Latin: "grammar-first" vs. "grammar-translation" methods

[ElizaG]

This is sort of a spin-off from the Ella Frances Lynch and Fr. Donnelly threads.   I'm interested in figuring out ways that children can be given many of the benefits that come from traditional methods of classical education, without the parent being fluent in the classical languages, or experienced in these ways of teaching. 

 

One way of doing this is to use similar methods to teach other languages that we know fairly well.  I feel as if I've got enough of a handle on how that works for now, so I'm turning back to the question of Latin.  The materials we've been able to find from EFL give some advice for laying the groundwork in the primary grades, and Fr. Donnelly wrote textbooks that were meant to be used for the rhetoric class (traditionally, ages 15-16).   What we're missing, it seems, is a good approach for the middle years - say, ages 10-14.  These were the old-time "grammar years," in which the students really learned the nuts and bolts of the language, and got started with real texts.

 

The way this was done in the very old days, as I understand it, was to teach the grammar -- usually with a textbook -- while also requring the pupils to speak Latin in the classroom, and sometimes during school meals and recreation times as well.   So it combined what an article from MP calls "grammar-first," with a simultaneous experience of immersion.   They also studied literature, but it wasn't the same as today's "reading" or "grammar-translation" methods, since there wasn't such an emphasis on the students figuring out the meaning of a given passage (whether inductively, or from puzzling through the translation, or something in between).  The major goals of the course - besides "learning to read Latin as Latin" - were to explore the structure and meaning of classic texts, and to use these as models to develop fluency in expression.   To help with this, the teacher would translate parts of the text as needed, especially in the earlier stages. 

 

Fr. Claude Pavur at SLU has a web site with resources for humanistic teaching, including pari passu translations, but they're mostly for the intermediate level and above.  He seems to be assuming that the students are starting out with a standard high school or college-level textbook, though there's probably some helpful information on there that I haven't found; it's a big site.   I've also dug up some materials by Fr. S. M. Stephenson, a Hungarian who taught at an American seminary in the 1930s.  Fr. Kobler's Bibliography of Spoken Latin (available online) describes Fr. Stephenson's methods of language teaching as being similar to those of his fellow Hungarian immigrant, Arcadius Avellanus.  These books seem to fit the pattern that's described by Fr. Donnelly, but the grammar text isn't usable by a teacher who isn't fluent, and after asking around a bit, I think it would be hard to find a tutor who would be willing to take on this approach with anyone, let alone with ten-year-old beginners.  We might find a way to take advantage of this with the younger ones, but it's sort of in the background for now. 

 

So my short-term goal is to find ways that homeschooling families - without outside tutors or classes - to get from the simple words & phrases of our currently available primary methods, to the Fr. Pavur and Fr. Donnelly stages.  While somehow approximating the benefits of traditional pedagogy, even if in a cobbled-together way. 

 

My eldest has been using Artes Latinae, which I've chosen for the time being because we already had it, it's convenient, and it seems to have worked for other board members (though their goals were based more on reading Latin texts).   It's pretty much the opposite of grammar-first, and it doesn't strike me as very natural, either.  It lacks any sort of conversational or social aspect, and also dispenses the language in little dribs and drabs.  So I'd like to move away from that. 

 

I've recently started assigning Oerberg as a supplement, and it seems to be going just as well as AL, if not better.  We also have the Cambridge books, which I used in school (though only through book 2), and some even simpler books for the younger ones.   I'd be happy to use any of these, but I also appreciate the arguments in favor of memorizing the forms up front.   So, could we do what MP calls "grammar-first," and simultaneously read through these sorts of graded texts (with my translating on the go, as needed), and perhaps also continue some of the EFL-style work with conversation and memorizing and copying of short real texts?   I think I could handle that much.

 

It seems to me that this would be sort of like the Dowling Method -- which is apparently effective -- but we'd be doing the memorization and reading parts  simultaneously, instead of one after the other.   It wouldn't be elegant, but it might be the best option in our circumstances.    And if we kept with it, perhaps the older family members would eventually be able to teach the youngest ones in a more integrated way. 

 

Here are the points I'm wondering about, for those who've been following this:

 

1)   How to balance our studies, so that the use of the language holds its own, and isn't just a "fun extra."  For instance, MP suggests using Lingua Angelica as a supplement .  I also saw a post from another board member whose family used FFL and supplemented by reading Cambridge 1x/week.   Would this be adequate?  IDK; it seems as if we'd want to have daily practice with both.   

 

2)   When to start the memorization of grammar.  From what I've read, the boys in old-time schools learned very slowly, and often had to have it "caned into them" until... maybe age 12 or 13?    The teachers considered this an unavoidable situation, but it's not clear whether or not this is true.  

 

3)   What to use for the "grammar-first" part.   Of course, MP recommends FFL, but since they seem a bit confused themselves (with several contradictory articles on their web site, and a lot of redundancy in their recommended sequence), I'm wondering whether it's as authentic as they say.   And what are our other options?   It's pretty easy to find scans of old grammars, but if we were using English as a teaching medium, maybe that would negate any benefits anyway.  

