Show HN: A Latin self study course, Khan Academy-style(selfstudyclassics.com)
selfstudyclassics.com
Show HN: A Latin self study course, Khan Academy-style
https://selfstudyclassics.com/
111 comments
I believe the other popular suggestion is Ørberg's Lingua Latīna:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg
Yes! Orberg's is neat in that it's all in Latin, and you just infer what everything means from the pictures as you read.
I got referred to it from this earlier HN thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448974
I got referred to it from this earlier HN thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448974
For me it is the best book for language learning I have ever seen, irrespective of the target language.
Yes, several other commenters have made that suggestion, and I agree it is a good one. This tool is aimed at those interested in a public domain text, or people who using other tools who are looking for additional practice in the form of interactive exercises with explanations.
I thought the common suggestion for a modern Latin textbook is Wheelock.
https://www.amazon.com/Wheelocks-Latin-7th/dp/0061997226#
https://www.amazon.com/Wheelocks-Latin-7th/dp/0061997226#
From my own casual investigations, Wheelock is considered a perfectly good textbook (particularly for people with lots of experience learning languages, e.g. grad students in the humanities), but also a bit "traditional," focusing more on learning grammatical rules and less on developing an intuition for the language. Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata is at the other, "immersion"-oriented end of the spectrum.
My latin teacher used both wheelock and lingua latina. They complement each other really well.
It is common, but that does not mean it's good, especially with all the research that's been done in learning over the past few decades. As someone remarked, Wheelock:
> It teaches about Latin, teaching you the Latin language is not the goal of this book […]
* https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/8rp222/
Wheelock can be used as a technical reference if you want to know the exact structure. But it's like trying to read the C++ ISO spec if you want to program.
The consensus seems to be either Ørberg and/or Cambridge if you want dead-tree materials.
> It teaches about Latin, teaching you the Latin language is not the goal of this book […]
* https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/8rp222/
Wheelock can be used as a technical reference if you want to know the exact structure. But it's like trying to read the C++ ISO spec if you want to program.
The consensus seems to be either Ørberg and/or Cambridge if you want dead-tree materials.
Why call it dead tree which sounds negative and not carbon sink instead...
Thanks for the link to a great resource. I don't mean to detract in any way from any of the other terrific resources available online - free or otherwise. I created selfstudyclassics.com to scratch a very particular itch. When I started to re-learn Latin after many years, I was looking for something which was focused on examples and featured a lot of practice with instant feedback - something like Khan Academy, which I love. My hope is that it is helpful to others with a similar itch.
Yes I totally understand, and I don't think you've detracted from the others at all. The more resources are available, and the more accessible they are for different learners and different styles of learning, the better.
Ecce Romani gets no love despite the exciting saga of the main characters being stuck in a ditch for half a book.
I have many fond memories of learning Latin with Ecce Romani. Raeda in fossa est, whatever will they do?
Who could forget the spiritual predecessor to the oregon trail, the via appia?
It's really important that these texts have this lightness of mood to engage kids - and the way that so many adults remember Caecilius and family is a testament to how effective it is. Timeless too - I was amazed and delighted when my daughter used the exact same texts.
In similar vein, for Greek we used Thrasymachus, which follows a plucky kid on his adventures encountering various characters from mythology.
Also new this year for Lockdown, the Oak National Academy produced an intro course:
https://classroom.thenational.academy/subjects-by-key-stage/...
Wow, this is great. Thanks for the link. I hope to take Selfstudyclassics a little farther than this one goes over time, but this would be a great place for anyone to start.
The other resource you might be interested in is Minimus, designed to introduce Primary school children to Latin, and to allow non-Latin speaking teachers to lead a course. None of the interactive elements you offer, though there are CDs :)
http://www.minimus.com/
It's a pity English speakers are often taught the wrong (English based) pronunciation.
For self study I also suggest reading Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata, it's a book completely written in Latin that gets progressively more complex and guides you through the language in an utilitarian way.
For self study I also suggest reading Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata, it's a book completely written in Latin that gets progressively more complex and guides you through the language in an utilitarian way.
One of my Latin teachers (the one who was under 60) did try to teach us a proper pronuncation once, but quickly gave up.
But i wonder, what is the point? I think the use cases for Latin are, from most to least important:
1. reading Latin texts
2. casually dropping Latin phrases to impress your friends and intimidate your enemies
3. writing Latin mottoes, naming species, etc
4. listening to that Finnish radio station that is in Latin
5. work conversations at the Vatican
I think that none of these require historically correct Latin pronunciation. I assume that at the Vatican they speak some derivative of mediaeval Latin, and the signalling function of using Latin tags actually requires that you use the incorrect "classically educated Englishman" pronunciation.
But i wonder, what is the point? I think the use cases for Latin are, from most to least important:
1. reading Latin texts
2. casually dropping Latin phrases to impress your friends and intimidate your enemies
3. writing Latin mottoes, naming species, etc
4. listening to that Finnish radio station that is in Latin
5. work conversations at the Vatican
I think that none of these require historically correct Latin pronunciation. I assume that at the Vatican they speak some derivative of mediaeval Latin, and the signalling function of using Latin tags actually requires that you use the incorrect "classically educated Englishman" pronunciation.
Correct pronunciation is rather relevant for your first point, if you are trying to read poetry.
Both latin and classical greek poetry has a "rhythm" based on the pronunciation of each syllable. In latin you won't get the rhythm unless you are very knowledgeable of the poetic forms or the correct pronunciation of words, since vowel spelling is overloaded: there are 10 latin vowels (excluding diphthongs) and 5 ways to write them traditionally.
Same goes if you are interested in following a christian mass in latin. Songs make little sense without medieval/vatican pronunciation. I can read an ecclesiastic text, but I get nothing of what they are singing, since I was educated in classical latin.
Both latin and classical greek poetry has a "rhythm" based on the pronunciation of each syllable. In latin you won't get the rhythm unless you are very knowledgeable of the poetic forms or the correct pronunciation of words, since vowel spelling is overloaded: there are 10 latin vowels (excluding diphthongs) and 5 ways to write them traditionally.
Same goes if you are interested in following a christian mass in latin. Songs make little sense without medieval/vatican pronunciation. I can read an ecclesiastic text, but I get nothing of what they are singing, since I was educated in classical latin.
> I think that none of these require historically correct Latin pronunciation.
That is true, but there are questions for which you want to know what the historical pronunciation was. For example, it's much easier to make sense of ancient misspellings if you can recognize that the misspelling and the target word would have sounded the same. Something similar holds for ancient jokes.
> I assume that at the Vatican they speak some derivative of mediaeval Latin
This is vague; the syntax and pronunciation of Latin change continuously into Italian. The rest of Italy has a better claim to be speaking "some derivative of medieval Latin" than the Vatican does; the Vatican's version presumably reflects mostly-arrested development after a certain point, as far as syntax goes.
