stone Latin. They each have their own advantages.

 

Song School Latin is annoying. My preschoolers, though, thought it was great. It moves very slowly and that's it's main advantage.

 

LL can be as deep and rich as you want to go with it. My language buff really likes it. If you don't know any Latin, you probably want to use something else or gather up additional resources to help you.

 

Rosetta Stone is, well, Rosetta Stone. Stick your kids in front of the computer and they come away excited because they figured out a puzzle and learned a whole bunch, but it went slowly enough that they got it, unless they got bored.

 

I would recommend the new http://www.ispeaklatin.com/. It's easy for parents and fun for kids and I think it hits the sweet spot between advanced like LL and sickly easy like SS.

[cloversandlions]

Eccentric Romani :lol:

 

 

:eek: :blush:

 

Typing on iPad...! Darn auto-correct!

 

Obviously, trying to stay off the computer by squeezing in a few minutes on the iDevice is not without its own challenges: stay up too late on the computer, or humiliate yourself on the iPad. Hmmm.

 

I'm still strongly considering the Lingua Latina, but as I'm completely unfamiliar with any other Latin program, I don't want to leap without looking. Typing without looking is dangerous enough. :laugh:

[Spy Car]

:eek: :blush:

 

Typing on iPad...! Darn auto-correct!

 

Obviously, trying to stay off the computer by squeezing in a few minutes on the iDevice is not without its own challenges: stay up too late on the computer, or humiliate yourself on the iPad. Hmmm.

 

I'm still strongly considering the Lingua Latina, but as I'm completely unfamiliar with any other Latin program, I don't want to leap without looking. Typing without looking is dangerous enough. :laugh:

 

I thought it was "commentary" (honestly) :lol:

 

I've had some pretty funny iPad autocorrections myself!!!

 

Again, I'm not the worlds greatest Latinist, not close. More like average guy trying to plunk along on his own.

 

It may or may not be enough on it's own for you (I needed grammar too), and when I started there was no grammar book tied to LL as there is now with the College Companion.

 

But I do know that I feel inspired when I sit down and read in Latin (even if it is "fake Latin" and I can glean the grammar points and understand the vocabulary just from reading. I eventually hit a wall which is common with students using LL without a teacher tutor as eventually it gets tricky (around chapter 12 or 13, if memory serves. This time I hope the Companion makes the tricky grammar points more clear and stands in for the lack of a tutor, at least to some degree.

 

It is a fun component to have as part of a Latin program.

 

Bill (sent from iPad)

[Janie Grace]

E

I purchased ER. Useless for self-study (at least for me). Some say it works in a classroom with a great teacher. But there is not enough "reading" to learn by immersion and not enough grammar to learn that way either. Not for me anyway. It is one of those neither fish nor fowl approaches that puts together the worst of both.

 

 

"The worst of both"? Wow, that's pretty scathing critique. I was taught using ER in high school and it was excellent (I aced the N'tl Latin exam and could translate very well). There is plenty of reading when you get into the upper levels. It seems like you want to jump into the deep end of the pool and be reading Cicero in year 1. That's not realistic. You are not going to understand complex constructions using verb endings you haven't learned yet. You're talking about "fake Latin" as if the simple practice sentences that are created for introductory Latin aren't "real." But I think that's like an early reader calling the Bob Books or Dr. Suess "fake English" and saying that he wants to read Shakespeare right away. I think you need to realize that with any program, it's going to take time to get to the meaty stuff.

[wapiti]

I understand that there are inflected ending in Latin. I would just enjoy seeing real Latin sentences (as opposed to fake ones) parsed in context with commentary and notes, rather that than only running through declensions and conjunctions in isolation, or within the narrow confines of fake-Latin.

 

For a beginning student there are enough ambiguities even with the inflected ending to cause confusion at time (at least for me) and I would love to see a multi-level parsing of real Latin sentences or paragraphs with notes that would show how genuine Latin sentences (and not just simple ones) are constructed.

 

This, almost word-for-word, including the reference to Suess and Bob, is what I wanted to say:

 

It seems like you want to jump into the deep end of the pool and be reading Cicero in year 1. That's not realistic. You are not going to understand complex constructions using verb endings you haven't learned yet. You're talking about "fake Latin" as if the simple practice sentences that are created for introductory Latin aren't "real." But I think that's like an early reader calling the Bob Books or Dr. Suess "fake English" and saying that he wants to read Shakespeare right away. I think you need to realize that with any program, it's going to take time to get to the meaty stuff.

