Languages AFTER English Grammar?

[stm4him]

I will admit to having very high goals for the study of other languages in our home.  Only time will tell how realistic they are or aren't, but it doesn't hurt to have goals.  I am not asking for critique of my goals, but for help in deciding when it is best to begin the study of these other languages.  We DO have immersion videos and a few books and my husband speaks Spanish fluently (though nowhere near perfectly), so our children are exposed at an early age to the sounds of both French and Spanish.  I know that is going to come up and I agree that that is helpful and that is already covered in our home.

 

I believe Latin to be useful to study before French and Spanish.  My goal for French is that my children can read it when they come across it in the classics.  They don't need to know it well enough to speak it or write it unless they take a special liking to French.  My goal for Spanish is that they will be able to speak it because I believe it can be used in ministry, especially since my husband can also speak it.  Obviously both could be useful in travel situations.

 

I also want my children to study enough Greek and Hebrew that they can read the Bible in its original languages.  I plan to use Mounce's for this.

 

Thus far, we have studied to about halfway through Latin's Not So Tough and Hey Andrew Greek.  I really like both programs and my children don't mind them,  In fact, my 10 year old son really likes Greek.  My 13 year old prefers Latin, but doesn't really love either.  She dabbled in Henle but didn't like it as much and it moved too fast for her.  My 8 year old just finished Level 1 of the Greek and is almost done with the Latin.  That level mostly contains the sounds of both languages, but it is neat that my 8 year old and I can have conversations comparing the sounds of English, the advanced phonograms used in English words that came from other languages, and the sounds used in both Latin and Greek.  They have also learned some conjugation and declension chants and John 1:1-7 in Latin through CC.  We review those each month.

 

My oldest two continually have problems with direct objects and other word ending issues though we have gone over a good amount of grammar in the Essentials program at CC and at home.  As much as I enjoy our half hour (and sometimes less) of Greek and Latin each day (that is combined time, not a half hour each), I am considering whether it would be better to hold off until they were no longer tripping over the grammar so much.  All of them don't have the best skills with punctuation (as evidenced on the standardized test I recently gave them) despite their reading levels (some think this comes pretty automatically if they read well but I beg to differ).  The oldest two are using Hake Grammar and I can tell that they have improved just from the time we have used it in the last several weeks.  The third does copywork daily and often does dictation with me but otherwise doesn't practice editing skills or other mechanics exercises.  

 

Anyway, I am debating whether to focus more intensely on English grammar and then start them later in the other languages or to continue on so that they won't lose all that we have done so far.  I am also considering when I want to start my younger children in the future.  I know that those subjects are often covered only in middle or high school in America, but I also wonder if they are retained less because a few years isn't long enough and it isn't taking advantage of the time when language is developed in the brain.  In the two programs we are using (written by the same author), grammar is not explicitly taught until the fourth level so part of me thinks if we can muddle through the second half of level three much of it will become more clear when we read level 4 and by that time they will also be further along in their Hake books and will have that knowledge to aid them in their studies.  Just to be clear, I am not confused by what we are learning (other than the marks on the Greek words, which I still have no idea about).  It makes perfect sense to me and I have used the teacher notes to explain as we go what is not explained to the student directly.  But I am tired of trying to explain it to them for the umpteenth time or correct their guesswork when they are either too lazy or too confused to figure out the correct ending or the correct translations using the declension charts.  I may choose to continue studying on my own for fun :-)

 

I want to see if anyone regrets waiting to teach other languages (especially Latin or Greek) or if you are happy you waited until grammar no longer got in the way.  I definitely don't want the grammar to be learned only through the language as I feel that it was hard for me to try to learn advanced grammar and French at the same time.  I am definitely in the camp that English grammar should be taught either BEFORE or ALONGSIDE grammar in other languages, and don't believe it is best to replace the study of English grammar with a foreign language so it will be "relevant" as Andrew Pudewa would say (though I value his opinions on writing).  

 

Thank you for your input.  

[lllll]

..

[mom2bee]

I am not knowledgeable about Latin or Greek so hopefully what I am about to say is still relevant.

 

Personally, I would not stop progress in the foreign languages to work on grammar in English. I would treat their trouble spot with grammar just like I treat all other NON-road block trouble spots--work on it in little increments daily while continuing on with the meat of the program. Many concepts just take time, but it is very rarely an "all or nothing" type deal.

 

We'd do a couple of short exercises on that one trouble spot everyday for a year if need be--but we'd continue on in both our FL and our Eng Grammar studies.

Every day chant the definition of in/direct object (pronouns), look at 1-2 example sentences and ID the in/direct object (pronoun) and then do do 1-3 exercises with the indirect object pronouns on the white board. In the beginning you'll be guiding them through the warm-up, then you'll be holding their hand, then you'll be supervising them and finally they'll be independent with using the in/direct objects. When you grade their work, walk them through the mistake each time, make them chant the definition and recall the example from earlier that day and make the correction.

[Tsuga]

Latin and Greek grammar are very hard subjects. Period. I know, besides my native language, one language fluently, the other conversantly (I could use it for non-literary work), and two spoken. I read Latin, or rather, did, before I stopped studying it, and read Greek for several years. I will admit that lack of exposure and conversation have really let my Latin and Greek languish. But I did cover three years of college-level Latin and two years of college-level Greek.

 

My thoughts:

 

I would never consider stopping until a child had better English grammar. On the contrary, this challenging curriculum your children are enjoying will build a very strong scaffold for their language development across the board.

 

I say, press on. I know it's hard but it will always be hard. Your kids are incredibly lucky to have such an energetic mom to keep all of this going.

[stm4him]

Thank you all for your input.  I will continue to press on then and at least get us through book 4 and see if the lightbulb comes on.......

 

Here is my basic "dream" outline:

 

From the time they can read well-6th grade: Latin's Not So Tough 1-6 and Hey Andrew 1-6

7th-8th Grade: French 1 and 2, Hey Andrew 7-8, read the Vulgate or other works in Latin 

9th-10th Grade: Spanish 1 and 2, Mounce's Greek, continue reading Latin and French Bible or other works

11th-12th Grade: Spanish 3 and 4 (or other immersion experience of some kind), Mounce's Hebrew, continue reading Latin, French, and Greek Bible or other works

 

I would be interested in them learning some Attic Greek (is that what you call it?) to read original works but wouldn't push it b/c it isn't my main goal.

[Amira]

Here's how things worked for me and my boys. I took Latin 2 in 9th grade, French 4 in 11th, and Russian my senior year. Both of my older boys started with Latin around third grade and continued doing it through about seventh grade. They did some Russian before and after Latin and my middle son did some Farsi in elementary and French in middle school. My oldest switched to Spanish after Latin. They both are focusing on Spanish in high school and my middle son will also be required to work on Arabic his junior and senior year.

 

For us, other languages have either helped with English grammar or not affected it. Personally, I thought Latin helped me a lot with enough because it taught me a new take on grammar. Instead of thinking of them as two separate things- English grammar and Latin grammar- it all just was grammar. It helped me with Russian and French in high school and afterwards as I went on to minor in Arabic and did some Kyrgyz and Uzbek. Kyrgyz and Uzbek in particular have a very different grammatical structure but the background I got in junior high with Latin and English was still helpful.

 

I have learned that I need to let my kids have a lot of say in what language they study. I do require a language at all times, but as they've gotten older I've found it's usually better to let them choose which one it is, especially in high school. Languages are hard to learn and it's a lot better if they feel some personal motivation in learning one. (Which means that I'm hoping that it doesn't backfire on me that I'll specifically require my middle son to work on Arabic, but we'll be living in the Middle East at the time which changes things a bit.)