As for pronunciation, I tend to assume (without any relevant knowledge) that the Vatican's Latin pronunciation is just how the same written words would be pronounced in standard Italian. You can find similar conventions for other dead languages -- it's the only option available for Chinese where we just plain don't know what the pronunciation was in 600 BC, and it's "Reuchlinian pronunciation" in Greek. This approach has quite a bit to recommend it, most prominently that it's easy to find fluent models of the pronunciation of a living language.
That is true, but there are questions for which you want to know what the historical pronunciation was. For example, it's much easier to make sense of ancient misspellings if you can recognize that the misspelling and the target word would have sounded the same. Something similar holds for ancient jokes.
> I assume that at the Vatican they speak some derivative of mediaeval Latin
This is vague; the syntax and pronunciation of Latin change continuously into Italian. The rest of Italy has a better claim to be speaking "some derivative of medieval Latin" than the Vatican does; the Vatican's version presumably reflects mostly-arrested development after a certain point, as far as syntax goes.
As for pronunciation, I tend to assume (without any relevant knowledge) that the Vatican's Latin pronunciation is just how the same written words would be pronounced in standard Italian. You can find similar conventions for other dead languages -- it's the only option available for Chinese where we just plain don't know what the pronunciation was in 600 BC, and it's "Reuchlinian pronunciation" in Greek. This approach has quite a bit to recommend it, most prominently that it's easy to find fluent models of the pronunciation of a living language.
When you're learning latin, it's usually not mainly about the practical application, anyway, and aesthetically it feels somehow so much more pleasing to use the “correct” pronunciation - to me at least.
Furthermore it can help to understand historic and linguistic relationships in unexpected ways:
For example the German word for emperor “Kaiser” looks very different to the Latin “Caesar” and the relationship between those words remains obscured by the way most Germans pronounce Caesar. But it was a revelation to me, when I learned that “c” and “ae”are actually pronounced the same way as the “k” and “ai” in the German “Kaiser”. We literally still call emperors Caesar in German!
Furthermore it can help to understand historic and linguistic relationships in unexpected ways:
For example the German word for emperor “Kaiser” looks very different to the Latin “Caesar” and the relationship between those words remains obscured by the way most Germans pronounce Caesar. But it was a revelation to me, when I learned that “c” and “ae”are actually pronounced the same way as the “k” and “ai” in the German “Kaiser”. We literally still call emperors Caesar in German!
The Russian 'tsar' is similarly derived from Caesar.
Aren't the "s" and the "s" different, though? And the "r" and the "r"?
It's pretty dang close for 2100 years!
You might be surprised at the size of the community of Latin speakers (outside the Vatican). It gets some attention from time to time on HN. For this community a shared pronunciation is crucial to being mutually intelligible. And I suppose it makes sense to use the one with the most support from the experts, even if it will always remain somewhat speculative. I take your point - it is possible to study and ready Latin without much regard for pronunciation. But I also feel that if you approach it this way you miss out on the fun of trying to recreate the speech of an ancient culture.
ad 4. If you are referring to Nuntii Latini then it is no longer broadcasted. The final news service was emitted in 2019.
Not knowing Latin myself, I would imagine that learning Latin could also be a stepping stone to more thoroughly understand other related languages?
But pronunciation is very variable, even living languages have multiple different pronunciations in use at any given time (a.k.a. accents) and for a language like Latin that has been in use for thousands of years, the possibilities are endless.
Being able to establish one-to-one correspondences between Latin words and their descendants in modern languages can be helpful, but it doesn't matter much whether you're using the "correct" Latin pronunciation, so long as whatever pronunciation you do use maintains those correspondences.
Being able to establish one-to-one correspondences between Latin words and their descendants in modern languages can be helpful, but it doesn't matter much whether you're using the "correct" Latin pronunciation, so long as whatever pronunciation you do use maintains those correspondences.
Give it a try, it's what people do on a daily basis when trying to communicate with English speakers.
The written form, maybe, but the spoken form not likely.
The Youtuber Ecolinguist ran an experiment where he had Romance language speakers (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian) try to guess at riddles in Latin. Turns out Classical Latin is actually very different from most Romance languages, which descended more from "Vulgar Latin".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77anb2DJGk
The Youtuber Ecolinguist ran an experiment where he had Romance language speakers (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian) try to guess at riddles in Latin. Turns out Classical Latin is actually very different from most Romance languages, which descended more from "Vulgar Latin".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77anb2DJGk
[deleted]
> One of my Latin teachers did try to teach us a proper pronuncation once, but quickly gave up.
Basically what happens in Europe when students need to learn English pronunciation, but no way to give up.
> But i wonder, what is the point?
By learning Latin you multiply the speed at which you learn romance languages, which will allow you to understand and communicate with a much larger share of the world.
Moreover, but this is a personal sidenote: why do people outside of the Anglosphere need to learn how to speak perfect English (and get the usual banter about pronunciation not being spotless), while the Anglosphere generally doesn't bother returning the favour (while at the same time complaining about being treated as uneducated, rude gringos)
Basically what happens in Europe when students need to learn English pronunciation, but no way to give up.
> But i wonder, what is the point?
By learning Latin you multiply the speed at which you learn romance languages, which will allow you to understand and communicate with a much larger share of the world.
Moreover, but this is a personal sidenote: why do people outside of the Anglosphere need to learn how to speak perfect English (and get the usual banter about pronunciation not being spotless), while the Anglosphere generally doesn't bother returning the favour (while at the same time complaining about being treated as uneducated, rude gringos)
> By learning Latin you multiply the speed at which you learn romance languages, which will allow you to understand and communicate with a much larger share of the world.
As someone else said, you can just as well learn a Romance language and you'll have the same benefit when learning a second. My grandfather's first language was an obscure French dialect, and he's able to communicate with Mexican Spanish speakers without much trouble.
> Moreover, but this is a personal sidenote: why do people outside of the Anglosphere need to learn how to speak perfect English (and get the usual banter about pronunciation not being spotless), while the Anglosphere generally doesn't bother returning the favour (while at the same time complaining about being treated as uneducated, rude gringos)
I don't know if this holds true elsewhere in the Anglosphere, but in my experience Americans who are interested in learning foreign languages are generally eager to perfect their pronunciation (whether or not they succeed is another question entirely, though to be fair the same is true about most English learners). That "uneducated, rude gringos" are a long-standing negative trope in popular American media reflects this insecurity. And with regard to classical languages in particular, the Anglosphere has been mocked for reviving 'spotless' classical pronunciations instead of simply using, for example, modern Italian or Greek pronunciation.
As someone else said, you can just as well learn a Romance language and you'll have the same benefit when learning a second. My grandfather's first language was an obscure French dialect, and he's able to communicate with Mexican Spanish speakers without much trouble.