 

Be patient, and I have no doubt he'll be reading Cicero before you're finished with him :). (By the way, my recommendation for GSWL was for him, since you've already had some Latin. For elementary age, no other introductory book I know of will get you as far as fast as that one, for beginning to understand some grammar. It includes the first and second declensions, but only the present tense, and the learning is gentle and relatively painless. Translations = puzzles.)

 

As for altar boy, my guess might be puer arae (boy of the altar? :lol:). I have no idea - maybe just ara puer (help?!)

Edited August 1, 2011 by wapiti

[Spy Car]

"The worst of both"? Wow, that's pretty scathing critique. I was taught using ER in high school and it was excellent (I aced the N'tl Latin exam and could translate very well). There is plenty of reading when you get into the upper levels. It seems like you want to jump into the deep end of the pool and be reading Cicero in year 1. That's not realistic. You are not going to understand complex constructions using verb endings you haven't learned yet. You're talking about "fake Latin" as if the simple practice sentences that are created for introductory Latin aren't "real." But I think that's like an early reader calling the Bob Books or Dr. Suess "fake English" and saying that he wants to read Shakespeare right away. I think you need to realize that with any program, it's going to take time to get to the meaty stuff.

 

The phrase "fake Latin" is a recognition of Ester Maria's point about Lingua Latina (a program I have enjoyed) and many of the simple Latin sentences students read in other Latin books. I understand the need to begin simply and to build up ones abilities (Bob Books to Shakespeare, sort of speak).

 

My point, which perhaps I didn't get across clearly, is that I would enjoy a resource that included multi-level analysis (with notes and commentaries) of some more difficult (and genuine) Latin writings that (with the addition of these parsing and notes) gave me an idea of how Romans actually wrote and constructed sentences.

 

As to Ecco Romani, my comments reflected its poor fit (from my perspective) for self-study. I did not find enough "reading" for ER to serve as a natural language program, nor enough grammar to be a grammar approach.

 

I also mentioned that many knowledgeable Latin teachers seem to

like ER and make in work in a classroom setting. But what may work well in a classroom with an experienced Latin teacher is not necessarily the best option for self-study at home when one has little or no Latin experience.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

This, almost word-for-word, including the reference to Suess and Bob, is what I wanted to say:

 

Try reading translations of Dr Suess in Latin without notes and see how far you get ;)

 

I do think you all missed my point. I like Lingua Latina. My use of "fake Latin" was a recognition of EMs point that LL uses simplified Latin to get introductory Latin students learning. I like, and benefit from, that sort of approach. I'm not sure you'd call LL a "Bob Book" exactly, but it does give the student a way to incrementally learn vocabulary and grammar point through reading simplified Latin written to the purpose.

 

Were I to attempt reading something like the Vulgate Bible (as EM suggests) I would need a "teacher" of some sort to make much of it crystal clear on a "grammar" level. So, I'm thinking it would be interesting (to me anyway) to have passages of "real" Latin that included multi-level parsing, including a notation of all the inflections of all the words in the sentence (things that would be "obvious" to a seasoned Latinist) and notes and commentaries.

 

So one might, by reading, have an experience remotely akin to that EM might do with her children. I think that would be fun.

 

The closest I've gotten is going through the opening passages of the Aenid with multiple books open and trying to aggregate the commentaries and my own (rudimentary) knowledge of Latin to work through the text. But why not have have a parsed and annotated set of passages a student could read through with the notes of an expert to enlighten the student?

 

Not every sentence has to be about the farmer, the sailor, or the household's Greek slave. Yes?

 

As for altar boy, my guess might be puer arae (boy of the altar? :lol:). I have no idea - maybe just ara puer (help?!)

 

Before I can accept a term other than "altar boy" I have to know it has been blessed by the Church :D

 

Bill

Edited August 1, 2011 by Spy Car

[Ester Maria]

Bill, you can find lots of elementary simplified readers here and read on something called GRASP metod here (which is not exactly the same thing what I did with my daughters, but the closest description of it that I found - again, though, it requires a knowledgeable teacher, but just for your information of loosely what I had in mind). That site is generally good, go to "acceleration readers" too here and see how they syntactically break down things. THIS is crucial - and it goes directly AGAINST what most reading method Latin texts do with overfocus on "intuition" and not enough focus on dissecting of this type. When I grade Latin translations, I take each little part in those types of units.