[Laura Corin]

For us, living languages came first, then dead ones later.  This ties into the 'sponge' ability of small children.  So both mine started off with spoken Chinese, moved on to written Chinese, then added in Latin.  We added French after that (it wasn't a priority to us earlier).  I didn't wait until English grammar was perfect before starting foreign languages.

[8filltheheart]

Thank you all for your input.  I will continue to press on then and at least get us through book 4 and see if the lightbulb comes on.......

 

Here is my basic "dream" outline:

 

From the time they can read well-6th grade: Latin's Not So Tough 1-6 and Hey Andrew 1-6

7th-8th Grade: French 1 and 2, Hey Andrew 7-8, read the Vulgate or other works in Latin 

9th-10th Grade: Spanish 1 and 2, Mounce's Greek, continue reading Latin and French Bible or other works

11th-12th Grade: Spanish 3 and 4 (or other immersion experience of some kind), Mounce's Hebrew, continue reading Latin, French, and Greek Bible or other works

 

I would be interested in them learning some Attic Greek (is that what you call it?) to read original works but wouldn't push it b/c it isn't my main goal.

 

I don't think this is a realistic plan.  I read this review of Latin's Not So Tough and the review states that the author recommends following LNST with Wheelock's. http://www.homeschoolchristian.com/curricula/reviews/mohs.php

That suggests to me that a student is still going to need a solid run through grammar with a broader vocab.  It is very doubtful the student would be ready to tackle the Vulgate and would be more likely near the Latin 3 level by the end of Wheelock's.  My dd has completed Latin 4 and I am NOT confident she has the vocabulary for the Vulgate. (FWIW, she completed Wheelocks after 5 of the Galore Park Latin books and encountered a lot of new vocabulary.)

 

Ditto to being able to read the Bible in French after 2 yrs of French.  After completing all the levels of Breaking the Barrier (which goes through their level 4/AP level) plus French in Action, my dd is reading children's works in French.  (She has been reading the Chronicles of Narnia.)

 

Introductory levels of foreign languages have controlled vocabularies, similar to children's basal readers.  Your vocab can be very much linked to whatever program you have used.  The vocabulary in the Bible is going to be way outside the bounds of the vocab covered in ANY French level 1 and 2 program.  You are talking about 4-5 yrs of foreign language study before you even approach that level of ability.

 

FWIW, my dd's strength in grammar has definitely served her well in studying all of her foreign languages.  Her Russian teacher believes it is why her Russian is so strong.

[stm4him]

But wouldn't they be equipped to read a few verses per day with a dictionary? 

[Laura Corin]

But wouldn't they be equipped to read a few verses per day with a dictionary? 

 

I agree with '8' - having studied French and Chinese to fluency myself, I think that your schedule is a tall order.

 

For comparison, I studied French at school from age 11 to 18.  At about age 17, I was finally reading unsimplified adult texts: a modern novel first, then moving on to Le Grand Meaulnes and finally Candide.  .  I studied Latin from age 12 to 16 and started to read (with massive amounts of help and a translation crib) parts of the Aeneid at age 16.  

 

I suppose the question would be: what would one get out of reading bible verses painfully in a foreign language when one is not really fluent, and the linguistic and spiritual meaning is not really solid?

[8filltheheart]

My personal thoughts are that they would be far better served using programs which help them understand how different vocabs with different cases are used in writing.  2 yrs of high school level foreign lang is really just a tiny step into the language.  It is a long way from any real proficiency.  Especially in terms of French and other living languages, proficiency through listening, speaking, etc. is going to lead to higher levels than translating word by word verses from the Bible.  That approach will actually be very limiting and most probably frustrating.

 

WIth Latin, spending time with readers, both prose and poetry, with direct instruction attached to those readings enabling the student to master the constructions would also lead to more successfully translating something like the Vulgate.

[SnMomof7]

Latin in the Christian Trivium incorporates the Vulgate in translation exercises.

[Corraleno]

I agree with Laura Corin and 8FilltheHeart. I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of time language study takes, and overestimating the level of competence your kids will be at after only 2 yrs of each language (and with not very rigorous programs). 

 

The 15 mins/day that your kids are currently spending on Latin & Greek is not going to get them very far at all, and is not remotely enough for a language credit in high school (or middle school for that matter).  For 7th-8th grades, your plan is studying 2 full languages (1 hr/day each) plus reading Latin (min. 1/2 hr), so that's around 2.5 hrs/day just on languages. In 9th-10th they're doing 2 full languages plus reading 2 more, so that's 3 hrs, and in 11th-12th they're doing 2+3, so figure 3.5 hrs/day. And that's assuming they'd even be able to read at that level after LNST, HA, and 2 yrs of a French program.

 

 

But wouldn't they be equipped to read a few verses per day with a dictionary? 

 

To give you a rough idea of the amount of time this takes, my son has done Latin 1 & 2 and Greek 1, 2 & 3 with Lukeion, covering all of Wheelock and both volumes of Athenaze plus an Attic reader. He has spent 8-10 hrs/wk every year on each of those languages, has gotten an A+ every semester with Lukeion, and has earned multiple gold medals on the NLE & NGE. 

 

It takes him 6-8 hrs/wk to translate the 80 or so lines of Greek assigned each week in Greek 3, so roughly 45 minutes to an hour per 10 lines. And this is a kid who is gifted in languages, absolutely loves Greek, has a rock-solid background in Greek grammar and Attic vocabulary from 2 yrs of Athenaze, and is reading a text which glosses the difficult or unusual words. That's what it takes to do a really thorough job and to make sure he has actually learned the material, not just looked up the unfamiliar words and moved on without internalizing it. You simply cannot expect a student with weak prep in Latin grammar and very little Vulgate-specific vocabulary to get through 10 lines/day of the Vulgate, painfully looking up every other word, in a few minutes/day. 

 

One option would be to concentrate on getting as far as possible in Latin & koine Greek by the end of 8th grade, then concentrate on Latin and Spanish (if that is your preferred language) for high school credit, and do a little reading in koine a few days/wk. Alternatively, you could focus more on spoken Spanish plus English grammar in the younger grades, adding Latin in 7th and Greek in 9th, by which point you could just be reading in Spanish (or continue with a focus on conversation). If you finished Latin in 10th (assuming you were using a high school level program for 7th-10th), then you could add Hebrew for the last 2 years.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I've known people who had multiple languages with some fluency by high school graduation, but I think there are some significant caveats.  they happened to be talented at languages, they had more than a few years of study, they had fluent teachers, and they were able to have some level of immersion.

 

I think I would tend to be a little more strategic in your goals.  I would look at making real progress in a few with maybe exposure to a third.  English competence would be a non-negotiable but I might teach that practically rather than formally since you'd be doing plenty of formal grammar in other ways.

 

Since your husband has Spanish, I would choose that for a living language, and I would probably do Latin.  With those two, picking up other Romance languages later would be fairly easy under the right circumstances.  For the third you could do Biblical Greek, (though I think the ability to struggle through the Bible with the aid of a dictionary is highly over-rated.  ) 

 

To give you some comparison, I did three years of Latin in university, the first year we did the whole of Wheelock - rather more than a younger student will manage in a year.  After three years, I could read a not too difficult medieval text for a class with the aid of a dictionary, and more talented students could read Virgil for a class with the aid of a dictionary. 

[mom2bee]

Thank you all for your input.  I will continue to press on then and at least get us through book 4 and see if the lightbulb comes on.......

 

Here is my basic "dream" outline:

 

From the time they can read well-6th grade: Latin's Not So Tough 1-6 and Hey Andrew 1-6

7th-8th Grade: French 1 and 2, Hey Andrew 7-8, read the Vulgate or other works in Latin 

9th-10th Grade: Spanish 1 and 2, Mounce's Greek, continue reading Latin and French Bible or other works

11th-12th Grade: Spanish 3 and 4 (or other immersion experience of some kind), Mounce's Hebrew, continue reading Latin, French, and Greek Bible or other works

 

I would be interested in them learning some Attic Greek (is that what you call it?) to read original works but wouldn't push it b/c it isn't my main goal.