> Moreover, but this is a personal sidenote: why do people outside of the Anglosphere need to learn how to speak perfect English (and get the usual banter about pronunciation not being spotless), while the Anglosphere generally doesn't bother returning the favour (while at the same time complaining about being treated as uneducated, rude gringos)
I don't know if this holds true elsewhere in the Anglosphere, but in my experience Americans who are interested in learning foreign languages are generally eager to perfect their pronunciation (whether or not they succeed is another question entirely, though to be fair the same is true about most English learners). That "uneducated, rude gringos" are a long-standing negative trope in popular American media reflects this insecurity. And with regard to classical languages in particular, the Anglosphere has been mocked for reviving 'spotless' classical pronunciations instead of simply using, for example, modern Italian or Greek pronunciation.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that learning Latin helps you learn Romance languages any faster than learning a Romance language does. Why should learning Latin and then French be any faster than Spanish->French ?
I studied Latin and French from the age of 11. When I spent a year in Bologna as a student on the Erasmus scheme (studying Latin, in fact), I can assure you that my schoolboy French was the more useful of the two as a starting point for learning Italian.
I would like to add that that's not a coincidence either.
The Late-Roman republic and the Roman Empire saw the emergence of vulgar Latin next to classical Latin. Vulgar Latin developed first in Italy and was subsequently adopted throughout the Empire. Vulgar Latin also saw active evolution during late antiquity. It diverged from classical Latin to a point where both lost out being mutual intelligible (7th century). That's when classical Latin became a dead language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages#Vulgar_Latin
The decline of the Roman Empire coincided with an age of mass migrations. As Roman influenced waned, people across the European peninsula fragmented. As did language development. That's where you find the common root of modern romance languages. Over the course of several centuries, local changes and influences forged distinct languages.
For sure, classical Latin and modern romance language are all of the same family. But Cicero's Latin is further removed from French then modern day Italian.
The Late-Roman republic and the Roman Empire saw the emergence of vulgar Latin next to classical Latin. Vulgar Latin developed first in Italy and was subsequently adopted throughout the Empire. Vulgar Latin also saw active evolution during late antiquity. It diverged from classical Latin to a point where both lost out being mutual intelligible (7th century). That's when classical Latin became a dead language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages#Vulgar_Latin
The decline of the Roman Empire coincided with an age of mass migrations. As Roman influenced waned, people across the European peninsula fragmented. As did language development. That's where you find the common root of modern romance languages. Over the course of several centuries, local changes and influences forged distinct languages.
For sure, classical Latin and modern romance language are all of the same family. But Cicero's Latin is further removed from French then modern day Italian.
> Why should learning Latin and then French be any faster than Spanish->French ?
Indeed. I'm French, and I can basically read (not too literary) Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Latin, not so much. I have been told by locutors of these languages that the Italian/Spanish gap is even narrower.
Indeed. I'm French, and I can basically read (not too literary) Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Latin, not so much. I have been told by locutors of these languages that the Italian/Spanish gap is even narrower.
I think Lingua Latina is an amazing book!
PSA: you only need the first book. The second is pretty much a reader. It is still great, specially if you are interested in Classics. If you are interested in reading the Vulgate Bible or medieval works, you can go ahead with those after the first book.
Medieval latin is significantly easier than classics, so it may even be worth you while going through those even before going further with classics.
PSA: you only need the first book. The second is pretty much a reader. It is still great, specially if you are interested in Classics. If you are interested in reading the Vulgate Bible or medieval works, you can go ahead with those after the first book.
Medieval latin is significantly easier than classics, so it may even be worth you while going through those even before going further with classics.
Agreed! That is unquestionably a great text for those who have access to it. Selfstudyclassics is aimed at those who might not have access to it, or who are looking for additional practice in the form of interactive exercises with explanations.
Oh, I was just riffing on the parent comment.
I've had a look at your tool and I think is great. It greatly complements Lingua Latina and it is an essential tool for someone going through the traditional path of learning latin.
I wish I had something like this when I was learning latin in highschool. Furthermore, anything that helps disseminate classics is great in my view.
Thanks for your contribution!
I've had a look at your tool and I think is great. It greatly complements Lingua Latina and it is an essential tool for someone going through the traditional path of learning latin.
I wish I had something like this when I was learning latin in highschool. Furthermore, anything that helps disseminate classics is great in my view.
Thanks for your contribution!
> PSA: you only need the first book.
If I go to Amazon, the "Frequently bought together" section has:
* This item:Familia Romana by Hans H. Ørberg Paperback CDN$39.05
* Exercitia Latina I: Exercises for Familia Romana by Hans H. Ørberg Paperback CDN$25.33
* Latine Disco, Student's Manual: Familia Romana by Hans H. Ørberg Paperback CDN$10.28
Is this a good combo?
It appears that the second book is Roma Aeterna: correct?
If I go to Amazon, the "Frequently bought together" section has:
* This item:Familia Romana by Hans H. Ørberg Paperback CDN$39.05
* Exercitia Latina I: Exercises for Familia Romana by Hans H. Ørberg Paperback CDN$25.33
* Latine Disco, Student's Manual: Familia Romana by Hans H. Ørberg Paperback CDN$10.28
Is this a good combo?
It appears that the second book is Roma Aeterna: correct?
I do not own latine disco. I did work through exercitia latina I, and it is great!
And yes, Roma Aeterna is the second book.
But you only need familia romana. Everything else is cherry on top, extremely useful if you want to write latin and it will help your learning a lot. However if you are strapped for cash, are not interested in writing, don't have lots of time, want to jump quickly into reading the Bible... Just go with familia romana.
Furthermore op is giving lots of exercises, so that makes exercitia less relevant.
But at the end of the day is your money and your choice. I am happy I have Roma Aeterna, but I did not finish it, and I read medieval works quite fluently. I just wanted to put that info out so everyone can make their best buying choice.
But you only need familia romana. Everything else is cherry on top, extremely useful if you want to write latin and it will help your learning a lot. However if you are strapped for cash, are not interested in writing, don't have lots of time, want to jump quickly into reading the Bible... Just go with familia romana.
Furthermore op is giving lots of exercises, so that makes exercitia less relevant.
But at the end of the day is your money and your choice. I am happy I have Roma Aeterna, but I did not finish it, and I read medieval works quite fluently. I just wanted to put that info out so everyone can make their best buying choice.
> It's a pity English speakers are often taught the wrong (English based) pronunciation.
Really? Still? I was taught Latin many years ago by a very conservative teacher, who insisted on classical pronunciation rather than the anglicised version (so "mah-ter" rather than "may-ter" for mater, etc.)
Really? Still? I was taught Latin many years ago by a very conservative teacher, who insisted on classical pronunciation rather than the anglicised version (so "mah-ter" rather than "may-ter" for mater, etc.)
Same here, I don't think I have ever heard mater pronounced may-ter except by public school boys referring to their mother in English. I studied Latin from 1st form to 3rd form, 1966 to 1969. Hated it then but in recent years I've been making desultory attempts to learn it again.
Thanks for your interest! I agree about the pronunciation. The first of the videos is on that very topic. Also I second your suggestion of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. That is a great text. My goal is not to replace any of the existing tools, but rather to supplement them. There is no such thing as too much practice. Also, this presents a free alternative for those that might need one.