 

4)  Following on from the previous two points...  If the benefits of starting with grammar are mainly to do with memorizing tables, and the children likely won't understand them all yet anyway, can't we just do the chants (maybe even with CDs), and skip the program?   Just typing that, it sounds like some sort of heresy.   But that would free up a lot of our time and energy for other things, including the reading and conversation.   So, rather than using the texts to supplement a grammar-first approach, we'd be using grammar tables as a supplement to a more direct method.  

 

This is the method we followed when I learned "small Latin" with Cambridge, but we weren't given any tables ahead of what we'd learned in the text.  I think the later stages of the course would have been much less intimidating if we had learned more of them up front.  It's not as if Book 1 in itself is a huge challenge that requires 100% dedication and focus, LOL.   And from what I've read, with the latest edition, they've made it even shorter.

 

I think trying to figure out this subject might be quite a challenge, though.  For those who've read all the way through this, thank you for your stamina.  :001_smile:

[kateingr]

I've been mulling over some of the same considerations as I try to figure out what to do with my 4th grader for Latin next year. He tends to happier with whole-to-parts curricula--but he often underestimates how important all of those "parts" are. So, I've been trying to figure out a Latin path that will keep him reasonably engaged and interested but still give him a thorough knowledge of the grammar. I'm sold on the idea that it's important to master the grammar--but I know it needs to be fun and interesting enough to keep us going through the whole grammar. 

 

We did Getting Started with Latin this year, and it was a perfect intro since it never overwhelmed him with too much memorization at once. The daily exercises gave plenty of context to see the point of the declension or conjugation that he was learning, and the constant review allowed him to truly master the 1st and 2nd declension and 1st conjugation. 

 

Now, I've decided to go with Memoria Press' 3-year Henle I program as our main program, along with reading Lingua Latina once a week. What I like about Henle is that it focuses on grammar mastery and introduces only a limited vocabulary (like FFL) but provides passages and sentences for translating right off the bat. We'll still focus on the same grammar as if we were doing FFL1 (noun declensions and adjectives), but the exercises feel like a better balance between drill and translation.We'll read Lingua Latina once a week (or rather, listen to the author read it to us) and discuss the questions in the Pensum to keep Latin interesting and work on the direct reading skills. I expect this will be very informal, and that we won't get through too much of it, but it should be a nice counterbalance to Henle. 

 

Wish I had some btdt advice for you, but this is what I've got! :) I'll be curious to hear what you decide to go with.

 

[ElizaG]

Henle isn't what MP calls "grammar-first," but I'm somewhat open to it, because my current top choice of Greek curriculum seems to have been designed for students who had been using it.   So I'd consider it for 6th-8th grade, but not so much for 3rd-5th.   To use it with the younger group, I'd have to do a lot of active teaching and adapting, and I'd prefer to spend most of my energy on other parts of our curriculum.    For basic "nuts & bolts" such as Latin grammar and arithmetic, it makes sense to me to use methods that are more independent, or at least not very parent-intensive. 

 

I think, while I'm figuring this out, I'll have the eldest keep going with AL. 

 

For the youngest ones, DH has offered to do GSWL orally.   We did that once before, several years ago, and it went well.  I don't know how consistently he'll be able to do it, though.  

 

The middle ones can join in on those lessons, and keep going with the EFL-style work.  And I think I'll have them do Visual Latin as well.   We bought it on sale when it first came out (the price has gone up a lot!), and it seemed just about right for the in-between crowd.   The reason we stopped using it was that the teacher's pronunciation -- which is supposed to be ecclesiastical -- was kind of strange in places, and we do value being able to speak the language well.  But since the children will be exposed to a consistent pronunciation in our other types of lessons, and at church, maybe it won't be too much of an issue. 

 

When Visual Latin is used as a high school course, the schedule tells the students to spend extra time memorizing the forms during the first ten lessons, and then begin reading Lingua Latina alongside it.  They're also supposed to listen to online audio of the Bible.  I see no reason why we couldn't try that combination with our upper elementary students, at a much slower pace.   It might even be the closest thing I've found to what I've described above.  So maybe we'll do some experimenting with that, as soon as I can find the DVDs and get the worksheets printed.  :001_smile:  

Edited June 13, 2016 by ElizaG

[LostintheCosmos]

 

 

The way this was done in the very old days, as I understand it, was to teach the grammar -- usually with a textbook -- while also requring the pupils to speak Latin in the classroom, and sometimes during school meals and recreation times as well.   So it combined what an article from MP calls "grammar-first," with a simultaneous experience of immersion.   They also studied literature, but it wasn't the same as today's "reading" or "grammar-translation" methods, since there wasn't such an emphasis on the students figuring out the meaning of a given passage (whether inductively, or from puzzling through the translation, or something in between).  The major goals of the course - besides "learning to read Latin as Latin" - were to explore the structure and meaning of classic texts, and to use these as models to develop fluency in expression.   To help with this, the teacher would translate parts of the text as needed, especially in the earlier stages. 