I can only speak directly about the French and I am assuming that you are in the US and that French 1 and French 2 will essentially cover what a generic US Course in French 1 and 2 cover. I'm not saying this to discourage you, but I honestly feel that even with a Latin background 2 courses in French won't equip them to read the Bible after completing just French 1 and 2. I don't think they'll be anywhere near ready if you use a French text/program that you can buy off of the shelf somewhere.

 

If your goal is the ability to read, discuss and understand the Bible in French then I strongly suggest you look into putting together your own French course for French 1 and French 2 because I can promise you that 5-15 minutes of study from a "Standard US" text or school courses is just not going to cut it.

 

2 semesters of school French is not going to get you ready to read and discuss the first 10 chapters of Genesis, let alone "the Bible" in the more holistic sense. Now, I know that it is POSSIBLE to study and learn a language in 8-24 months to the point where you can converse and read high level materials but I feel 99.9999% confident that it will not happen from using "mainstream" materials and it certainly won't happen from using Mainstream materials for several minutes a day.

 

"Mainstream" F. Language materials are not designed to serve students, but to serve publishers and to be a dandy references of neatly ordered "check boxes" that Dept. Heads have agreed to check for the sake of "meeting requirements" but for the typical student that WANTS to learn a language, they are useless--go to the used book store and flip through any 5 French textbooks that you can find and I promise you that you will find that from a communicative stand point, the arrangement of grammar in those books will be virtually useless.

 

The grammar of languages is chopped up and presented in what is a very useless and un-natural approach to a human-need to speak/think/learn point of view and they are built this way because the materials are developed to fill X time on a schedule and with the "idea" that students ultimately just need to check a box anyway.

 

Sadly, most supplementary materials are built around that same standard so even going on Amazon and getting something like "Learn in Your Car" "Living Languages" "Teach Yourself" etc are not efficient because they are made to mirror those standards that you see in the Table of Contents for 90% of the textbooks.

 

If you are serious about language study, then commit to finding a serious way to study and learn them. If you can only fit 2 courses of Formal academic study into your school-plans then you guys need to be doing 30+ minutes of daily input to the language starting yesterday--Trust me, it will only help to have TONS of input before you ask for output, also teach them to read French.

 

INPUT: Put in your daily schedule to listen to spoken French (news, radio, songs, sermons, audio books, podcasts, whatever) for several minutes a day and outside of actively listening just keep it on in the background so that their brains learn to hear it. Help them find some French music artists/poets/comedians that they like and make a playlist for them to listen to several times a week. Hook up the family boombox and keep French audio on in the background throughout the day, get French audio going in the car. If you don't mind putting in some actual energy and effort to French now, then I highly recommend that you begin a French Phonology course to work on ear training and accent now.

 

After a 4-6 weeks of of daily aural input (and phonology practice), begin learning to read or rather learn to decode French via its syllabary--the way that French children do in school. Have them read aloud in French daily for 10 minutes. Don't worry about understanding the French text, the goal is to just become comfortable with "decoding" something like this:

 

 

En 2002, elle contient plus de 8 000 entrées touchant divers sujets mathématiques de niveau enseignement supérieur. Le contenu de la plupart des articles est de nature technique. Le CD-ROM contient des animations et des objets en 3D.

Or this

 

Les chrétiens évangéliques ont essentiellement en commun l'importance cruciale qu'ils accordent à la conversion individuelle relevant d'un choix personnel et suite à une l'expérience religieuse de « la rencontre avec le Christ Â». Ceci implique donc un changement de vie, et une relation individuelle avec Dieu s'articulant autour de la lecture de la Bible et de la communion avec Dieu par la prière (personnelle ou en communauté).

or this:

 

Un livre est formé de plusieurs cahiers d'un nombre pair de pages qui vont être assemblées (six, huit, douze, seize, dix-huit, vingt-quatre ou trente-deux pages).

Il existe deux modes d'assemblage de ces cahiers : la reliure et le brochage.

Dans le cas d'un livre relié, les dos des différents cahiers sont cousus ensemble. Est ensuite ajoutée à cet ensemble une couverture rigide : la reliure. Le livre relié est plus solide, et aussi plus cher.

Quant au livre broché, il est aussi formé de plusieurs cahiers qui, une fois assemblés, ont le dos coupé, rainuré et collé. La couverture du livre broché est habituellement plus souple que celle du livre relié.

in 3-4 minutes with an appreciable level of oral fluency and a decent French accent.

 

I am assuming that each child is reading English on grade level, but to read 210 French words in 3 minutes is ~70 words per minute which is still close to a 2nd grade reading level so it is obtainable if you learn via the syllabary as French children do and practice every day

 

If you want to be able to read and discuss the Bible after French 1 and French 2, then it will help tremendously if you can hit the ground walking by having the ability to hear the spoken and decode the written language when its encountered. Plus, you'll have developed an "feel" or "instinct" in the language for the grammar that when combined with your knowledge of Latin and Greek grammar will make the French grammar that much more accessible to you.

 

If your children begin intensive language study with the ability to decode and hear French, then you'll be much more likely to succeed in getting to an advanced level within 2 years. Again, getting to "read and discuss the Bible" level is possible in 2 years of intensive and purposeful study, but those 2 years of study are going to need to be intensive and purposeful. French will need to be treated like Reading and Math--done daily, not a couple of times a week. You'll need a supplement for Biblical/Christian vocabulary but with the internet it shouldn't bee too hard to compile one or find one.

[Corraleno]

I suppose the question would be: what would one get out of reading bible verses painfully in a foreign language when one is not really fluent, and the linguistic and spiritual meaning is not really solid?

 

:iagree:

 

Stm4him, keep in mind that LNST is usually followed by something like Wheelock or Henle, starting over from the beginning. Then after 2 yrs of those, the student starts reading adapted/glossed texts specifically designed for intermediate students, and after a year or 2 of transitional readers, they're ready to start reading unadapted/unglossed texts with a dictionary.

 

Trying to go from LNST — an elementary level program known for poor grammar instruction — to reading the Vulgate would be like having a student do a couple of years of Rosetta Stone Spanish, then handing them Don Quixote and a dictionary and expecting them to read one paragraph per day for years. That's just a pointless exercise in frustration. 

[stm4him]

So what you all are saying is that people who know multiple languages study each language for an hour a day and people who know multiple instruments have to practice each one for an hour a day for YEARS.

 

If that is the case, I should just quit now.

[stm4him]

And the reason I chose the Bible was that it would be a book they were VERY familiar with in English, making it easier.  At level 3, Karen Mohs is already suggesting they use Greek copywork of the book of John (with the English underneath) for a few minutes every day.

[stm4him]

I "studied" French for 4 years in high school and college.  I got decent grades, but I  honestly faked my way through it, especially in the last year.  I spent very little time actually studying it at home each week.  I haven't touched French since 2001 if not before that.  I can look at those passages above and have some basic idea of the pronunciation and the flow.  I know some of the easy words.  With a dictionary and a French grammar book I believe I could have a decent idea of the meaning of each in a few hours time.  

 

My husband hasn't studied Spanish since college and he is 46.  He can still speak it to a level that he can be understood.  I don't think it would be that hard for him to pick it back up and bring it up to proper usage.  

 

Pastors often learn enough Hebrew and Greek in seminary that they can use it to interpret Bible texts within a few years. 

 

I have a friend who reads Hebrew with her kids and she took one class in a synagogue and did a few workbooks for children with them.  They can't do it perfectly and they don't understand it fully, but they enjoy Hebrew together daily and they are all slowly growing in their understanding of it.