Ah sorry I didn't mean to sound like that with the comment on the pronunciation, it was praise: fortunately someone like you is pushing for doing things the right way (and this removes the perceived cultural imperialism)
Great job!
Great job!
No apology necessary. I sincerely appreciate any and all feedback on the project.
I learned Latin in a public high school in the 70's, took 3 years of it. The teacher taught us correct pronunciation as best he could. It was actually the most popular class in the whole school due to the quality of the teacher. Sadly I don't remember much now.
A review of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata on the excellent polyMATHY channel:
https://youtu.be/5oJctKy_r6s
https://youtu.be/5oJctKy_r6s
Thanks! Excellent text and excellent channel.
> Select the English phrase that correctly translates the Latin.
> Fīliae aquam agricolae dant.
> 1. The daughters give the farmer water.
> 2. The farmers give (their) daughters water.
> 3. The farmer gives (his) daughters water.
> 4. The farmer gives (his) daughter water.
This is answerable, but only because three of the answers are impossible. You have to make the assumption that the correct translation is given as one of the options. Unmentioned but possible readings include "The farmers give water to the daughter" and "The farmer's daughters give water [to something determined by context]".
If I'm going to be asked to do translation exercises, I'd rather have questions that I need to answer by understanding the text, as opposed to questions that I need to answer by referring to the construction of the question. Follow that sentence with something like Aqua bibita, puellis gratias agit and suddenly we can determine what the first sentence meant regardless of which options we're given.
> Choose the word that matches the indicated use.
> Genitive of the possesor
> 1. corōnam and Diānam in "Puella Diānae corōnam dat quia Diānam amat."
> 2. dominīs in "Nautae fābulam dominīs nārrat quia dominae fābulās amant."
> 3. Cui in "Cui puellae corōnam dant?"
This is much worse; these three sentences between them do not contain even one word in the genitive case. Also, there's a typo in #2, which should presumably say either "Nautae... narrant" or "Nauta... narrat". "Possesor" is a typo too.
I picked #2 and was told it was correct. That grayed the question out, so I can't tell whether options 1 or 3 would also have been "correct".
> Genitive of the possesor
> 3. pugnae in "Nūntiat Galba nautae causam pugnae."
This one is at least genitive, but I have trouble characterizing this as "genitive of the possessor". Going by the taxonomy here ( https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program... ), I'd call it an objective genitive.
> Fīliae aquam agricolae dant.
> 1. The daughters give the farmer water.
> 2. The farmers give (their) daughters water.
> 3. The farmer gives (his) daughters water.
> 4. The farmer gives (his) daughter water.
This is answerable, but only because three of the answers are impossible. You have to make the assumption that the correct translation is given as one of the options. Unmentioned but possible readings include "The farmers give water to the daughter" and "The farmer's daughters give water [to something determined by context]".
If I'm going to be asked to do translation exercises, I'd rather have questions that I need to answer by understanding the text, as opposed to questions that I need to answer by referring to the construction of the question. Follow that sentence with something like Aqua bibita, puellis gratias agit and suddenly we can determine what the first sentence meant regardless of which options we're given.
> Choose the word that matches the indicated use.
> Genitive of the possesor
> 1. corōnam and Diānam in "Puella Diānae corōnam dat quia Diānam amat."
> 2. dominīs in "Nautae fābulam dominīs nārrat quia dominae fābulās amant."
> 3. Cui in "Cui puellae corōnam dant?"
This is much worse; these three sentences between them do not contain even one word in the genitive case. Also, there's a typo in #2, which should presumably say either "Nautae... narrant" or "Nauta... narrat". "Possesor" is a typo too.
I picked #2 and was told it was correct. That grayed the question out, so I can't tell whether options 1 or 3 would also have been "correct".
> Genitive of the possesor
> 3. pugnae in "Nūntiat Galba nautae causam pugnae."
This one is at least genitive, but I have trouble characterizing this as "genitive of the possessor". Going by the taxonomy here ( https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program... ), I'd call it an objective genitive.
That particular sentence is a really tough knot pedagogically too. As a teacher, you want a short simple sentence that includes a nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and verb to habituate students to thinking about cases.
Unfortunately, in the first declension, the nominative plural, genitive singular, and and dative singular all look identical, hence the confusion here. Filiae and agricolae could be any of those three options, which means, as you rightly say, that we need context to render the sentence. That introduced students to another distinctive feature of Latin: like C++, Latin has a context sensitive grammar.
If you wanted to separate the introduction of the case system from the introduction of the context sensitivity of the grammar, you could do this sentence:
> Filiabus aquam agricolae dant.
While that fixes most of the context sensitivity, it doesn't fix all of it, and introduces an irregular declension, also tough right out the gate.
Latin is a hard language to teach.
Unfortunately, in the first declension, the nominative plural, genitive singular, and and dative singular all look identical, hence the confusion here. Filiae and agricolae could be any of those three options, which means, as you rightly say, that we need context to render the sentence. That introduced students to another distinctive feature of Latin: like C++, Latin has a context sensitive grammar.
If you wanted to separate the introduction of the case system from the introduction of the context sensitivity of the grammar, you could do this sentence:
> Filiabus aquam agricolae dant.
While that fixes most of the context sensitivity, it doesn't fix all of it, and introduces an irregular declension, also tough right out the gate.
Latin is a hard language to teach.
Actually this is an example of ambiguity, not context sensitivity (in the formal languages sense). Context sensitivity means context is needed to construct a grammatical sentence, not merely to parse one. It's actually pretty hard to find examples of this in natural language.
Judging by the paper linked sidethread, it's enough that some valid sentences cannot be constructed in a context-free way. Even if they can be losslessly transformed into alternative sentences which can be easily derived from a context-free grammar, their existence demonstrates that the language is not context-free.
> That introduced students to another distinctive feature of Latin: like C++, Latin has a context sensitive grammar.
Surely this is a feature of all languages :)
Surely this is a feature of all languages :)
Certainly not.
The first example of context-sensitive constructions in natural language was found in 1985.
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/shieber85...
The first example of context-sensitive constructions in natural language was found in 1985.
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/shieber85...
Looking at your second example...that's just a mistake, sorry. I figured a couple of those were bound to slip in. I'll get it fixed. And again, I really appreciate your taking a look at the site.
Thanks for the feedback! As you noticed, the drills are more about syntax than reading comprehension, and your understanding of syntax is solid. It might be challenging to come up with multiple correct translations of each Latin exercise, but I will give some thought to how it might be done.
One way I've done that in the past is asking explicit questions about the syntax, like:
> "If filiae is nominative, how would you translate the sentence?"
or
> What cases could agricolae be here?
if you want to introduce the context sensitivity of the grammar.
> "If filiae is nominative, how would you translate the sentence?"
or
> What cases could agricolae be here?
if you want to introduce the context sensitivity of the grammar.
#2 you could read, "[He] tells the sailor's story to the mistresses, because mistresses love stories", which does have a possessive genitive.
Fair enough. I might have thought more about that if nautae had been one of the options for "which word is genitive?"