 

 

ElizaG, have you read much about comprehensible input/TPRS methods of language instruction as applied to Latin (some good links here)? I've just barely dipped into this stuff myself, and there's no program out there to follow so it doesn't meet your need for something that could be done independently, but it might be worth taking a look at to clarify some of the pedagogical issues (one of the things I've found helpful is this distinction between immersion - which seems to be the model that the natural or direct method was trying to mimic - and "comprehensible input") and because it is the contemporary thing actual Latin teachers are doing that seems to me to most resemble your description above (minus the use of classic texts, although some of these teachers are apparently using a fair bit of medieval Latin for this).

 

I think my own Latin education (grammar-translation all the way) was probably good enough that I could try to do something like this with my kids, if, and this is an ENORMOUS, extremely unlikely if, I could find the time to plan and prepare for it. That probably not being a possibility, I really like your idea of memorizing grammar forms while reading through graded texts and conversing as well as we can.

[ElizaG]

Yes, I should have specified that it wouldn't really be immersion - we wouldn't be able to do that at our house.   But the main advantage, to me, would be that they were being exposed to the language as a whole.  When they're a bit older, we can try to find some immersion opportunities. 

 

One difference between homeschooling and a classroom setting, it seems to me, is that we have less expert teaching, but a lot more time, especially if we can combine our studies with our work.  For instance, we can listen to audio recordings, or recite memorized passages, while we're doing other things.   And if we're doing this, I think there's something to be said even for the children overhearing "slightly incomprehensible input," especially if most of the available "comprehensible input" isn't very good Latin.  

 

Both Father Donnelly and Ester Maria would agree that schoolbook Latin should be avoided.  I can't see a way around using some of that, but I'd like to keep it to a minimum, and keep the quality as high as possible.  This will mean relying on others' recommendations, for the most part.  Although, with some materials that are posted online, even I can tell there's a problem.    :001_unsure:

 

Anyway, thanks for the links - I'll go through them and see if anything clicks.   It's been a while since I looked at this. 

[ElizaG]

IDK... from what I'm reading, aside from some of the conversational bits, TPRS seems like the opposite of old-time teaching. 

 

They don't present the grammar in a structured way, which may or may not be a good idea, but it's definitely a departure.  

 

And they delay the introduction of classical texts, which would traditionally have been used from the beginning, as a way of learning grammar and general knowledge (erudition).  The first part of this article is supposed to be a parody, but it looks a lot like primary English lessons using EFL's methods.  :laugh:

 

From the tone of that piece, I wonder if this is due to a modern sense that "literature" is to be kept on a pedestal, and not sullied by contact with beginners?    If so, the ancients certainly didn't share this view.   Interesting. 

[Tranquility7]

4)  Following on from the previous two points...  If the benefits of starting with grammar are mainly to do with memorizing tables, and the children likely won't understand them all yet anyway, can't we just do the chants (maybe even with CDs), and skip the program?   Just typing that, it sounds like some sort of heresy.   But that would free up a lot of our time and energy for other things, including the reading and conversation.   So, rather than using the texts to supplement a grammar-first approach, we'd be using grammar tables as a supplement to a more direct method.  

 

Not much time at the moment, but just wanted to say this is exactly how we do it. We started with GSWL, then moved on to Lingua Latina (we are currently in ch 21), but meanwhile we incorporated a “recitation†part that is basically reciting our various chants/tables, etc. I have attached our current Weekly Recitation checklist, along with the vocab we use to do the recitation.

 

Sometimes we sing them (especially for declensions and pronouns), but it is important to me that we learn to also recite, not just sing. In the past I have also periodically used Latin Alive or other gr-tr programs for explicit grammar instruction, although currently our explicit grammar comes almost exclusively from A College Companion (a supplement created for use alongside Lingua Latina, and IMHO *indepsensible*, especially if you as the teacher do not know Latin (as I did not). I look things up in other resources when I have questions.

 

Early on in our Latin studies I realized that *speaking in Latin* would help us immensely with learning to *think in Latin* (as opposed to merely translating to English). I poked around online and found a few resources that validated this approach, and started collecting/creating my own list of “meta-Latin†– that is, Latin phrases, questions, etc. that I could use to talk to my DS in Latin, about Latin. I’ll post a list of useful phrases and such in a little bit. We just started out speaking little by little as we were doing our recitations, and also started utilizing the same phrases as we analyzed sentences out of Lingua Latina. Even if we already knew what the sentence meant, it was still helpful to occasionally go through a Q/A about it all in Latin, simply because it reinforced our Latin thinking. I’ll attach our Latin conversational Latin phrase list to another post.

 

I just spent about two minutes on the Comprehensible Latin site linked above and so far think I am a fan… I’m going to bookmark it to check it out more later.

Latin recitation checklist.pdf

Edited June 14, 2016 by tranquility7

[Tranquility7]

Here are some of our "speak in Latin about Latin" sentences. Some of these I have gathered from other folks, some I have figured out on my own. It is a work in progress, and I am sure there are mistakes in it, but hopefully not too many. Anyway, here it is in its current state, for whatever it might be worth -

 

RespondÄ“ in LatinÄ.   (Respond in Latin.)

Ex AnglicÄ“ in Latinum converte.  (Translate from English into Latin.)