 

To ENTER college in bygone days you had to know Latin, Greek, and sometimes Hebrew.  Many knew French.  How did they accomplish that plus the ability to read (what we would consider to be) hard books, write extremely beautifully, and know arithmetic?  They had time to learn how to farm as well.  Why aren't we capable of this now?  

 

I don't know.  It just doesn't seem like it has to be that hard.  We're not trying to win competitions.  We are trying to enjoy language and use it as a way to enrich our understanding of the Bible and the classics.  The Spanish I would like them to actually speak, but that is why I put 4 years for that.  I'm not even sure it would take that long if they were actively involved in some sort of Spanish ministry locally.  

[8filltheheart]

I donot want to discourage you, but your description of successful lang acquisition that easily is not really typical. I lived in Brazil for 2 years and only knew a handful of English speakers and my Portuguese stinks. Our oldest was completely fluent and lost it after a few years back here. My point is that lang acquisition can be personal as well.

 

But I know none of my kids have reached great Latin abilities without a lot of hours of study. My dd spends on avg 4 hrs per day on 3 langs. She is committed but she is no where fluent. She spends hrs on translating Latin poetry. She watches movies in French, sings in French, reads children's books in French and has been self studying it since third grade..... And she is not fluent. She probably converses around a French 4 level.

 

Fwiw she is a strong student and works hard.

[Corraleno]

So what you all are saying is that people who know multiple languages study each language for an hour a day and people who know multiple instruments have to practice each one for an hour a day for YEARS.

 

If that is the case, I should just quit now.

 

People who know multiple languages well either study for years or they grow up hearing/speaking them. Multiple people on this thread have said, from their own personal experience or their children's experience, that it takes 4-5 yrs (or 4-5 college semesters) of serious study before you can comfortably read original works with just a dictionary. In my 4th semester of college French (which required 9-10 hrs/wk) we were (slowly) reading heavily glossed excerpts of Rabelais and Voltaire. If a person is having to look up every 2nd or 3rd word, that is not really "reading."

 

A typical American high school student who studies foreign language is studying for at least an hour/day, between class and homework. And often after two years of that they can barely speak or read it. After 4 years of that they can speak and read and write a bit, but are still nowhere near fluent. And if they do an AP language, they're spending a lot more than 5 hrs/wk on it. 

 

What people are suggesting is that it may make more sense to concentrate on doing a couple of languages well, and maybe another at a lower, "familiarity" level, rather than trying to do 5 languages at a really basic and not-very-useful level.

 

What languages were you planning to use for high school credit? You do need to be doing close to an hour/day on those just to be able to legitimately award credit (120-180 hrs/yr). And I would say the Lukeion classes generally run over 300 hrs/yr, and that still just counts as 1 credit. So if you are doing 2 languages at a high school level, that's 2 hrs/day in addition to the other subjects. Add 3 more languages in there, and you have a very long day, and not much return on the investment for the languages where there wasn't a strong grammar or vocabulary base to begin with.

So what you all are saying is that people who know multiple languages study each language for an hour a day and people who know multiple instruments have to practice each one for an hour a day for YEARS.

 

If that is the case, I should just quit now.

 

We choose to .. do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

[stm4him]

Right, that is why I said that if they have to study each for an hour a day then I might as well quit now.  

 

They would get credit for Spanish in high school (2-4 credits depending on how much time they put in) and maybe a credit or two each in Greek and Hebrew, again depending on the time they spent.  

 

They would have 1-2 hours math daily, 2 hours reading, maybe an hour writing about their reading, and however much time they wanted on fine arts according to interest and whatever their plan for credits are in music and art.  I would think there would still be some time for language study in there.  But obviously not 5 hours worth.  That would be ridiculous.  Maybe 1 or 2 depending on how long math was taking.  

For us, living languages came first, then dead ones later.  This ties into the 'sponge' ability of small children.  So both mine started off with spoken Chinese, moved on to written Chinese, then added in Latin.  We added French after that (it wasn't a priority to us earlier).  I didn't wait until English grammar was perfect before starting foreign languages.

 

I totally agree with the above.  I believe that only  young children can learn how to idiomatically pronounce a foreign language.  I would pick one of French or Spanish, and look for immersion and listening opportunities.  The classical languages can wait -- pronunciation of Latin, especially, can be picked up by a high school student in a couple of days, and if they speak Latin with a wicked American accent, well, we all do.  Spending 30 minutes a day for six years learning what would be less than 1 semester of high school Latin strikes me as time that would be better spent doing other things, be they listening to Spanish videos or exploring the scientific aspects of the great outdoors.

[Corraleno]

I "studied" French for 4 years in high school and college.  I got decent grades, but I  honestly faked my way through it, especially in the last year.  I spent very little time actually studying it at home each week.  I haven't touched French since 2001 if not before that.  I can look at those passages above and have some basic idea of the pronunciation and the flow.  I know some of the easy words.  With a dictionary and a French grammar book I believe I could have a decent idea of the meaning of each in a few hours time.  

 

But you're proving our point here — after studying French for 4 yrs, including at the college level, it would take you "a few hours" with a grammar book and a dictionary to "have a decent idea of the meaning" of a few very basic sentences. How long would it take to decipher a few Biblical verses in French? More than 15 minutes? Now multiply that by 5 languages.

 

To ENTER college in bygone days you had to know Latin, Greek, and sometimes Hebrew.  Many knew French.  How did they accomplish that plus the ability to read (what we would consider to be) hard books, write extremely beautifully, and know arithmetic?  They had time to learn how to farm as well.  Why aren't we capable of this now?  

 

Of course students are capable of this now! My son will have 5 yrs of Greek, 3 yrs of Latin, 2 of Old Norse (which he will be finishing this summer), somewhere between 2 yrs and 4 semesters of Turkish (depending on whether he continues with self-study or opts for DE classes), and a smattering of other languages (Tuvan, Mongolian, Uyghur) where he's mostly interested in the linguistic aspects rather than speaking or reading them. 8FilltheHeart's daughter is doing it with Latin, French, and Russian. Students today do it exactly the same way they did it in "bygone days" — with years and years of serious study. I guarantee that the men applying to Harvard 100 years ago didn't learn Greek and Latin by spending 15 mins/day filling in workbooks.

 

 

 

[stm4him]

I am talking about spending that much time in elementary school.  Sometimes longer when doing a page of translating.  I'm not talking about spending a few minutes a day LEARNING a language in high school or even middle school necessarily.  I was talking about spending a few minutes daily on the languages that weren't being actively studied anymore to keep those skills and vocabulary and continue to deepen understanding.  There would be 30 minutes to an hour EACH spent on two different languages in middle and high school.  That is 1 or 2 hours of language study per day.  But I don't know that they need to do that in elementary school to get through 6 books that are made to be done one page per day plus flashcard review.  I will give you that Latin will likely need to be studied longer than what Book 6 of LNST can offer, but she says on her website that one can assign anywhere from 1-3 credits for finishing the books.  One testimonial said it laid a great foundation for a college class.  At that point the study of Latin could be continued an exercise at a time through Henle or whatever.  No one said they had to MASTER it before 18, but that also doesn't mean they can't take a shot at some translation of something written in Latin before that (even if it is just Dr. Seuss in Latin).  

 

Here is an interesting approach to learning a language and if one were only trying to read the language (which is all of the ones I am talking about except Spanish), they wouldn't necessarily need to spend much time doing the steps beyond step 2.  This is copied from an amazon review of How to Learn Any Language by Barry M. Faber.