Yes, I think that was the original intention. I changed the option to - Nautae in "Nautae fābulam dominīs nārrat quia dominae fābulās amant." - for the time being, so at least it isnt't flat out wrong while I think of something better.
[deleted]
Are you interested in helping with the LibreLingo project? https://github.com/kantord/LibreLingo
Although the concept is a little bit different and the book content cannot be so directly adapted, I think it could still be used a nice starting point
Although the concept is a little bit different and the book content cannot be so directly adapted, I think it could still be used a nice starting point
Great project! At first glance it looks like the differences in approach are substantial, but I'll think about it some more and see if there are ways I might be able to contribute.
OT: WOW, thank you for creating this platform. It's great that free alternatives to corporate platforms exist
I've recently come across Latin as I was reading "The Well-Trained Mind" by Susan Wise Bauer. It's a book describing how to provide a "classical education" to kids at home. (I'm homeschooling my two young kids this year and reading everything I can about how to homeschool.)
The author strongly recommends having the kids learn Latin. In case anyone is interested, some resources/curricula for homeschooling Latin she mentions in the book include Prima Latina, Latina Christiana, Song School Latin, Latin for Children, The Big Book of Lively Latin, The Latin Road to English Grammar, and Latin Alive!.
Anyone have experience/thoughts/opinions on teaching their kids Latin? Or even learning Latin as a kid?
The author strongly recommends having the kids learn Latin. In case anyone is interested, some resources/curricula for homeschooling Latin she mentions in the book include Prima Latina, Latina Christiana, Song School Latin, Latin for Children, The Big Book of Lively Latin, The Latin Road to English Grammar, and Latin Alive!.
Anyone have experience/thoughts/opinions on teaching their kids Latin? Or even learning Latin as a kid?
Not really "as a kid" but I had Latin for a couple years in high school.
Pro I guess is that it lets you read some classical literature although in 2 years I never got remotely proficient. In some ways it's easier than a modern language because you're mostly learning to read.
Con is mostly the obvious. You could be spending the time learning a modern language. (I also took 4 years of high school French. Never got very proficient in that either. It helps a bit when I visit France but I never spent enough time living it to get good.)
Pro I guess is that it lets you read some classical literature although in 2 years I never got remotely proficient. In some ways it's easier than a modern language because you're mostly learning to read.
Con is mostly the obvious. You could be spending the time learning a modern language. (I also took 4 years of high school French. Never got very proficient in that either. It helps a bit when I visit France but I never spent enough time living it to get good.)
timthorn in a thread below suggested http://www.minimus.com/ for young kids and https://classroom.thenational.academy/subjects-by-key-stage/... for older ones
I took a few years of Latin as a kid. I remember that I enjoyed learning about Ancient Rome, but realized I didn't want to sink hundreds of hours learning a language just to read some old books.
I ended up spending a few years studying Spanish in college, I'm reasonably conversational now and met my wife, who's from Puerto Rico, in the process.
Even if my wife wasn't Puerto Rican, I would teach my kids Spanish. Grammatically it's far easier than Latin and will connect them with culture and millions of speakers that are alive today.
I ended up spending a few years studying Spanish in college, I'm reasonably conversational now and met my wife, who's from Puerto Rico, in the process.
Even if my wife wasn't Puerto Rican, I would teach my kids Spanish. Grammatically it's far easier than Latin and will connect them with culture and millions of speakers that are alive today.
I have been studying Latin by my self for the past couple of years, and would recommend anyone looking at this to instead consider learning Latin by the Dowling Method. It is simpler and much more straightforward than any course. It essentially boils down to memorizing all of Latin's regular grammatical forms, and then reading Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata with those tables fresh in mind.
It may seem old-fashioned, but I think this is the best strategy for learning such a highly inflected and essentially dead language, especially if you only have experience with mostly analytical languages to begin with. Much of what makes this work is the work of genius that is LLPSI, but I have come to see the value of this strategy for language learning in general. If you are as convinced of the input-hypothesis as me, then you might agree that this is the quickest way to get reading independently in Latin, which is where most learning will take place.
The only objection I have with Dowling's method, is that you should start reading LLPSI immediately, rereading chapters over and over while you are memorizing the tables. Only pace yourself, and don't rush on to chapters covering grammar that you haven't started memorizing yet. If you get bored with old chapters, pick up the companion books, like Fabellae Latinae, for more reading materials.
It may seem old-fashioned, but I think this is the best strategy for learning such a highly inflected and essentially dead language, especially if you only have experience with mostly analytical languages to begin with. Much of what makes this work is the work of genius that is LLPSI, but I have come to see the value of this strategy for language learning in general. If you are as convinced of the input-hypothesis as me, then you might agree that this is the quickest way to get reading independently in Latin, which is where most learning will take place.
The only objection I have with Dowling's method, is that you should start reading LLPSI immediately, rereading chapters over and over while you are memorizing the tables. Only pace yourself, and don't rush on to chapters covering grammar that you haven't started memorizing yet. If you get bored with old chapters, pick up the companion books, like Fabellae Latinae, for more reading materials.
Has anyone found good interactive resources for learning (Attic or Koine) Greek? I started self-studying (with Jones’ book and Great Courses online) and found that I liked the focus on real classical texts (as opposed to Ecce Romani) style. But ultimately it wanted to move too fast to grammatical completeness (banging out one conjugation after another). I felt I didn’t get enough practice or vocab, and interactive lessons would’ve really helped.
There is John Williams' First Greek Book, but it only focuses on one text though (The Anabasis).
https://daedalus.umkc.edu/FirstGreekBook/
https://daedalus.umkc.edu/FirstGreekBook/
I'd love to have an interlinear text Latin–German. There are such texts in Latin–English, but if someone klnows about a German one, please tell me.
If someone is interested in learning a new language for the hell of it, however your school days of learning that Caecilius was sitting in the garden fills you with dread, a really cool alternative is Lojban. It is a completely unambiguous language created by the Logical Language Group and has some pretty interesting elements that sit between software and non-computational linguistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
I won't stop anyone from learning anything they find interesting, and Logban is probably easier to learn. However I wouldn't recommend in general that anyone learn a constructed language. Learn the languages that people actually speak, they are much harder to learn, but in return you can actually talk to people, which is the point of learning a language.
That is instead of two people learning some weird language why doesn't one of you learn the others and gain the whole world of people who speak that other language instead of a rare language where everyone speaks something else.
That is instead of two people learning some weird language why doesn't one of you learn the others and gain the whole world of people who speak that other language instead of a rare language where everyone speaks something else.
This view is a little strange in a thread where the alternative is learning Latin. With Latin, too, you typically have to go to conventions in order to encounter other speakers...
I've participated in many spoken Latin events (and loved them), but they were akin to conlang events in that every single person was a non-native speaker, and the majority were not fully fluent. Following the view which I think I took from Ghil'ad Zuckermann (I don't know whether he would phrase it this way) that revived languages like Modern Hebrew are akin to conlangs, it seems that at least the way I speak Latin is akin to the way I speak conlangs -- great reliance on explicit knowledge, little influence from my own or others' native speaker intuition.