 

On an example of the samples from one Italian textbook used for beginner Latin study, you can see how the material generally gets organized:

Here you have exercises for a lesson. If you skip that table and see "esercizi di applicazione", you see that the format starts with practice of forms (conjugate these - in order for it to become automatic), continues with the practice of form recognition and adequate translation (recognize these), then you have exercises of translation to-from with minimal help. Skip vocabulary and tables, you will see more of those sentences - all of which are still pretty much made up at this point (these is all beginner Latin content). If you scroll further to "versioni di ricapitolazione", you will see that they include sort of slightly 'pedagogically altered' texts, which is what they typically do at the beginning. You just cannot avoid it because while there are few isolated sentences which can serve as an illustration of something studied, to get big chunks and translation exercises, you need to adapt. But here is the thing: they attempt to mimize "inventions" and "interventions" (which is hard at the beginner levels), so they tend to paraphrase a lot. They DO NOT invent stories about Roman families specifically written by textbook authors' to read.

A bit further, though, in the same textbook, like in the sample here, look what they do: scroll to exercises and see that they are all taken from authors, i.e. the original texts, whenever possible, are used to be worked on.

(And as you can see, perfectly to Ester's taste, it is a fluff-free sample. :tongue_smilie: I dream of such textbooks, though I am not familiar with that specific one, it may be that it does have visual distractions in the printed form.)

 

You can learn practically all of Latin morphosyntax from resources like this, better than the vast majority of textbooks I have seen AND fluff-free. Click to "iter tertium", then to "il caso latino e le funzioni logiche" for a demonstration of cases, scroll down to tables and see examples from literature (there in red) right away. If you look further into the course, most of exercises are lit-based. Heck, they teach basic syntax via long excerpts from Aeneid and Bello Gallico.

 

A program like this last one on the market would be bought by a few dozen people, if that much. People prefer colors, fluff, stories about Roman families, more color, more pictures, more fluff about Roman history, "the word of the day", more fluff and color, pedagogically bad sequences of which you cannot make head or tails because they are so disjointed, etc. I considered it, but (i) I pick my battles, and (ii) I do not have enough high formal qualifications specifically in Latin, i.e. I know Latin, but I am not an expert, so I do not dare to make a course, it would be too great responsibility for me and I am not sure I could do it justice and pretend the level of scholarship I do not have. But this (last one) is a perfectly ordered course (and totally free online - if you speak Italian - but I am showing it for the sake of structure), with pedagogically perfect examples, I would maybe amplify it a bit if possible and attempt to add more and earlier reading (though I would base it on postclassical Latin and Vulgate, and use classical Latin for the actual study), but for the most part, if I were to make a course, it would largely be like that. The language is so clear that it can be used by a grammatically literate child too - not sure about elementary, but a concentrated and bright middle schooler could go through it with no problems, in my view.

 

On this site you have collections of translations (solved multiple times) assigned in Italian lycees from 40s onward, you can search entire databases based on textbooks used. Keep it away from your kids if they speak Italian, though, because all the solutions are there too, LOL. Italian students love this site for obvious reasons, darn cheaters of 21st century. :tongue_smilie: Not very useful to you, maybe, but if you manage to figure out difficulty levels, you can at least see what types of texts are worked on for various levels and arrange your readings accordingly.

 

And finally, if you are really into the whole "using" Latin thing, a group of students from one Italian lycee organized a whole course based on dialogues (they even filmed them!) and usage-based grammar here. I do not guarantee the quality of this as I did not actually review it, it is only something I came across while searching for things for you, but I assume they have technically correct formulations if they did it under the supervision of their professor.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Ester Maria
I should not refer to Italian students who use different methods as "traitors", LOL

[wapiti]

Try reading translations of Dr Suess in Latin without notes and see how far you get ;)

 

I know - we have The Grinch. (We also have Winnie Ille Pu :))

 

Hopefully EM's fantastic post will help you. If dissection is what you want, that sounds much more like a grammar approach than an immersion approach. For efficient self-education, if you have time, I'd go back to Wheelock's and be done with it. For your ds, why not begin at the beginning? Personally, I didn't choose LL because I prefer the grammar approach over the immersion approach. But IMO, one of the keys to the grammar approach is choosing a well-organized curriculum with lots of translation.

 

Before I can accept a term other than "altar boy" I have to know it has been blessed by the Church :D

 

I can't help you there - I haven't been to Latin mass since high school.

Edited August 1, 2011 by wapiti

[Violet Crown]

I think the word everyone is looking for is acolytus. Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolytus, Subdiaconus, Diaconus, Sacerdos.