 

Too many Amazon reader reviews do little more than gush ('LOVED it! ' 'It was GREAT! ') or grouse ('the author is truly ignorent' -- embarrasing how often 'ignorant' is misspelled). Not too helpful. I want to give you something you can use. If you're interested in 'How to Learn Any Language,' you'd probably like to know the rubber-meets-the-road stuff. How does the author address the 'How' of his title? Mr. Farber outlines a 'multiple track attack' that has you pursuing your target language on several fronts. Here are the tools he wants you to get: a basic grammar text, a dictionary, a phrase book (such as those for tourists), a magazine or paper or simple book written in the target language, language tapes, blank tapes, and flash cards, including homemade ones. First step: Study patiently and well the first five chapters of your grammar. Mark anything you don't quite get; take your question to a native speaker if you can. Second step: You're ready to bring on the other tools. Continue with the grammar text, but now pick up the newspaper (or magazine or book) and read the first paragraph. Highlight the words you don't know, look them up, and make flash cards. You'll review the cards when you're on hold, waiting in line, etc. (Read the English side of the card first and think your way into the target language before you flip it over to confirm your answer.) A couple of days later, perhaps, move to paragraph two. You should now begin cherry-picking your way through the little phrase book and listening to your tapes. (Tip: The highly interactive Pimsleur sets are pricey but excellent; do an Amazon title search for 'Pimsleur' and your target language.) The phrase book will supply you with things that the grammar book won't. Don't just memorize these basic phrases and expressions. Plot a conversation and practice your responses. The tapes, if they're good, allow you to hear and imitate native speakers. By now you should be on chapter seven or eight of the grammar. And you should be looking for people to speak with. One chapter deals with clever mnemonic devices for memorizing new words. Example: I've remembered that 'kar lo' means 'he is cold' in Hebrew by imagining my friend Carlo shivering. The more far-fetched, the better, probably. All this seems to make good sense. Why limit yourself to one approach when you can more nearly approximate the total immersion method by drawing on a wealth of resources at hand?

 

 

In Carry On, Mr. Bowditch (admittedly a historical fiction book but I am sure based on some research on the part of the author) Nat Bowditch studies languages in a similar way to what I described with reading verses and using a grammar and a dictionary.  He did do it for years, but he did it a little at a time.  

 

Also, I read an amazon review of Mounce's Greek and in six months time the man was two chapters away from being done and had read through 3 books of the Bible in Greek.  I'm sure he didn't have perfect understanding of it, but he still got some Biblical insight and enjoyment this way.  

 

Taking speaking and writing out of the study of a language must significantly reduce the time it takes to make it useful if the goal is just to be able to read it and  translate it from that language into English, which is easier than translating something from English into that language.  And with a language like Spanish where immersion opportunities are plentiful in this country, should cut down the time to learn to speak it since you learn it faster when you have to use it.  So my amount of time spent on Spanish is 4 years because with immersion experiences included I think that is enough time for the goals I have.  

 

This is why I don't like discussing my language goals.  Because instead of a discussion about whether one should study intense English  grammar first before starting to learn another language, this has turned into a discussion about how I should reach my goals and whether or not they are even realistic.  I should have asked my original question and then shut up about the rest.  I always invite ridicule and discouragement when I give details.  If my goals are completely unattainable, let me find that out for myself.  

 

[stm4him]

And notice I said "studied".  In a classroom of 30 kids, spending 2-3 hours per week there, I had very limited speaking opportunities.  And I haven't touched it in 14 years.  I was saying that though I never knew it that well to begin with and haven't touched it in so long, I still retained enough to begin to make some sense of those passages in French.

 

I also had very limited English grammar background.  A student with a strong English grammar background, 3-6 hours of self-study per week over at least 2 years of time, and possibly a background of having studied two other languages for 3 hours per week for at least 3 years would have a much better chance at success in a shorter amount of time than I had.  Especially if that "success" was only measured by whether or not they could read in that language.

 

I studied piano for 10 years and cello for 6 and I can't play either anymore.  But if I ever decided to learn again it would be much easier this time because I would know where to begin.  I would either focus on learning the theory very well first so that I weren't tripping over it when trying to play harder pieces of music, or I would concentrate on just knowing enough to compose my own music or play by ear for my own enjoyment, but not both at the same time.  The fact that I can't play anymore is sad, but it doesn't mean that my life wasn't enriched at the time.  Doors of opportunity were also opened in part because of my participation in orchestra and the lessons that gave me enough background to write my own songs.  So I can in no way guarantee that what I have my children study will be retained or used their whole life, but I know that they will have learned a couple of things.  1) The self-confidence that they CAN study another language.  2) An appreciation for the study of languages and how it enriches their understanding of classics and the Bible and other things around them in the world and from history.  3) A potential spark for the love on one language that they would like to carry on in their life.  4) A common interest our family shares or shared, if only for a time, which will flesh itself out differently for each one of my children and may even evolve in ways I never thought possible in the future of our family's education.  5) In Spanish, the ability to communicate here or abroad with a Spanish speaker such that mutual doors are opened for more learning or relationships or the sharing of the gospel.  

 

That's enough for me.  

[8filltheheart]

 

I am talking about spending that much time in elementary school.  Sometimes longer when doing a page of translating.  I'm not talking about spending a few minutes a day LEARNING a language in high school or even middle school necessarily.  I was talking about spending a few minutes daily on the languages that weren't being actively studied anymore to keep those skills and vocabulary and continue to deepen understanding.  There would be 30 minutes to an hour EACH spent on two different languages in middle and high school.  That is 1 or 2 hours of language study per day.  But I don't know that they need to do that in elementary school to get through 6 books that are made to be done one page per day plus flashcard review.  I will give you that Latin will likely need to be studied longer than what Book 6 of LNST can offer, but she says on her website that one can assign anywhere from 1-3 credits for finishing the books.  One testimonial said it laid a great foundation for a college class.  At that point the study of Latin could be continued an exercise at a time through Henle or whatever.  No one said they had to MASTER it before 18, but that also doesn't mean they can't take a shot at some translation of something written in Latin before that (even if it is just Dr. Seuss in Latin).  

 

Here is an interesting approach to learning a language and if one were only trying to read the language (which is all of the ones I am talking about except Spanish), they wouldn't necessarily need to spend much time doing the steps beyond step 2.  This is copied from an amazon review of How to Learn Any Language by Barry M. Faber.

 

Too many Amazon reader reviews do little more than gush ('LOVED it! ' 'It was GREAT! ') or grouse ('the author is truly ignorent' -- embarrasing how often 'ignorant' is misspelled). Not too helpful. I want to give you something you can use. If you're interested in 'How to Learn Any Language,' you'd probably like to know the rubber-meets-the-road stuff. How does the author address the 'How' of his title? Mr. Farber outlines a 'multiple track attack' that has you pursuing your target language on several fronts. Here are the tools he wants you to get: a basic grammar text, a dictionary, a phrase book (such as those for tourists), a magazine or paper or simple book written in the target language, language tapes, blank tapes, and flash cards, including homemade ones. First step: Study patiently and well the first five chapters of your grammar. Mark anything you don't quite get; take your question to a native speaker if you can. Second step: You're ready to bring on the other tools. Continue with the grammar text, but now pick up the newspaper (or magazine or book) and read the first paragraph. Highlight the words you don't know, look them up, and make flash cards. You'll review the cards when you're on hold, waiting in line, etc. (Read the English side of the card first and think your way into the target language before you flip it over to confirm your answer.) A couple of days later, perhaps, move to paragraph two. You should now begin cherry-picking your way through the little phrase book and listening to your tapes. (Tip: The highly interactive Pimsleur sets are pricey but excellent; do an Amazon title search for 'Pimsleur' and your target language.) The phrase book will supply you with things that the grammar book won't. Don't just memorize these basic phrases and expressions. Plot a conversation and practice your responses. The tapes, if they're good, allow you to hear and imitate native speakers. By now you should be on chapter seven or eight of the grammar. And you should be looking for people to speak with. One chapter deals with clever mnemonic devices for memorizing new words. Example: I've remembered that 'kar lo' means 'he is cold' in Hebrew by imagining my friend Carlo shivering. The more far-fetched, the better, probably. All this seems to make good sense. Why limit yourself to one approach when you can more nearly approximate the total immersion method by drawing on a wealth of resources at hand?