Another difficulty is the "period speech" issue
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/771:_Period_Speec...
where most Latin speakers are happy to use vocabulary from any period almost interchangeably, even though native speakers wouldn't have.
On the other hand, even if you don't get access to spoken communication with (almost) any new people (I have only once in my life spoken Latin with another person who didn't also speak English), you do get access to millennia of "Latinity" and a perspective on the origins of modern European languages (even the non-Romance ones because of pervasive borrowings).
I want to say that every language is a world and opens new horizons of thought and culture. For conlangs, those horizons may be kind of shockingly minuscule, but they're still there. Even with the intentional extreme limitations of my favorite conlang, toki pona, I've had the experience on rare occasion of feeling like something was easier or clearer for me to express in toki pona than in my native English. But yes, learning modern languages has paid much huger dividends in being able to communicate with hundreds of millions of new people and participate to some limited extent in very vibrant cultures...
Edit: in the specific case of Esperanto there's a widely-held but controversial theory that it helps prepare people for the experience of learning other languages, maybe by helping them develop some grammatical concepts or practice certain language-learning skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperant...
I actually find this less plausible than I used to (it seems like many of the grammatical concepts you get from Esperanto won't map that well onto other languages), but some experiments with this did show positive results.
I've participated in many spoken Latin events (and loved them), but they were akin to conlang events in that every single person was a non-native speaker, and the majority were not fully fluent. Following the view which I think I took from Ghil'ad Zuckermann (I don't know whether he would phrase it this way) that revived languages like Modern Hebrew are akin to conlangs, it seems that at least the way I speak Latin is akin to the way I speak conlangs -- great reliance on explicit knowledge, little influence from my own or others' native speaker intuition.
Another difficulty is the "period speech" issue
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/771:_Period_Speec...
where most Latin speakers are happy to use vocabulary from any period almost interchangeably, even though native speakers wouldn't have.
On the other hand, even if you don't get access to spoken communication with (almost) any new people (I have only once in my life spoken Latin with another person who didn't also speak English), you do get access to millennia of "Latinity" and a perspective on the origins of modern European languages (even the non-Romance ones because of pervasive borrowings).
I want to say that every language is a world and opens new horizons of thought and culture. For conlangs, those horizons may be kind of shockingly minuscule, but they're still there. Even with the intentional extreme limitations of my favorite conlang, toki pona, I've had the experience on rare occasion of feeling like something was easier or clearer for me to express in toki pona than in my native English. But yes, learning modern languages has paid much huger dividends in being able to communicate with hundreds of millions of new people and participate to some limited extent in very vibrant cultures...
Edit: in the specific case of Esperanto there's a widely-held but controversial theory that it helps prepare people for the experience of learning other languages, maybe by helping them develop some grammatical concepts or practice certain language-learning skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperant...
I actually find this less plausible than I used to (it seems like many of the grammatical concepts you get from Esperanto won't map that well onto other languages), but some experiments with this did show positive results.
The problem with constructed languages is the world it opens is small. For not Much more effort you could get a much richer world.
My tiny amounts of personal Latin&Greek studies have significantly improved my intuitive understanding of romance languages and anatomy/medicine
I unfortunately can't say the same for any of the constructed languages I tinkered with - though they were fun and possibly provided different types of cognitive gains
I unfortunately can't say the same for any of the constructed languages I tinkered with - though they were fun and possibly provided different types of cognitive gains
Latin opens up ancient worlds.
Definitely! That's a bit different from how you previously put it above:
> Learn the languages that people actually speak, they are much harder to learn, but in return you can actually talk to people, which is the point of learning a language.
Maybe we could emend this to
"that people actually speak or have spoken ... in return you can actually experience other people's thoughts and feelings, which is the point of learning a language"
and then it would work well for widely-spoken modern and ancient languages alike?
> Learn the languages that people actually speak, they are much harder to learn, but in return you can actually talk to people, which is the point of learning a language.
Maybe we could emend this to
"that people actually speak or have spoken ... in return you can actually experience other people's thoughts and feelings, which is the point of learning a language"
and then it would work well for widely-spoken modern and ancient languages alike?
I have been interested in learning Latin by self study, but memorizing conjugations and declinations seems like a chore.
There are some modern variants of Latin that seems to simplify these aspects mainly Interlingua and Latine-sine-flexione(LSF). Are these worth while to learn?. For example if one is up to speed in LSF, can one still make sense of classical latin texts and poetry etc?.
There are some modern variants of Latin that seems to simplify these aspects mainly Interlingua and Latine-sine-flexione(LSF). Are these worth while to learn?. For example if one is up to speed in LSF, can one still make sense of classical latin texts and poetry etc?.
> For example if one is up to speed in LSF, can one still make sense of classical latin texts and poetry etc?
I think that's fairly unlikely, because LSF uses modern Romance techniques of word order and prepositions to substitute for Latin inflections. In Latin the word order is relatively free, especially in some famous classical authors.
Check out this passage from the Aeneid:
his ego nigrantem commixta grandine nimbum, dum trepidant alae, saltusque indagine cingunt, desuper infundam, et tonitru caelum omne ciebo. diffugient comites et nocte tegentur opaca: speluncam Dido dux et Troianus eandem devenient; adero, et, tua si mihi certa voluntas conubio iungam stabili propriamque dicabo, hic hymenaeus erit." - Non adversata petenti adnuit, atque dolis risit Cytherea repertis.
If I try to remove all of the meaning that's given only by inflections (leaving singular/plural distinctions), this would be something like
these I darkening mixed hail cloud while shake forces and leaps circle close from above wetten and thunder sky all shake. scatter comrades and night hold dark cave Dido leader and Trojan same come; be present and your if me sure will marriage join firm and own call this marital is." - not opposed requestor agree and trick laugh Venus found
Looks like the inflections were doing a lot of work here. :-)
OK, how about Galileo's Siderius Nuncius?
Magna equidem in hac exigua tractatione singulis de natura speculantibus inspicienda contemplandaque propono. Magna, inquam, tum ob rei ipsius praestantiam, tum ob inauditam per aevum novitatem, tum etiam propter Organum, cuius beneficio eadem sensui nostro obviam sese fecerunt.
Big truly in this small treatise all about nature speculating to be inspected and to be contemplated propose. Big, say, then because thing itself excellence then because unheard through era novelty, then also because Instrument whose help same sense our apparent themselves make.
OK, that's a little more intelligible -- by Galileo's time Latin prose that's not meant to be fancy or showy is more similar to modern languages, and Galileo presumably was thinking like a modern Romance language speaker, using Latin as a foreign language.
Going back to Cicero:
Magna dis immortalibus habenda est atque huic ipsi Iovi Statori, antiquissimo custodi huius urbis, gratia, quod hanc tam taetram, tam horribilem tamque infestam rei publicae pestem totiens iam effugimus.