Quid est “saepe�

NÅmen / verbum / adiectÄ«vum  / adverbium / prÅnÅmen / praepositiÅ / coniÅ«nctiÅ / interiectiÅ est.

QuÅmodo scribitur “grÄtiÄsâ€?

          G – R – A longa – T – I – A longa – S.

Non est “a†sed “a longaâ€.   (It is not “a†it is “Äâ€)

Estne …..?

SÄ«c est!  / MinimÄ“!

RÄ“ctÄ“ / bene factum.   (Good job!)

RecitÄ/Lege.   (Read aloud)

ContinuÄ legere.   (Continue to read.)

RecitÄ/Lege (numerum septem) ad mihi.  (Read (number seven) to me)

Attende.  (Pay attention)

AurÄ“s attende.  (Listen closely)

Dictis meis attende.   (Pay attention to what I am saying)

TacÄ“ et audÄ«.   (Be quiet and listen.)

Intellegisne hoc?   (Do you understand this?)

SÄ« placet…   (If you please…)

GrÄtiÄs tibi ago. / Multas grÄtiÄs. / GrÄtiÄs!   (Thank you.)

IntellegÅ.   (I understand; I get it.)

IgnÅrÅ.   (I don’t know.)

Eisdem verbis mihi redde.   (Repeat after me.)

Iterum dice.   (Say again?)

QuÅmodo tÄ“ habÄ“s?  (Quid hodiÄ“ agis?)

Optimē / Bene / Satis bene / Male / Pessimē

Licetne mihi ire …ad lÄtrÄ«nam?  …ad culinam? 

 

Noun   (case/number/gender)

RecitÄ terminÄtiÅnÄ“s prÄ«mae dÄ“clÄ«nÄtiÅnis.     (Recite the endings of the first declension)

CÅ«ius est dÄ“clÄ«nÄtiÅnis?

Est prÄ«mae / secundae / tertiae / quartae / quÄ«ntae dÄ“clÄ«nÄtiÅnis.

CÅ«ius est generis?

Est vocÄbulum masculÄ«num / fÄ“minÄ«num / neutrum.

Cūius est numerī?

Numerus singulÄris / plÅ«rÄlis est.

QuŠest casū?

CÄsÅ« nÅminÄtÄ«vÅ / genitÄ«vÅ / dÄtÄ«vÅ / accÅ«sÄtÄ«vÅ / ablÄtÄ«vÅ est.

Quid significat num cÄsÅ« [genitÄ«vÅ] est?

DÄ“clÄ«nÄ â€œmensa, mensaeâ€.

DÄ“clÄ«nÄ â€œinsula parvaâ€.

 

Verb   (person/number/tense)

ConiugÄ verbum “amÅ, amÄre, amÄvÄ«, amÄtusâ€

in tempore ( praesentī / imperfectī / futūrī / perfectī / <pluperfect> / <future perfect> ).

RecitÄ terminÄtiÅnÄ“s coniugÄtiÅnis prÄ«mae in tempore praesentÄ«.

CÅ«ius est numerÄ«? 

          (SingulÄriter / PlurÄliter) est.

CÅ«ius est persÅnae? 

          Est (prÄ«mae / secundae / tertiae) persÅnae.

CÅ«ius est temporis?    

          Est ( praesentis / imperfectÄ« / futÅ«rÄ« / perfectÄ« / <pluperfect> / <future perfect> ).

Cūius est modī?

          Est (modÄ«?) ( indicativÄ« / imperativÄ« / subiunctivÄ« ).

CÅ«ius generis est “audimurâ€?   <voice>    Est activÄ« aut passivÄ«?

          Est generis ( activi / passivi ).

CÅ«ius est coniugÄtiÅnis?

Est (prÄ«mae / secundae / tertiae / quartae / quÄ«ntae) coniugÄtiÅnis.

 

dÄ“clÄ«nÄtiÅ, dÄ“clÄ«nÄtiÅnis (f)  (3^rd)

cÄsus, cÄsÅ«s (m) (?)

numerus, numerī (m) (2^nd)

genus, generis (n) (gender for noun; voice for verb – pg 696 dictionary)

terminÄtiÅ, terminÄtiÅnis (f, 3^rd)

coniugÄtiÅ, coniugÄtiÅnis (f, 3^rd)

persÅna, persÅnae (f, 1^st)

temporis (3^rd)

modus, modī (m) (2^nd)

 

ÄctÄ«vus, -a, -um (adj)

passīvus, -a, -um (adj)

 

declinÅ, -Äre, -ÄvÄ«, -Ätus

coniugÅ, -Äre, -ÄvÄ«, -Ätus

recitÅ, -Äre, -ÄvÄ«, -Ätus

intellegÅ, intellegere, intellÄ“xÄ«, intellÄ“ctus – to understand

 

RecensiÅ: review

thema: stem

vocÄtÄ«vus: vocative case

locÄtÄ«vus: locative case

ablÄtÄ«vus Ä«nstrÅ«mentÄ«: ablative of means/instrument

ablÄtÄ«vus pretiÄ«: ablative of price

[LostintheCosmos]

Ack, baby posted before I was ready...I'll try again later.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by LostCove

[LostintheCosmos]

IDK... from what I'm reading, aside from some of the conversational bits, TPRS seems like the opposite of old-time teaching. 