 

 

In Carry On, Mr. Bowditch (admittedly a historical fiction book but I am sure based on some research on the part of the author) Nat Bowditch studies languages in a similar way to what I described with reading verses and using a grammar and a dictionary.  He did do it for years, but he did it a little at a time.  

 

Also, I read an amazon review of Mounce's Greek and in six months time the man was two chapters away from being done and had read through 3 books of the Bible in Greek.  I'm sure he didn't have perfect understanding of it, but he still got some Biblical insight and enjoyment this way.  

 

Taking speaking and writing out of the study of a language must significantly reduce the time it takes to make it useful if the goal is just to be able to read it and  translate it from that language into English, which is easier than translating something from English into that language.  And with a language like Spanish where immersion opportunities are plentiful in this country, should cut down the time to learn to speak it since you learn it faster when you have to use it.  So my amount of time spent on Spanish is 4 years because with immersion experiences included I think that is enough time for the goals I have.  

 

This is why I don't like discussing my language goals.  Because instead of a discussion about whether one should study intense English  grammar first before starting to learn another language, this has turned into a discussion about how I should reach my goals and whether or not they are even realistic.  I should have asked my original question and then shut up about the rest.  I always invite ridicule and discouragement when I give details.  If my goals are completely unattainable, let me find that out for myself.  

 

 

No one is ridiculing you.  People are simply trying to share ways to help you achieve your goals, not telling you that they aren't achievable at all.  

 

If I really wanted to pursue what you are suggesting, I would drop Latin and focus on spoken language now.  I say that bc our experience has been that Latin is a language that is actually better to study later than earlier.  What they learn when they are younger is limited.  It takes a long time for marginal progress.  THey  can quickly master the same content when they are older.  The plan you are taking now recommends going through Wheelock's at the end.  They could do nothing now and easily go through Wheelock's in 3 yrs at a slow pace and end up in the same place.  (My current 7th grader is going through WHeelock's at a slower pace and will finish it over 3 yrs. She is only spending 30 mins/day.)

 

Spoken language, otoh, can lead to higher levels of mastery younger b/c they can learn so much through oral communication vs. the analytic approach taken with Latin.  

 

It may be that if you flip your languages and do several yrs of French or Spanish now and then Wheelock's in 7th and 8th that you could achieve far more of your long term objectives.

 

FWIW, I think your actual goals are admirable.  My dd is right there.  She regrets not having a serious French teacher younger b/c she has made such rapid progress in Russian with her fabulous Russian teacher compared to French. We can't go back and change that, but she is going to have a teacher going forward.  

 

Definitely feel free to ignore my post.  Please don't feel the need to justify or defend your position.  You don't need to.  I really just wanted offer the Wheelock's over 3 yrs accomplishing the same goal.

[stm4him]

Going back to the grammar before or during the study of other languages:

 

When my daughter started Henle 1 at the beginning of the year she had had LNST 1- the first half of 3 during her 4th and  5th grade years if I am remembering correctly.  Then she took one year of intense grammar (though she didn't learn it well by her own choice).  In correcting her work and teaching her and her brother grammar, I had learned enough vocab and grammar that I wasn't completely lost when we started with Henle 1 and there was diagramming in Latin right off the bat.  I knew a good amount of the vocab from LNST and CC as well as the declensions and 1st conjugation.  And I knew the basics of diagramming.  I was not starting off fresh with any of those three so I was able to not be overwhelmed like some other parents.  If I had been handed that book knowing no prior Latin vocab or declensions or having no experience in diagramming and was asked to begin all three at the same time I probably would have freaked out.  I learned those three things separately (meaning they weren't connected with each other), but I was able to put the three together and use them when the time came.  But I think I could have learned the grammar first, then the vocab and declensions and have done just as well.  The vocab and declensions are a matter of memorization, whereas the diagramming was more of a conceptual learning.  Both can be done at the same time, but figuring out the concept of parts of speech and diagramming while trying to apply new declensions and vocabulary and Latin rules would be much harder.

[stm4him]

8FilltheHeart,

 

Thank you for your post.  I am used to people swearing that a background in Latin makes the study of French or Spanish much easier, but maybe for my particular goals it doesn't.  I was thinking that learning to speak a language (especially when the grammar wasn't an issue and a similar vocabulary had been learned) in a situation where immersion was possible would be faster than studying it earlier when they were too young for those opportunities to exist (unless my husband agreed to start speaking with them but he would likely teach them bad habits.)  Mission trip or ministry opportunities in Spanish I thought would be more possible when they are older, whereas if they need three years to study the language before they can begin to translate it then they may need to start earlier than high school.  But honestly sometimes I wonder if they can't just spend more time studying languages in the middle and high school years after we have put all our focus on English in the younger years so that they don't need to continue to spend time studying English grammar and spelling and composition and can put more time (along with more maturity) into their studies  of these other languages.  But I also wonder if starting them early gives them a confidence that the study of other languages is just part of life and daily study and not something to be crammed into the last few years of school.  I go back and forth about where our time is best spent.  

 

I had read a lot of negative reviews on Wheelock's in terms of its lending itself to translation of original works.  I don't remember the details, but maybe you would disagree with that.  I wrote Karen Mohs to ask what should follow LNST 6 if that doesn't get them to the point of translation so I will let you know what she says.  Where did you see that she recommends Wheelocks?  

 

 

[stm4him]

Here is Karen's Response:

 

Once a student has completed Latin's Not So Tough! Level 6, he (or she)
will have covered the following aspects of Latin grammar:

*Latin alphabet, diphthongs, special consonant sounds
*Word order
*Macrons, syllables, accents
*Principal parts of the Latin verb
*Voice of the Latin verb
*All four verb conjugations (including i-stems) - present active and
passive indicative, present infinitive, imperfect active and passive
indicative, future active and passive indicative
*Infinitives (including subjective, complementary, objective, indirect
statement)
*Irregular verb - "I am" - present indicative, imperfect indicative,
future indicative, infinitive
*Irregular verb - "I am able, I can" - present indicative, imperfect
indicative, future indicative, infinitive
*Irregular verb - "I wish, I want, I am willing" - present indicative,
imperfect indicative, future indicative, infinitive
*Irregular verb - "I do not wish, I am unwilling" - present indicative,
imperfect indicative, future indicative, infinitive
*All five noun declensions (including i-stems) in all three genders and
all five cases
*Special ablative case uses - accompaniment, description, manner, means or
instrument, personal agent, place from which, place where, separation,
time when, time within which
*Special accusative case use - place to which
*Special genitive case uses - description (measure), objective genitive,
partitive (genitive of the whole)
*Adjectives - first and second declension
*Adjectives - third declension (all three terminations)
*Cardinal and ordinal numerals
*Prepositions
*Adverbs
*Personal pronouns - first, second, and third person (demonstrative)

With the help of a dictionary and a grammatical conjugation chart of
perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect tense endings, your student should
be able to begin reading the Latin Vulgate.

If you observe that he (or she) needs more instruction, and if your
student has been following our suggestion to use Familia Romana (which is
Part One of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata by Hans H. Orberg) as a
supplementary Latin reader, we suggest that your student continue in that
book.  After finishing it entirely, if your student wants to proceed to
the more advanced readings, he (or she) could begin Roma Aeterna, which is
Part Two of the same series.

Alternately, your student may want to continue grammatical studies using
either Wheelock or Jenney, both of which are standard Latin textbooks.
Both of these textbooks begin at the beginning.  You and your student
should skim through the chapters as a review until encountering new
material.