Big gods immortal to be given is and this himself Jupiter Stator, most ancient guardian this city, thanks, because this so foul, so horrible, and so dangerous republic danger so often now escape.
I guess you can get the idea here too, but the tenses would be helpful, and maybe being able to see where the "of" and "to" go...
Vulgate?
in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas. dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux. et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras. appellavitque lucem diem et tenebras noctem factumque est vespere et mane dies unus. dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis. et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita. vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus.
in beginning create God sky and land. land however is idle and empty and darknesses over face abyss and spirit God carry over waters. and says God make light and made is light. and see God light because is good and divide light and darknesses. and call light day and darknesses night and made is evening and morning day one. say also God make firmament in middle waters and divide waters from waters. and make God firmament and divide waters which are below firmament from these which are over firmament and made is thus. and call God firmament sky and made is evening and morning day second.
(That one might be deceptively easy because this text is so familiar...)
Cicero's De Finibus, the origin of the text that got corrupted into "Lorem Ipsum"?
Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa, quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt, explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem, quia voluptas sit, aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos, qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt, neque porro quisquam est, qui do lorem ipsum, quia dolor sit amet consectetur adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt, ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit, qui in ea voluptate velit esse, quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum, qui dolorem eum fugiat, quo voluptas nulla pariatur?
But so see, from where all that born error is pleasure accusing and pain praising, all thing open and those themselves, which from that finder truth and nearly architect happy life said are, explain. Nobody indeed itself pleasure, because pleasure is, scorn or hate or flee, but because follow big pains those, who reason pleasure follow don't know, nor indeed anyone is, who pain itself, because pain is love pursue drawn to want, but because not never his kind times occur, so work and pain big other seeks pleasure. So indeed to smallest come, who of us exercises any body undertake laborious, except so something from her use obtain? Who however or him right blame, which in that pleasure want be, which nothing bother follow, or him, which pain that flee, which pleasure no give birth?
Anyway, I don't think full-scale inflected Latin texts will be any easier or more comprehensible than those above if you learn Latin entirely without inflections. :-)
I think that's fairly unlikely, because LSF uses modern Romance techniques of word order and prepositions to substitute for Latin inflections. In Latin the word order is relatively free, especially in some famous classical authors.
Check out this passage from the Aeneid:
his ego nigrantem commixta grandine nimbum, dum trepidant alae, saltusque indagine cingunt, desuper infundam, et tonitru caelum omne ciebo. diffugient comites et nocte tegentur opaca: speluncam Dido dux et Troianus eandem devenient; adero, et, tua si mihi certa voluntas conubio iungam stabili propriamque dicabo, hic hymenaeus erit." - Non adversata petenti adnuit, atque dolis risit Cytherea repertis.
If I try to remove all of the meaning that's given only by inflections (leaving singular/plural distinctions), this would be something like
these I darkening mixed hail cloud while shake forces and leaps circle close from above wetten and thunder sky all shake. scatter comrades and night hold dark cave Dido leader and Trojan same come; be present and your if me sure will marriage join firm and own call this marital is." - not opposed requestor agree and trick laugh Venus found
Looks like the inflections were doing a lot of work here. :-)
OK, how about Galileo's Siderius Nuncius?
Magna equidem in hac exigua tractatione singulis de natura speculantibus inspicienda contemplandaque propono. Magna, inquam, tum ob rei ipsius praestantiam, tum ob inauditam per aevum novitatem, tum etiam propter Organum, cuius beneficio eadem sensui nostro obviam sese fecerunt.
Big truly in this small treatise all about nature speculating to be inspected and to be contemplated propose. Big, say, then because thing itself excellence then because unheard through era novelty, then also because Instrument whose help same sense our apparent themselves make.
OK, that's a little more intelligible -- by Galileo's time Latin prose that's not meant to be fancy or showy is more similar to modern languages, and Galileo presumably was thinking like a modern Romance language speaker, using Latin as a foreign language.
Going back to Cicero:
Magna dis immortalibus habenda est atque huic ipsi Iovi Statori, antiquissimo custodi huius urbis, gratia, quod hanc tam taetram, tam horribilem tamque infestam rei publicae pestem totiens iam effugimus.
Big gods immortal to be given is and this himself Jupiter Stator, most ancient guardian this city, thanks, because this so foul, so horrible, and so dangerous republic danger so often now escape.
I guess you can get the idea here too, but the tenses would be helpful, and maybe being able to see where the "of" and "to" go...
Vulgate?
in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas. dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux. et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona et divisit lucem ac tenebras. appellavitque lucem diem et tenebras noctem factumque est vespere et mane dies unus. dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis. et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita. vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus.
in beginning create God sky and land. land however is idle and empty and darknesses over face abyss and spirit God carry over waters. and says God make light and made is light. and see God light because is good and divide light and darknesses. and call light day and darknesses night and made is evening and morning day one. say also God make firmament in middle waters and divide waters from waters. and make God firmament and divide waters which are below firmament from these which are over firmament and made is thus. and call God firmament sky and made is evening and morning day second.
(That one might be deceptively easy because this text is so familiar...)
Cicero's De Finibus, the origin of the text that got corrupted into "Lorem Ipsum"?
Sed ut perspiciatis, unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa, quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt, explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem, quia voluptas sit, aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos, qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt, neque porro quisquam est, qui do lorem ipsum, quia dolor sit amet consectetur adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt, ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit, qui in ea voluptate velit esse, quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum, qui dolorem eum fugiat, quo voluptas nulla pariatur?
But so see, from where all that born error is pleasure accusing and pain praising, all thing open and those themselves, which from that finder truth and nearly architect happy life said are, explain. Nobody indeed itself pleasure, because pleasure is, scorn or hate or flee, but because follow big pains those, who reason pleasure follow don't know, nor indeed anyone is, who pain itself, because pain is love pursue drawn to want, but because not never his kind times occur, so work and pain big other seeks pleasure. So indeed to smallest come, who of us exercises any body undertake laborious, except so something from her use obtain? Who however or him right blame, which in that pleasure want be, which nothing bother follow, or him, which pain that flee, which pleasure no give birth?
Anyway, I don't think full-scale inflected Latin texts will be any easier or more comprehensible than those above if you learn Latin entirely without inflections. :-)
The vulgate quote though seems to be very coherent, without the inflexions.
Maybe we should try a less famous passage for comparison?