 

They don't present the grammar in a structured way, which may or may not be a good idea, but it's definitely a departure.  

 

And they delay the introduction of classical texts, which would traditionally have been used from the beginning, as a way of learning grammar and general knowledge (erudition).  The first part of this article is supposed to be a parody, but it looks a lot like primary English lessons using EFL's methods.  :laugh:

 

From the tone of that piece, I wonder if this is due to a modern sense that "literature" is to be kept on a pedestal, and not sullied by contact with beginners?    If so, the ancients certainly didn't share this view.   Interesting. 

 

Baby safely contained, trying again.  :laugh:

 

My impression with TPRS/CI was that ideally, grammar should be introduced in a systematic but not explicit way, which of course would still be a departure from older methods. But most of the Latin teachers I've seen talking about it on the web seem to be using it in conjunction with a textbook. The spoken bits are precisely what I've hard a hard time wrapping my mind around about older methods, so I've found this useful - this could just be because I haven't really studied any modern languages and is actually totally obvious to people who have.  :laugh:

 

I agree that the selection of texts is problematic - the aversion to classic texts seem to have more to do with the belief that they are too "boring," either in their own right (Caesar! ugh! :001_rolleyes:) or because they are too difficult, than any special reverence for literature. But some tension between "school-book Latin" and "real" Latin seems to also be pretty traditional - look at all those Renaissance colloquies. Of course, I trust Erasmus as a stylist a lot more than a random high school Latin teacher authoring "comprehensible input" stories about pop culture figures.  :huh:

 

tranquility7, thank you for sharing your materials!

[SarahW]

Of interest to this discussion may be some books I picked up at a FOL sale - Esopus Hodie: Aesop Today - A Reader Workbook for Latin Students (link) (and Volume II - Another Reader Workbook (link)). They were put out in 1985 by ACL and has Dorothy MacLaren listed as the author. 

 

These are fascinating books. Each fable begins with an English poem translation, followed by the Latin fable with a gloss on the facing page, and then the next two pages are a more literal English rendering of the fable, followed by a vocabulary study sheet and then comprehension questions on the fable, with the instruction that the answers are to be given in complete Latin sentences. 

 

The preface of Vol 1 by a teacher from Boston Latin School indicates that he thinks these books are excellent for "younger, beginning students." As the texts apparently suppose that these young beginners already know all their verb forms and declensions (and can write full Latin sentences!), I'm not exactly where they fit in the modern method of Latin teaching. Maybe they'd be a nice follow up to Gwynne's Latin?  :tongue_smilie:

 

 

I'm not sure what I'm going to use these books for. But for a buck each, why not? They're obviously classical texts, and I'm also one who leans towards ecclesiastical/Church Latin. Like the rest of you, I'm rummaging around with both grammar-first and inductive texts, trying to find a good balance. I found SSL to be good for presenting the "domestic" side of Latin (classroom commands, parts of the house, etc.) and following up with something highly visual and inductive like Minimus has firmed up some the linguistic foundations (I stumble through pronouncing everything in ecclesiastical). I'm thinking about combining LfC and Lingua Angelica next, then maybe after that combining Henle with something like Cambridge Latin. And I have Gwynne.  :sneaky2:

 

 

What Greek curriculum comes after Henle? I need to know!  :w00t:

 

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by SarahW

[ElizaG]

Thank you for sharing your list, tranquility7!    And SarahW, that book does look interesting. 

 

LostCove, I was just about to mention that the author whose article I linked above -- the one who's against "premature study of the greats" -- doesn't say anything about the traditional sequence of introducing Latin authors.   I assume he's more familiar with this than I am (is this naive of me?), but my understanding is that they would start with colloquies, which were often created by the teacher, and were sort of like TPRS. 

 

Then they'd move on to excerpts from historians whose writings had a relatively simple prose style and quite a bit of action, as well as opportunities for what Fr. Donnelly calls "limited erudition" - so that the students would get a sense of the history and geography of the ancient world.   From what I've seen in 19th century course catalogues, they'd spend a year or so on that stage, while continuing with the grammar.   Although the passages were easier than the ones that would be studied later, these were bona fide classical authors; St. Thomas even quotes Sallust in the Summa.  So it's a bit like EFL's selections from English literature:  simple enough for relative beginners to get through (with help from a teacher, or at least some reference materials), but rich enough to have lasting value.

 

From that article:

 

"We all know of the success we had saving Latin in the 70s and 80s. We now teach beginning Latin from texts specifically designed to be interesting and to teach in a more natural manner. But upper division Latin was not a full part of this counteroffensive. True, we now consider facing vocabulary and notes a necessity, and this was once not the case. But curricula at the upper division levels, whether they be collegiate or pre-collegiate, remain much as they have been – courses centering on the translation and appreciation of the Latin greats."