I hope this helps, Shaina.  If you have further questions, please do not
hesitate to ask.

In His service,
Karen

[Corraleno]

I will give you that Latin will likely need to be studied longer than what Book 6 of LNST can offer, but she says on her website that one can assign anywhere from 1-3 credits for finishing the books.  One testimonial said it laid a great foundation for a college class.

 

I would take the author's claims with a grain of salt — she also says that Hey Andrew levels 3-7 are worth up to 4 high school credits. If that were true, that would mean HA 6 & 7 cover 2 years beyond Mounce or Machen, which are each worth 2 yrs of HS credit (or 1 yr college). Comparing the TOC for Machen to the list of what Mohs says is covered by the time a student completes HA 6, it would seem that HA 1-6 cover less than a third of Machen, so at most levels 1-7 would be worth 1 credit, not 4. And if the student is going to start over with Mounce anyway, then Mounce counts as Greek 1 & 2, so HA doesn't count for credit at all.

 

If LNST 1-6 were really worth 3 credits, then a student should be able to jump right in to Latin 4. So why do some students who've finished LNST start over with Henle and still struggle (see below)? If she recommends reading through Jenney or Wheelock "until you come to the new material" then clearly LNST 1-6 covers less than Jenney or Wheelock, so there is no way that LNST even equals Latin 1 & 2, let alone 3.

 

ETA: I see that Chiguirre has confirmed that LNST 1-6 = a bit less than Latin 1.

 

 

Here are some quotes from past discussions here about LNST; the first quote is from someone who felt that LNST didn't even prepare students well to start Henle in Challenge 1 (I can't use the quote function because these are from archived threads):

 

We did one year of CC and my oldest was in Challenge B but took Latin with Challenge 1(Henle) because she had some Latin background and frankly I thought Latin's Not So Tough looked awful. The other kids in her group who had been through Latin only with LNST and CC struggled mightily. LNST did nothing to prep them. Not only that, those using LNST in Challenge B were struggling with understanding what they were doing. My daughter did very well and the tutor wanted to know what we had done prior to Henle because LNST wasn't doing it for these kids and she wanted something else to recommend. I wasn't much help because at the time we had been Latin curriculum hoppers but seeing LNST in action confirmed my belief that it is not what anyone wants to use.

LNST are great workbooks simply to use to drill certain aspects of the Latin vocabulary and grammar, but they do not teach the subject. When you are homeschooling and learning the subject along with the student you need a textbook that instructs.  

I bought Level 3 some years back and returned it. I just could not make head nor tails of how to teach it, and even with my limited knowledge of Latin, saw some mistakes and assumptions that weren't quite right.

A friend of mine's college-age son who tutors Latin calls it "Latin Shouldn't be This Hard." 

 

 

 

Taking speaking and writing out of the study of a language must significantly reduce the time it takes to make it useful if the goal is just to be able to read it and  translate it from that language into English, which is easier than translating something from English into that language. 

 

Well Greek and Latin aren't taught as spoken languages anyway, and generally there is very little writing, in the sense of composition, like there is with spoken languages, so there no "reduction in time" there. They're just difficult languages and they take time to learn well.

 

 

This is why I don't like discussing my language goals.  Because instead of a discussion about whether one should study intense English  grammar first before starting to learn another language, this has turned into a discussion about how I should reach my goals and whether or not they are even realistic.  I should have asked my original question and then shut up about the rest.  I always invite ridicule and discouragement when I give details.  If my goals are completely unattainable, let me find that out for myself.  

 

No one is ridiculing you. People who've BTDT are just trying to save you from possible burn-out and disappointment. There are lots of people on the grammar/logic boards who plan to do multiple languages with their kids; there are far fewer on the HS board who actually are doing it, and they (we) will generally tell you that it requires a lot of time and a student who really loves languages. But if you're determined to have a go at doing 5 different languages simultaneously with 8 kids at all different levels, by all means, give it a shot! :)  

 

 

 

[chiguirre]

OP, the scope and sequence you listed is about equivalent to Latin 1 at Landry Academy (so, about 40% of Jenney's First Year Latin) and less than half of Henle 1 (which is covered in Latin 1 and 2 at Memoria Press). It's missing the perfect tenses completely. To put that in perspective, Landry spends another year on Jenney's First Year (they're switching to Latin Alive1 and 2 instead of Jenney's next year) and a year on Wheelock and 38 Fabulae before they tackle Caesar and Virgil.

 

Lukeion moves much faster, but instead of 5-6 hours a week, you need to do 10 or more. I would not suggest using Jenney's unless you're enrolled in a course because it's almost impossible to find the answer key used and it assumes that the teacher knows their Latin. Henle was also written to be used in Catholic high schools where the kids knew the Latin mass by heart and were being taught by a priest or nun who knew their Latin perfectly too. Those kids would have done a lot of diagramming in grammar school. That's why they could get through Henle 1 in a school year. If you want to use Henle, I'd invest in the MP or Kolbe or Mother of Divine Grace guides. You need a lot of hand holding to be able to teach high school Latin if you're learning alongside your kids.

 

Latin really is that tough!

 

 

[Guest ardanzhan]

I am used to people swearing that a background in Latin makes the study of French or Spanish much easier

[Laura Corin]

I am used to people swearing that a background in Latin makes the study of French or Spanish much easier

 

Going in either direction helps, but immersion in a living language when young is a definite advantage.  I studied French then Latin; my boys studied Latin then French.  Both strategies worked fine.

[Space station]

Addressing the grammar issue only...

My kids have really solid English grammar. That is making the study of Latin and Russian easier here. The oldest had no foreign language exposure whatsoever in elementary school (she started at home with me in 7th). I agree that learning languages takes hours of work, but that having rock solid grammar can only help. For us, MCT grammar worked quickly to make these skills strong.

 

I think your goals are laudable. If they were mine, I would focus on immersion learning of the Spanish while they are young, since that is the only language that they need to speak fluently. I would simultaneously master English grammar. There is no harm in also doing workbooks that take little time and make them comfortable with a different alphabet and familiar with the languages that you want them to master later, but I would not count on that reducing the amount of study those languages will take later.

[Xahm]

One idea for a way to get your kids practice with the Bible and foreign language is to have them study verses in the foreign language that they have already memorized in English. When I've done that to supplement my other language studies, it has been a helpful exercise, allowing me to learn new vocabulary without the tedium of using the dictionary and giving me insight into grammar and how those words are actually used.  

 

And for what it is worth,pastors in my denomination do study Greek and Hebrew for two years a piece, but none that I know can actually read the Bible in those languages. Rather, it gives them the ability to look at specific words and, more importantly, to understand the act of translation and how that could affect the final version we have.

And for what it is worth,pastors in my denomination do study Greek and Hebrew for two years a piece, but none that I know can actually read the Bible in those languages. Rather, it gives them the ability to look at specific words and, more importantly, to understand the act of translation and how that could affect the final version we have.

 

And (I'm guessing) this is two college years, which would be roughly the same amount of material as four high school-paced years.

[Bluegoat]

I "studied" French for 4 years in high school and college.  I got decent grades, but I  honestly faked my way through it, especially in the last year.  I spent very little time actually studying it at home each week.  I haven't touched French since 2001 if not before that.  I can look at those passages above and have some basic idea of the pronunciation and the flow.  I know some of the easy words.  With a dictionary and a French grammar book I believe I could have a decent idea of the meaning of each in a few hours time.  

 

My husband hasn't studied Spanish since college and he is 46.  He can still speak it to a level that he can be understood.  I don't think it would be that hard for him to pick it back up and bring it up to proper usage.  

 

Pastors often learn enough Hebrew and Greek in seminary that they can use it to interpret Bible texts within a few years. 