 

I'm intrigued by the thought of Latin by immersion, and have been working on that myself. It's true that I had a conversation just yesterday where this guy told me "Sursum corda," and I replied, "Habemus ad Dominum," to which he suggested "Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro," and I observed, "Dignum et justum est."

 

But though that went well, I admit that all I get out of hearing Latin words like quotquot so far is "Kneel in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...." So I'm going to stick to Artes Latinae and keep learning it the hard way for a while.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Sharon in Austin

[Spy Car]

Bill, you can find lots of elementary simplified readers here and read on something called GRASP metod here (which is not exactly the same thing what I did with my daughters, but the closest description of it that I found - again, though, it requires a knowledgeable teacher, but just for your information of loosely what I had in mind). That site is generally good, go to "acceleration readers" too here and see how they syntactically break down things. THIS is crucial - and it goes directly AGAINST what most reading method Latin texts do with overfocus on "intuition" and not enough focus on dissecting of this type. When I grade Latin translations, I take each little part in those types of units.

 

On an example of the samples from one Italian textbook used for beginner Latin study, you can see how the material generally gets organized:

Here you have exercises for a lesson. If you skip that table and see "esercizi di applicazione", you see that the format starts with practice of forms (conjugate these - in order for it to become automatic), continues with the practice of form recognition and adequate translation (recognize these), then you have exercises of translation to-from with minimal help. Skip vocabulary and tables, you will see more of those sentences - all of which are still pretty much made up at this point (these is all beginner Latin content). If you scroll further to "versioni di ricapitolazione", you will see that they include sort of slightly 'pedagogically altered' texts, which is what they typically do at the beginning. You just cannot avoid it because while there are few isolated sentences which can serve as an illustration of something studied, to get big chunks and translation exercises, you need to adapt. But here is the thing: they attempt to mimize "inventions" and "interventions" (which is hard at the beginner levels), so they tend to paraphrase a lot. They DO NOT invent stories about Roman families specifically written by textbook authors' to read.

A bit further, though, in the same textbook, like in the sample here, look what they do: scroll to exercises and see that they are all taken from authors, i.e. the original texts, whenever possible, are used to be worked on.

(And as you can see, perfectly to Ester's taste, it is a fluff-free sample. :tongue_smilie: I dream of such textbooks, though I am not familiar with that specific one, it may be that it does have visual distractions in the printed form.)

 

You can learn practically all of Latin morphosyntax from resources like this, better than the vast majority of textbooks I have seen AND fluff-free. Click to "iter tertium", then to "il caso latino e le funzioni logiche" for a demonstration of cases, scroll down to tables and see examples from literature (there in red) right away. If you look further into the course, most of exercises are lit-based. Heck, they teach basic syntax via long excerpts from Aeneid and Bello Gallico.

 

A program like this last one on the market would be bought by a few dozen people, if that much. People prefer colors, fluff, stories about Roman families, more color, more pictures, more fluff about Roman history, "the word of the day", more fluff and color, pedagogically bad sequences of which you cannot make head or tails because they are so disjointed, etc. I considered it, but (i) I pick my battles, and (ii) I do not have enough high formal qualifications specifically in Latin, i.e. I know Latin, but I am not an expert, so I do not dare to make a course, it would be too great responsibility for me and I am not sure I could do it justice and pretend the level of scholarship I do not have. But this (last one) is a perfectly ordered course (and totally free online - if you speak Italian - but I am showing it for the sake of structure), with pedagogically perfect examples, I would maybe amplify it a bit if possible and attempt to add more and earlier reading (though I would base it on postclassical Latin and Vulgate, and use classical Latin for the actual study), but for the most part, if I were to make a course, it would largely be like that. The language is so clear that it can be used by a grammatically literate child too - not sure about elementary, but a concentrated and bright middle schooler could go through it with no problems, in my view.

 

On this site you have collections of translations (solved multiple times) assigned in Italian lycees from 40s onward, you can search entire databases based on textbooks used. Keep it away from your kids if they speak Italian, though, because all the solutions are there too, LOL. Italian students love this site for obvious reasons, darn cheaters of 21st century. :tongue_smilie: Not very useful to you, maybe, but if you manage to figure out difficulty levels, you can at least see what types of texts are worked on for various levels and arrange your readings accordingly.

 

And finally, if you are really into the whole "using" Latin thing, a group of students from one Italian lycee organized a whole course based on dialogues (they even filmed them!) and usage-based grammar here. I do not guarantee the quality of this as I did not actually review it, it is only something I came across while searching for things for you, but I assume they have technically correct formulations if they did it under the supervision of their professor.