 

The implication here seems to be that the literature itself isn't "specifically designed to be interesting."  And that it wouldn't be "natural" to use it as the basis for learning.   Given that a major goal of Latin study -- for many students, the only goal -- is to learn to read this literature... I don't get it.  :001_huh:  

 

To my little brain, it seems that the major obstacle to the study of the Latin greats is the simple fact that students are spending fewer years, and less time per year, on Latin studies.   The exceptions would be a small minority of "neo-classical" schools and homeschoolers, but most of them seem to negate the benefits by doing back-to-back beginner curricula.   If we followed MP's lead, our children could be drilled in Latin grammar from age seven, so that in high school, they could do... Henle and AP.   Along with all the students who didn't start it until 9th grade.   But they would still have a great advantage from having done this, because... well, we're not exactly sure, but Dorothy Sayers once wrote something about parrots.  ;)

 

Which reminds me -- on the subject of memory work, I don't know why MP suggests that it takes years of repetition to make it permanent.  I still have a vivid memory of every chant we learned in a single year of high school Latin.    

 

For that matter, I remember every chant we learned in a single week of college orientation.  Even though I wish I could forget them.  And I'm not going to use those leaders' tactics of sleep deprivation, peer pressure, quasi-forced marches, and free pizza.     (Although it would be cheap and quick!    And probably more fun than some of the alternatives...)

[Tranquility7]

 

To my little brain, it seems that the major obstacle to the study of the Latin greats is the simple fact that students are spending fewer years, and less time per year, on Latin studies.   The exceptions would be a small minority of "neo-classical" schools and homeschoolers, but most of them seem to negate the benefits by doing back-to-back beginner curricula.   If we followed MP's lead, our children could be drilled in Latin grammar from age seven, so that in high school, they could do... Henle and AP.   Along with all the students who didn't start it until 9th grade.   But they would still have a great advantage from having done this, because... well, we're not exactly sure, but Dorothy Sayers once wrote something about parrots.  ;)

 

I couldn't agree more. I totally do not get it. DS and I would be driven to tears by the tedium doing programs like that. Instead, I hope and plan to be completely finished with Latin grammar by the time DS turns 13 (or preferably 12, which seems doable given our current pace), and meanwhile already have a LOT of reading, composition, and conversational fluency under our belt. Maybe or maybe not the classical writers by then, but we will have at least read parts of the Vulgate and a bunch of medieval writers. Then it will be onto some classical writers in 7th grade, or just continue reading whatever Latin from the past interests us to keep our fluency up and our vocab growing. And then we can start Greek or Hebrew or whatever else DS is inclined towards.

 

FWIW, I've also recently started DS in Latin composition. We used to do Vulgate copywork but now I've started him on writing out his history narrations in Latin. I think we will both benefit from this new addition to our day, but we are still new at it, so time will tell.

 

As for recitation/chants, I do think there is value in it, which is why we do it. But... years of the same thing? Ummm, no. Fluency needs to take over during those years. In my opinion, being able to chant something is helpful when your reading or composition has come to a screeching halt because you can't figure out what something means, or how to say something. Recite in your head, figure it out, and move on. But having to do this should happen less and less frequently the more fluent you become. If you are *not* becoming fluent (which seems to be the problem of MANY Latin students who never really learn to read or write, but rather only to puzzle it out and translate), then there is (has been) a problem of pedagogy along the way. From what I've read, this is often an issue with grammar-translation programs, which is why we have taken a different path.

[ElizaG]

I don't fault the developers of these plans for being confused, BTW.  This subject turns out to be very hard for anyone in our time to understand, and we're all having to figure it out as we go along.  I'd just appreciate more openness about the limitations of what they've come up with. 

 

Then again, that probably wouldn't go over well, since -- as were were just discussing in the EFL thread -- many people just want to be told what to do.  

 

I had to go through several rounds of increasingly major disillusionment, before I was forced to stop trusting the judgment of those who were being presented as experts on traditional classical education.   And I do mean "forced," against my inclinations at the time.   I mean, how could they be wrong?   They had read a lot of books, and their material was put together in such a tidy and convenient form, adorned with great quotations and busts of famous guys.   That has to count for something, right?   :001_rolleyes:  :laugh:

[Tranquility7]

I don't fault the developers of these plans for being confused, BTW.  This subject turns out to be very hard for anyone in our time to understand, and we're all having to figure it out as we go along.  I'd just appreciate more openness about the limitations of what they've come up with. 

 

Then again, that probably wouldn't go over well, since -- as were were just discussing in the EFL thread -- many people just want to be told what to do.  

 

I had to go through several rounds of increasingly major disillusionment, before I was forced to stop trusting the judgment of those who were being presented as experts on traditional classical education.   And I do mean "forced," against my inclinations at the time.   I mean, how could they be wrong?   They had read a lot of books, and their material was put together in such a tidy and convenient form, adorned with great quotations and busts of famous guys.   That has to count for something, right?   :001_rolleyes:  :laugh:

 

Sorry if this is a totally dumb question - it certainly shows that I am not nearly as well-read in all these people as you are (sorry, never even heard of the Donnelly guy, and I've not read the EFL thread you mention)! - but why is learning Latin always considered to be inherently different (and harder) than learning any other language (including any other heavily inflected language)?