 

I have a friend who reads Hebrew with her kids and she took one class in a synagogue and did a few workbooks for children with them.  They can't do it perfectly and they don't understand it fully, but they enjoy Hebrew together daily and they are all slowly growing in their understanding of it.

 

To ENTER college in bygone days you had to know Latin, Greek, and sometimes Hebrew.  Many knew French.  How did they accomplish that plus the ability to read (what we would consider to be) hard books, write extremely beautifully, and know arithmetic?  They had time to learn how to farm as well.  Why aren't we capable of this now?  

 

I don't know.  It just doesn't seem like it has to be that hard.  We're not trying to win competitions.  We are trying to enjoy language and use it as a way to enrich our understanding of the Bible and the classics.  The Spanish I would like them to actually speak, but that is why I put 4 years for that.  I'm not even sure it would take that long if they were actively involved in some sort of Spanish ministry locally.  

 

When people have an opportunity to speak a language, like your husband does, it makes a huge difference.  Heck, people that go live in a place sometimes pick up the language even without much formal study.  This is, I think, one of the real advantages European students have, especially if they live in places with multiple languages.

 

As for the days when students needed to know Latin and Greek to get into university, in the medival period it was mostly Latin and it was still being used.  Later in the modern period, yes, they did spend many hours a day on it.  And the trade off for many was they didn't get to spend much time actually reading the texts either. 

 

People do not learn enough Hebrew and Greek to interpret the Bible in a few years.  They are heavily dependent on what their lexicons and commentaries and dictionaries tell them the words mean and  what the contexts are.  The people that put those books together are the ones who can read fluently, enough that they have a sense of the language, who know the history of the language in detail, and know the literature of the period in detail. 

 

This doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to do languages at all.  If your kids come out of school with Spanish and someLatin, and a good vocabulary for talking about grammar, they will be well ahead of most english North American children so far as ability to learn more languages goes.

 

[chiguirre]

I agree with Space Station about Michael Clay Thompson's grammar books. They are really good at explaining the interrelations between parts of speech, parts of a sentence, phrases and clauses. They make learning the uses of the Latin cases much easier. The Word Within the Word and Caesar's English were also very helpful for highlighting the importance of Latin roots in both English and Spanish and how much those languages have in common.

 

 

OP, Spanish is in many ways an easier language to teach than Latin, but the teacher needs to be able to speak it in order to be effective. You might be able to get by with what you learned in college 25 years ago, but you might not. If you can't read a Spanish newspaper article without a dictionary and get the gist of it and you can't understand the announcers on Spanish music stations, I think you might need to outsource or, at the very minimum, invest in a program that includes a lot of oral and aural practice. It doesn't have to be expensive, but it will be time consuming. Destinos videos and audio are online for free and the books, workbooks and teacher guide are very inexpensive used on Amazon, but both the teacher and the student will have to put in a lot of effort to make progress.

 

Since your daughter will be starting either 8th or 9th grade in the fall, it's time to decide on a program and have your dh work through it in advance so he doesn't have to wing it when they start. I do speak Spanish near perfectly (earned my MBA in Spanish and worked professionally in Latin America for 10 years and still speak Spanish everyday) and I needed to go through the grammar lesson first so I could see what they're teaching and how to present it to Trinqueta. She's grown up hearing Spanish everyday but she still needs to put her nose to the grindstone to learn the conjugations and vocabulary. She still has to overcome her shyness to speak. In the end, I enrolled her in an outside class so that she'd have to do these things for someone else and I could step back and support her efforts instead of being the vocabulary and grammar police. Teaching a language to your child is more fraught than teaching algebra or biology. I don't know why that is but it's much more difficult.

 

Suerte!

[Corraleno]

I also had very limited English grammar background.  A student with a strong English grammar background, 3-6 hours of self-study per week over at least 2 years of time, and possibly a background of having studied two other languages for 3 hours per week for at least 3 years would have a much better chance at success in a shorter amount of time than I had.  Especially if that "success" was only measured by whether or not they could read in that language.

 

But what people are trying to tell you is that your assumptions here are not correct — even students who do have "a strong English grammar background," who have spent more than "3-6 hours per week" over more than "2 yrs of time," and who also have "a background of having studied other languages" for years, still cannot do what you are talking about in a few minutes a day. 

 

Expecting a student to jump from what is basically a weak Latin 1 program (LNST 1-6) to being able to translate several verses of the Vulgate in a few minutes is like expecting a student who has completed MUS Algebra to start working through a Calculus text in a few minutes a day.

[Corraleno]

I had read a lot of negative reviews on Wheelock's in terms of its lending itself to translation of original works.  I don't remember the details, but maybe you would disagree with that

 

If you think of the different approaches to teaching Latin as a continuum, Wheelock's is at one end (heavy emphasis on explicit grammar instruction) and Lingua Latina is at the opposite end (immersion in reading with no explicit grammar instruction). Other commonly used high school programs, like Oxford Latin, Cambridge Latin, and Ecce Romani, fall somewhere in the middle, more towards the reading/immersion side. Henle is more towards the grammar side.

 

In Lingua Latina and the other programs I mentioned, the text offered for translation is specially written to be easy at the lower levels, and gradually increases in difficultly as the levels increase. Wheelock's OTOH uses only authentic Latin text, so in the beginning you are not translating long passages of made-up text but short sentences of actual Latin. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

Personally, I agree with the grammar-first approach to Latin & Greek. I think a very large part of the benefit of learning Classical languages is the way they build logical and analytical skills, and those skills come from studying the grammar as a coherent, logical system, not just learning it piecemeal in order to read. After completing the Wheelock text, students move on to Wheelock's Latin Reader (which is what Lukeion uses for Latin 3), Bolchazy-Carducci's Transitional Reader series, or similar adapted/glossed/annotated texts. If Wheelock really didn't prepare students to read Latin, it wouldn't be so widely used in college courses. 

[Clear Creek]

So what you all are saying is that people who know multiple languages study each language for an hour a day and people who know multiple instruments have to practice each one for an hour a day for YEARS.

 

If that is the case, I should just quit now.

 

First, to answer your original question, a strong grasp of English grammar is immensely helpful before beginning the grammatical study of a foreign language. I would make that a priority before doing much more than learning simple phrases and vocab in any foreign language.

 

To address what you wrote above, I will share some of my personal experience. I studied Arabic at the Defense Language Institute. The goal of the institute is to teach to a moderate level of proficiency...able to carry on a conversation, discuss current events, and understand much of what is spoken in the foreign language being studied. In order to learn to that level, military servicemembers attend class for seven hours a day (and had several hours of homework every week). Classes from day one are conducted solely in the foreign language and taught by a native speaker. French and Spanish courses (the easier languages) were each a total of approximately 1000 hours of direct instruction (back when I attended in the 90's, anyway); Arabic (one of the hardest courses) was approximately 2400 hours of instruction. Time spent studying a foreign language with traditional study materials does not equate to the time spent in those courses since they were total immersion...except for breaks, we heard no English and spoke no English from 7:30-3:00. I would imagine the hours needed at home to gain that kind of proficiency might be double those numbers. Another consideration to keep in mind is the military servicemembers who attend DLI have shown (through testing) a high proficiency at foreign language acquisition, higher than the regular population, so they learn languages at a quicker pace. So yes, it can take years and years to really learn one language.

 

As far as instruments are concerned, an hour a day wouldn't cut it for serious musicians. My friend's daughter practices her main instrument for 3-4 hours a day; the instruments she isn't as serious about only get maybe one hour a day.

 

Don't quit now. :001_smile:  If languages are a priority, set aside some time each day and study them one day at a time, and eventually (maybe not middle school, but eventually) they will be at the level of proficiency that you desire.

[stm4him]

You all have successfully altered my goals and plans of action.  Thank you for your reality check.

[lllll]

tmi