 

Are you telling me I going to need to learn Italian first before I learn Latin? :lol:

 

Thank you for the wonderful post. I will need to read, re-read and delve into the links to make sense of what your saying, but I know it will be worth my time, and I thank you for your time!!!

 

Bill (who enjoyed the " traitors" part :tongue_smilie:)

[Spy Car]

I know - we have The Grinch. (We also have Winnie Ille Pu :))

 

We have The Giving Tree

 

Hopefully EM's fantastic post will help you. If dissection is what you want, that sounds much more like a grammar approach than an immersion approach. For efficient self-education, if you have time, I'd go back to Wheelock's and be done with it.

 

Wheelocks is good, in it's own way, but it is also very boring. I get that somethings in life a boring—too bad—and you do it because "it's good for you."

 

When I read Lingua Latina I am happy. I understand the limits.

 

Wheelocks doesn't have what I'm talking about in terms of parsing Latin passages on multiple levels and having notes and commentaries on usage.

 

We have just begun working through MCTs Grammar Island. I am so intrigued by the way he teaches student to analyze English in a multi-level process. I would love to look at Latin in a similar fashion with help from a program.

 

Such a thing may not exist, I don't know. I look forward to learning Italian :D

 

For your ds, why not begin at the beginning? Personally, I didn't choose LL because I prefer the grammar approach over the immersion approach. But IMO, one of the keys to the grammar approach is choosing a well-organized curriculum with lots of translation.

 

I think we will try both.

 

Bill

Edited August 1, 2011 by Spy Car

[wapiti]

Wheelocks doesn't have what I'm talking about in terms of parsing Latin passages on multiple levels and having notes and commentaries on usage.

 

That sort of thing probably would not be in the first book, but in second or third year, where you might find the type of reading and teaching on usage. I'd ask the Wheelock users over on the high school board about teacher helps and TMs or answer keys at the higher levels (or any other similar curriculum). I only have the vaguest, gory memory of reading Caesar, LOL (>25 yrs ago), and of course that was in a class with a teacher.

 

:lol:... or, poke around on Amazon long enough and who knows what you'll find, maybe War With Hannibal: Authentic Latin Prose for the Beginning Student:

 

This edition of Book III of Eutropius’s Breviarium ab urbe condita is designed to be a student’s first encounter with authentic, unabridged Latin prose. Written in a simple and direct style, the Breviarium covers the period of Roman history that students find the most interesting—the Second Punic War fought against Carthage—and the original Latin text is supplemented with considerable learning support. Full annotations on every page, detailed commentary on grammar and syntax, and a glossary designed specifically for the text allow students to build both their confidence and their reading skills.

 

The commentary in the back of the book is cross-referenced to the following commonly used textbooks:

 

Wheelock’s Latin, 6th Edition

Latin: An Intensive Course by Moreland and Fleischer

Ecce Romani II, 3rd Edition

Latin for Americans, Level 2

Jenney’s Second Year Latin

Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar

 

Macrons have been added to the entire text in accordance with the vowel quantities used in the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Additional resources include an unannotated version of the text for classroom use, supplementary passages in English from other ancient authors, and appendixes with a timeline of events and maps and battle plans.

 

The text may be used in secondary schools and colleges as early as the first year of study. The copious translation help, notes, and cross-references also make it ideal for independent learners.

 

 

It sounds like it assumes at least some prior study, though perhaps it's what you're looking for, maybe to supplement Wheelock's. ETA: note that three of the texts cross-referenced are "second-year" texts - I'd take that as a big clue about where it may fit in terms of pre-requisite knowledge. If you poke around more, who knows what you may find.

Edited August 1, 2011 by wapiti

[Nomen Nescio]

I think it's harsh and inaccurate to describe potted Latin as "fake". Furthermore, if we want to learn to read Cicero in his own words, we could stand to have a great deal more "fluff" to read in preparation.

 

Even if you could name a child who was given nothing but high, sophisticated reading material in English and was thereby successfully cultivated into developing a love of reading, you still wouldn't want to bet the same thing would work on your child. Most of the lovers of literature you know got there by reading massive piles of tripe.