 

I love reading about educational philosophy and researching curricula (and I currently have about 15+ Latin programs on my shelf, which is not even including the 10+ that I've already tossed!). But what is my *goal* in studying Latin? Is my *goal* "to use classical (or EFL or Donnelly or whomever) methods" (whatever "classical" even means these days!)? Or is my *goal* "proficiency in Latin". For us, it is clearly the latter. And so I have finally sought out polyglots, not classical education experts. I want to know from people who have a *proven* track record in independently learning languages (especially languages of very different types) how THEY have really been able to do it. And I want to know this not only so that we can gain proficiency in Latin, but also in Spanish and Chinese, which we also currently study (and none of which was I even remotely skilled in when we started). At the end of the day, similar methods seem to apply to all.

 

Anyway, this probably doesn't help you, if your goal is to apply methods of Donnelly et al... just throwing it out as an honest question! :D

[ElizaG]

Yes, when I said "this subject," I meant the big picture of the traditional methods and goals of classical education -- which is to say, the type of secondary education that was normative in the ancient world, and in the humanistic system that came out of the Renaissance.   

 

One way of doing this is to use similar methods to teach other languages that we know fairly well.  I feel as if I've got enough of a handle on how that works for now, so I'm turning back to the question of Latin. 

 

It's not that Latin itself is different from other languages; the same general approach is supposed to be used with every language that's being studied, ancient or modern.   In that sense, it intersects with some contemporary ideas about teaching classics.   The goals are different, though, since the humanistic curriculum is based around the study of grammar (understood as "the reading and understanding of texts") and rhetoric (understood as the formation of "the good man who speaks well").   So what they're reading, and what sort of exercises they're doing, are important at every stage, not just as means to an end. 

 

This system was starting to be displaced by the mid-19th century, and had almost vanished altogether by the early 20th.   Fr. Francis P. Donnelly described it in books such as Principles of Jesuit Education in Practice, and also wrote high school textbooks to help modern teachers to apply these principles.  There are links to some of his writings in this thread. [edited to add link]

 

Ella Frances Lynch was writing about the same time.  She didn't get into "how to give a classical education" (which would have been outside her experience), but she recommended homeschooling through at least age 8 to 10, with a dual emphasis on the study of classic literature, and on everyday life in the child's own environment.   Both her admirers and detractors recognized that her system was based on "the old-time ways," and her advice for teaching literature seems to line up with Father Donnelly's description of classical methods, so it seems like a reasonable way of preparing the younger ones for classical studies.

 

That said, teaching Latin is more complicated than teaching, say, French, since there's a tension between "living" (vulgate & medieval) and "literary" (classical) ideals.   EFL recommended daily practice with simple conversation and the Bible for elementary Latin, but many classicists -- even Catholic ones -- thought that children should be exposed to classical models from the beginning, in order to ensure a good style.  And looking at the history of Catholic education, the neo-medievalist trend of the first half of the 20th century didn't end up anywhere good.    

 

Pope John XXIII's Veterum Sapientia (1963) recommends both "living Latin" and the study of classical texts, and it seems to me that the survival of each depends on the other.   But that doesn't mean we can just use anything for conversation and beginning readers (which is the impression I get from some contemporary approaches).  And somewhere in there, the students have to make the transition.   

 

So... Latin isn't different from other languages... except when it is.  :laugh:

Edited June 15, 2016 by ElizaG

[LostintheCosmos]

Hmmm, I've been mulling all this over more. I studied Latin for six years and still, at the end, was reading Ovid like a decoding exercise. Some more oral Latin work wouldn't have hurt getting to greater fluency, but I see what you're saying, ElizaG. Even the best method won't get you there if you just don't spend enough time on it, and it's hard to see how you can spend enough time on it if Latin is just one subject among the many we now have kids study in the grammar school years. My hunch is that this commitment to conventional high school transcripts is driving some of the oddness of the neo-classical approach to Latin (also, it's not clear to me how reading great literature fits in with the MP approach at all given that I just read here that grammar is "an interesting subject in itself that does not need to be rushed over in a hurry to get to translation").

 

Maybe I'm cynical, but I doubt the author of the article arguing for postponing study of "the greats" is terribly familiar with the historical sequence in which Latin authors were studied. That article did make me wonder - are we about to see the final triumph of children's "classics," when students master Latin grammar, not to read Virgil or Cicero, but Winnie Ille Pu?  :huh:  :laugh:

 

ETA: clarification, I hope

Edited June 17, 2016 by LostCove

[ElizaG]

Hmmm, I've been mulling all this over more. I studied Latin for six years and still, at the end, was reading Ovid like a decoding exercise. Some more oral Latin work wouldn't have hurt getting to greater fluency, but I see what you're saying, ElizaG. Even the best method won't get you there if you just don't spend enough time on it, and it's hard to see how you can spend enough time on it if Latin is just one subject among the many we now have kids study in the grammar school years.

It seems necessary to have both correct methods and adequate time (as in hours of study, not just years spent).   

 

MP presents their program as a more traditional alternative to 19th century grammar-translation, but since their understanding of the older methods is limited to "memorizing the grammar," there isn't a path for introducing texts.   So, in practice, they're still relying on g-t methods in high school.  