Et factum est post mortem Moysi servi Domini, ut loqueretur Dominus ad Josue filium Nun, ministrum Moysi, et diceret ei: Moyses servus meus mortuus est: surge, et transi Jordanem istum tu, et omnis populus tecum, in terram quam ego dabo filiis Israël. Omnem locum, quem calcaverit vestigium pedis vestri, vobis tradam, sicut locutus sum Moysi. A deserto et Libano usque ad fluvium magnum Euphraten, omnis terra Hethæorum usque ad mare magnum contra solis occasum erit terminus vester. Nullus poterit vobis resistere cunctis diebus vitæ tuæ: sicut fui cum Moyse, ita ero tecum: non dimittam, nec derelinquam te. Confortare, et esto robustus: tu enim sorte divides populo huic terram, pro qua juravi patribus suis, ut traderem eam illis. Confortare igitur, et esto robustus valde, ut custodias, et facias omnem legem, quam præcepit tibi Moyses servus meus: ne declines ab ea ad dexteram vel ad sinistram, ut intelligas cuncta quæ agis. Non recedat volumen legis hujus ab ore tuo: sed meditaberis in eo diebus ac noctibus, ut custodias et facias omnia quæ scripta sunt in eo: tunc diriges viam tuam, et intelliges eam. Ecce præcipio tibi: confortare, et esto robustus. Noli metuere, et noli timere: quoniam tecum est Dominus Deus tuus in omnibus ad quæcumque perrexeris.
And done is after death Moses servant God, so speak God to Joshua son Nun, assistant Moses, and say him: Moses servant my dead is: arise and cross Jordan that you, and all people with you, in land which I give sons Israel. All place, which step track foot your, you give, like speak I am Moses. From desert and Lebanon up to river big Euphrates, all land Hethites up to sea great against sun set is border your. None can to you resist all days life you: like am with Moses, so am with you: not send away, nor abandon you. Be comforted, and be strong: you indeed lot divide people this land, for which swear fathers their, that give her them. Be comforted therefore, and be strong very, so keep, and do all law, which teach you Moses servant my: not fall from her to right or to left, so know all that you do. Not depart book law this from mouth your: but meditate in it days and nights, so keep and do all which written are in it: then direct way your, and understand her. Look instruct you: be comforted, and be strong. Don't be afraid, and don't fear: because with you is Lord God your in all to wherever go.
OK, this translation benefits from most verbs being imperative in meaning, which matches up well with the base form in English.
I guess I have to agree that maybe one could understand the Vulgate decently well just by learning Latin words' meaning in isolation without the grammar.
Et factum est post mortem Moysi servi Domini, ut loqueretur Dominus ad Josue filium Nun, ministrum Moysi, et diceret ei: Moyses servus meus mortuus est: surge, et transi Jordanem istum tu, et omnis populus tecum, in terram quam ego dabo filiis Israël. Omnem locum, quem calcaverit vestigium pedis vestri, vobis tradam, sicut locutus sum Moysi. A deserto et Libano usque ad fluvium magnum Euphraten, omnis terra Hethæorum usque ad mare magnum contra solis occasum erit terminus vester. Nullus poterit vobis resistere cunctis diebus vitæ tuæ: sicut fui cum Moyse, ita ero tecum: non dimittam, nec derelinquam te. Confortare, et esto robustus: tu enim sorte divides populo huic terram, pro qua juravi patribus suis, ut traderem eam illis. Confortare igitur, et esto robustus valde, ut custodias, et facias omnem legem, quam præcepit tibi Moyses servus meus: ne declines ab ea ad dexteram vel ad sinistram, ut intelligas cuncta quæ agis. Non recedat volumen legis hujus ab ore tuo: sed meditaberis in eo diebus ac noctibus, ut custodias et facias omnia quæ scripta sunt in eo: tunc diriges viam tuam, et intelliges eam. Ecce præcipio tibi: confortare, et esto robustus. Noli metuere, et noli timere: quoniam tecum est Dominus Deus tuus in omnibus ad quæcumque perrexeris.
And done is after death Moses servant God, so speak God to Joshua son Nun, assistant Moses, and say him: Moses servant my dead is: arise and cross Jordan that you, and all people with you, in land which I give sons Israel. All place, which step track foot your, you give, like speak I am Moses. From desert and Lebanon up to river big Euphrates, all land Hethites up to sea great against sun set is border your. None can to you resist all days life you: like am with Moses, so am with you: not send away, nor abandon you. Be comforted, and be strong: you indeed lot divide people this land, for which swear fathers their, that give her them. Be comforted therefore, and be strong very, so keep, and do all law, which teach you Moses servant my: not fall from her to right or to left, so know all that you do. Not depart book law this from mouth your: but meditate in it days and nights, so keep and do all which written are in it: then direct way your, and understand her. Look instruct you: be comforted, and be strong. Don't be afraid, and don't fear: because with you is Lord God your in all to wherever go.
OK, this translation benefits from most verbs being imperative in meaning, which matches up well with the base form in English.
I guess I have to agree that maybe one could understand the Vulgate decently well just by learning Latin words' meaning in isolation without the grammar.
I have no experience with modern variants of Latin, but wouldn't that be akin to trying to read Portugese when you know Spanish? You might get the general gist, but you wouldn't really get the full underlying meaning. You'd certainly miss more complex ideas like idioms.
I'd imagine it would depend on your goal. Do you want to be able to work your way through a text, or do you want to be able to appreciate poetry in the language? I'd say it might work for the former, it almost certainly wouldn't for the latter.
I'd imagine it would depend on your goal. Do you want to be able to work your way through a text, or do you want to be able to appreciate poetry in the language? I'd say it might work for the former, it almost certainly wouldn't for the latter.
Unfortunately I have not been able to find a way to learn Latin that doesn't involve some amount of memorization pain. I find that focused exercises, as opposed to flashcards or other rote approaches, mitigate the pain somewhat. But I'm not sure it can be eliminated completely.
Declensions and conjugations are actually one of the easier things to memorize though, because they sit in a nice table. Ive never heard of LSF, but my experience with reading Latin has taught me that a solid understanding of the grammar is critical because of the irregular forms and things like gerund/ives. Only having a good sense of vocabulary just isnt quite good enough for good comprehension.
I took Latin in high school. I barely remember any of it, but what it helped me with the most was understanding English grammar. I learned more about English grammar in my Latin class than I ever did in my English classes.
Also Duolingo has had a latin course since some time, worth checking it out if you want to get a feel of latin.
Yes, the Duolingo course is great if you are interested in conversational Latin. This tool is focused more on reading ancient Roman authors. No reason you can't do both, though!
I've been doing latin on duolingo. This would be a good compliment.
Congrats on beginning your Latin studies! Duolingo is a great place to start, and will get you off and running with conversational Latin. Selfstudyclassics is geared more towards vocabulary and constructions you might find in reading, say, Caesar. I agree that they complement each other nicely.
Some feedback:
Have some link in your header clearly named "Course" or "Lessons" as it is right now it is totally confusing.
Embed the videos in your site.
Include the text in your site if possible.
Have some link in your header clearly named "Course" or "Lessons" as it is right now it is totally confusing.
Embed the videos in your site.
Include the text in your site if possible.
Thanks for the feedback! I'll put some thought into this.
This was the course I followed learning Latin in school. Whilst it may be tailored more towards a school audience, much of the content of their books is available for free online, which includes lots of translation and vocabulary practice. The books and stories are all very light-hearted and fun and teach a lot about Roman history as you learn the language. This could make good supplementary learning material for anyone trying to teach themselves Latin for free.