 

Likewise, in Latin the consumption of silly stories eases the path to familiarity. The problem is that there isn't nearly enough of it graded for different levels of comprehension. Lingua Latina per Se Illustrata partly makes up for this, but it helps that there are other readers, such as Oerberg's own Colloquia Personarum, 38 Latin Stories to Accompany Wheelock, Ora Maritima and Pro Patria (available on Archive.org), Ritchie's Fabulae Faciles, and so on. You can also find graded passages to be read in other core textbooks such as Ecce Romani (which is often available cheap in used bookstores) or Latin Via Ovid.

 

However, I don't see even persistent reading as a substitute for grammar. When I first encountered Oerberg, I had 40 chapters of Wheelock under my belt. It seemed unlikely that anyone is getting the full value out of Lingua Latina without also studying grammar itself. On the other hand, like most people who had worked all the way through Wheelock, I would not have been able to pick up a piece of Latin and simply understand it until after I had worked my way through Familia Romana. I would say that the benefits of reading and of studying grammar stack, and that each makes the other easier.

 

As for the use of spoken Latin, I just this weekend returned from the Conventiculum Lexintoniensi, so clearly I was sold on the value of speaking before I even made the trip. There I saw wondrous improvement in even the least prepared amongst us in readily confabulating in Latin. But even short of spending a week or so in full Latin immersion, the more you accustom yourself to the sound of the language, both coming out of your own face and going into your ears, the less alien it becomes. And if you're actually communicating, then the part of your linguistic brain that thrives on talk is engaged rather than lying disused.

[Ester Maria]

I think it's harsh and inaccurate to describe potted Latin as "fake". Furthermore, if we want to learn to read Cicero in his own words, we could stand to have a great deal more "fluff" to read in preparation.

I think there is an *enormous* difference between using something as a stepping stone and using something as a stand-alone course. Many of those courses are not supplementary courses to grammar-based courses, but are used as stand-alone courses and for many people, that is as far as they get, i.e. they get nowhere, quite literally, because the only Latin they saw was "fabricated" one.

 

I do recognize that a certain amount of "fabrication" and adaption needs to be there as a stepping stone. Yet, there is a huge difference in doing that - and minimizing it - and seeing an actual value in that, i.e. making entire courses based on fabricated dialogues and things of the kind. Gradual progress - from fabrication to merely adaptation to no-adaptation but with commentary for unknown things, to full texts - seems like an ideal solution to me and I would not award a credit for programs like CLC or LL as stand-alone courses.

 

Spoken Latin is another beast, though. As long as it does not turn into a conlang and does not suffer Hebrew's fate, I have no objections (my attitude towards it is a lot more complex than what I write here, typically I do not elaborate but simplify it to "I prefer not to") - I "only" hold extreme reservations as to how much Latin can be spoken in a modern day context without it turning into something else. Think of Mishnaic-Rabbinical Hebrew vs. "modern, resurrected Hebrew". The former has an authenticity within its fairly limited scope; the latter is a conlang with an extremely artificial feeling to it and real difficulties as to how to "behave" in a modern world. In the process of several generations of being spoken outside of a religious context, it did reach a sort of "naturality" - too bad that it became a different language in that process. And that reading and understanding that Hebrew actually makes serious semantic blocs for people attempting to understand Biblical and Rabbninical layers of the language. By resurrecting Hebrew, they largely destroyed Hebrew - incredible, but true.

 

ETA: I see that you have fairly few posts, I am not sure whether you are around here a lot and "know" me or just drop by occasionally, so just to make sure on one thing: I do not think that seeing a value in speaking Latin is a morally corrupted choice or whatever (I just have a tongue-in-cheek way of writing quite often, you should not take me very literally when I use words like "traitors" or whatnot, I actually mean it with a sort of sympathy because kids really are cute :), albeit I still disagree with the choice).

The approach you talk about DOES collide with my view, but I accept that many latinists in fact view value in active, applied to everyday life, spoken Latin, even a new Latin, etc. I hold it, in my way, a "heretical" position, because not only I do not see a value in it, I actually see a value in not doing it and in keeping Latin "fixed" in its historical-thematic setting and world and not furthered, but I do not think that people who think differently are "bad" in some way. I do think the *choice* is bad, and I have my grounds for such reasoning (as you might have for thinking that my choice is bad), but it is not *personal*. I typically do not enter elaborations of these issues on these boards as my position on both inauthentic texts and spoken Latin is not as clear cut as one would think and I do not think the format of the forum lends itself to the kind of explanation I would give with a *detailed* description of my preferences, so I tend to simplify things, so to speak. Just wanted to make sure that you know that I do not intend to offend if you have different views.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Ester Maria