 

This is why we went with Artes.  The programmed instruction is weird, and the grammar is taught in a non-traditional way (so it's not easy to compare with other languages), but at least it's a way get students to real texts.   If they offered a way to use the ecclesiastical pronunciation with the pencil & paper version, I'd probably just use it for everyone, and forget my idealism on this subject. 

 

I don't know if the first part of Artes would help at all with Greek, though, so we might have to use something that was designed for students with no Latin background.   (For the person who asked about the program I mentioned earlier, it was Fr. Schoder's Reading Course in Homeric Greek.   It doesn't "go with Henle" specifically, but it assumes that the student has that sort of foundation in Latin grammar.  There are other options that are probably just as good, if not better.  I just liked the idea of reading Homer first.  :001_smile: )

[ElizaG]

Fr. Pavur writes about a variation on "comprehensible input" that he calls GRASP.

 

"GRASP stands for GRadual Aggregative Syntactic Praxis.

 

GRASP is a pedagogical method that presents the parts of sentences bit-by-bit, with variety and incremental complexity, to help learners attain the ability to grasp the original text in the order in which it was written, with immediate comprehension.

 

It can be applied to any text, but it is especially helpful when applied to texts of syntactical complexity."

 

 

Not sure our family would be able to get much use out of this model, but maybe some of you can. 

 

 

Also, from a Spanish teacher's blog  - some first-hand criticisms of TPRS.   The point about "ignoring metacognitive awareness" seems relevant, since the traditional methods involved teaching the same grammar concepts in different languages, somewhat in parallel, so that the similarities and differences would be drawn out to some extent.   This seems age-appropriate for early adolescence.

 

And the point about "translation" was surprising.  I didn't imagine that teachers were presenting new words by giving the English equivalent. 

 

 

I was looking back over Fr. Schwickerath's book, and he says that grammar drill shouldn't be done during the explanation of the author, as it makes the lesson "unpleasant" and distracts from the reading.   They were supposed to drill the previous day's grammar at the beginning of the lesson, the current day's work at the end, and the whole week's at the end of each week. 

 

There isn't much written about how the grammar lessons were conducted, though.   Rhetoric gets a lot more attention.

[Lawyer&Mom]

Sometimes I like to tell myself that Latin is just another Romance language. Sure, it declines its nouns, but whatever. Does it take 10+ years to become passably fluent in Spanish? Nope. Take off the kid gloves and just treat Latin like a regular foreign language. (Immersion, whole-to-parts, listen, write, speak etc.)

 

But on the other hand... There is something to be said about really dissecting a language. And if you are going to do it, it might as well be a dead one. Latin becomes a specimen to teach us about language works. So we focus on the grammar, parts to whole, translation and we don't really care if we ever develop fluency. It's the journey, not the destination. Still don't know why that journey should take 10+ years... I guess the MP approach has me stumped. But the First Form does look lovely.

[Dmmetler]

For my DD, doing Latin like it was Spanish first worked well-she can read almost anything and is comfortable with the language. Last year, we started seriously diving into an analyzing grammar, and it worked better because she could already read and write (and probably speak) the language pretty comfortably. We started out with the grammar-heavy LFC (after SSL1 and Minimus) and it just plain didn't work-she loved Latin and those lovely words and the history, not the grammar. At a high school teacher friend's suggestion, we moved to Cambridge, and that was a better fit at the time, picked up other reading-heavy Latin books, got translations of books into Latin, etc.

 

I will say though, we had a LOT of time-DD wanted to start Latin at age 5. Essentially, we read Latin through elementary school, and started Latin with Latin Prep right on schedule at age 10/11.

[ElizaG]

According to MP, most grammar-heavy curricula used by homeschoolers (including LfC and Henle) are actually "grammar-translation," which isn't the same as the older "grammar-first" approach.  Since I'm interested in the older methods, this distinction seems significant, which is why I chose it as the thread title. 

 

Although... according some posts from several years ago, MP's original goal with the FFL series was to take Henle I and spread it over four years.

 

Did they end up changing this plan significantly -- and, if so, how? 

 

Or is it their view that taking a "grammar-translation" curriculum, and going very slowly, makes it "grammar-first?" 

 

:confused1:  

Sometimes I like to tell myself that Latin is just another Romance language. Sure, it declines its nouns, but whatever. Does it take 10+ years to become passably fluent in Spanish? Nope. Take off the kid gloves and just treat Latin like a regular foreign language. (Immersion, whole-to-parts, listen, write, speak etc.)

 

The tricky part of the above approach is a lack of graded-appropriate materials in Latin.  With, say, French, you can use all kind of children's books, intermediate readers, TV shows, songs, trips to Quebec, etc.  However, for Latin, the approach has always been "race to Vergil".  The equivalent approach in English would have kids memorize some vocab, learn some grammar, then try to read Shakespeare line by line.

 

There just isn't a lot of intermediate Latin material out there to get immersers from the basics to the advanced.  Lingua Latina, especially the second book, is one such, but to find more, you need to dig through 100 year old classic readers, and the majority of those are pretty elementary.