Latin as she is spoke: How classicists tricked themselves (2019)(blogicarian.blogspot.com)
blogicarian.blogspot.com
Latin as she is spoke: How classicists tricked themselves (2019)
http://blogicarian.blogspot.com/2019/03/argumentum-ad-ignorantiam.html
200 comments
Yeah, it’s a little surprising to read the article and not see one mention of the word “church” when the Catholic one is one of the most-active modern day users of the language.
The first example of a contemporary speaker is a Catholic priest and former staffer at the Vatican. That subsequent examples are drawn from elsewhere is probably the author deliberately trying to convey it isn't just the church.
[deleted]
This is the dream for me. Sure I've helped the odd Spanish and French tourist, but to swing into action in Latin? This is all I could ever hope for. Gonna maybe hang around monasteries looking helpful.
It shouldn't take much effort to find a fluent speaker of Polish in Chicago's main airport. I don't know if it was true, but growing up there I often heard that Chicago is the second largest Polish community outside of Warsaw.
Interesting read.
I think there is some parallel to "secondary school languages." If you compare secondary school (or k-12) language programs, you will find a vast range of outcomes. Vast. In one context, kids acquire usable language skills. In others, basically nothing.
I studied French for 4 years, as did all my classmates. Almost none achieved any level of proficiency. I've challenged several language teachers over the years with a "why bother?" If year after year kids matriculate without gaining enough proficiency to take a bus or order lunch... why not shut down the program and teach something else?
Usually, the answer is (understandably) defensive. Highlighting of meta/peripheral benefits of learning a language. Noting that out-of-classroom context plays a big role. Ultimately though, IMO.... classroom language learning is hard, and we accept low levels of performance.
Classicists, generally, learned latin in an undergraduate classroom setting. This is, very often, a very ineffective way of learning a language. Being normal and common, this standard is deemed acceptable. We don't really know how to fix the classroom. The Latin classroom also has less competition than other languages. High school French learners don't become French language scholars, at least not without actually learning French. With Latin, you can get away with it.
So that's basically my take. We don't teach languages very well. Formal education settings often achieve pretty weak results. By and large, we just accept whatever results are achieved. Language programs don't "declare bankruptcy" if results achieved are weak. They accept it.
I think there is some parallel to "secondary school languages." If you compare secondary school (or k-12) language programs, you will find a vast range of outcomes. Vast. In one context, kids acquire usable language skills. In others, basically nothing.
I studied French for 4 years, as did all my classmates. Almost none achieved any level of proficiency. I've challenged several language teachers over the years with a "why bother?" If year after year kids matriculate without gaining enough proficiency to take a bus or order lunch... why not shut down the program and teach something else?
Usually, the answer is (understandably) defensive. Highlighting of meta/peripheral benefits of learning a language. Noting that out-of-classroom context plays a big role. Ultimately though, IMO.... classroom language learning is hard, and we accept low levels of performance.
Classicists, generally, learned latin in an undergraduate classroom setting. This is, very often, a very ineffective way of learning a language. Being normal and common, this standard is deemed acceptable. We don't really know how to fix the classroom. The Latin classroom also has less competition than other languages. High school French learners don't become French language scholars, at least not without actually learning French. With Latin, you can get away with it.
So that's basically my take. We don't teach languages very well. Formal education settings often achieve pretty weak results. By and large, we just accept whatever results are achieved. Language programs don't "declare bankruptcy" if results achieved are weak. They accept it.
> If year after year kids matriculate without gaining enough proficiency [...] why not shut down the program and teach something else?
It seems like you could generalize this for most of the curriculum. Once kids arrive at the conclusion "I'm never, ever going to use this," it's over for most of them. And, naturally, that's self-fulfilling. Most kids who didn't learn math ended up not needing math – and some proudly trumpet that back at their teachers later in life! Should we shut down math?
Just anecdata, but among my friend group's children, I've seen a number of middle schoolers go from completely uninterested in a second language (English) to totally engaged once they discover YouTube or Netflix or a gaming community or whatever.
And classroom learning is apparently useful for those kids. The last time one of my linguist friends enlightened me, the research pointed at classroom learning being really important for those who don't learn the L2 in the home. If those learners are left to absorb the language solely through immersion, they most often end up at a middling level with the language.
That may be because with L2 immersion, a non-native speaker almost never gets feedback about language mistakes and so never has the chance to correct them. Instead, they see that what they say is understandable and keep repeating the same mistakes. (Maybe like, "Yesterday, I go to the store." Incorrect, but understandable.) That's not the end of the world, but it limits the speaker's opportunities with the language. Past a certain blurry threshold, they're unlikely to be hired to do a job that involves the language, for example.
It seems like you could generalize this for most of the curriculum. Once kids arrive at the conclusion "I'm never, ever going to use this," it's over for most of them. And, naturally, that's self-fulfilling. Most kids who didn't learn math ended up not needing math – and some proudly trumpet that back at their teachers later in life! Should we shut down math?
Just anecdata, but among my friend group's children, I've seen a number of middle schoolers go from completely uninterested in a second language (English) to totally engaged once they discover YouTube or Netflix or a gaming community or whatever.
And classroom learning is apparently useful for those kids. The last time one of my linguist friends enlightened me, the research pointed at classroom learning being really important for those who don't learn the L2 in the home. If those learners are left to absorb the language solely through immersion, they most often end up at a middling level with the language.
That may be because with L2 immersion, a non-native speaker almost never gets feedback about language mistakes and so never has the chance to correct them. Instead, they see that what they say is understandable and keep repeating the same mistakes. (Maybe like, "Yesterday, I go to the store." Incorrect, but understandable.) That's not the end of the world, but it limits the speaker's opportunities with the language. Past a certain blurry threshold, they're unlikely to be hired to do a job that involves the language, for example.
I don't think it's correct to generalize this for most of the curriculum.
Most people do learn some math skills. Many kids learn more than the basics. Obviously experiences vary. Yes, there are a lot of out-of-classroom factors.
I think second language learning is a more extreme case though. Many language programs seem to produce very little. Math doesn't have that kind of variance. If kids' math skills are years behind another school system's... that gets noticed and acted on. If a language program produces almost no language skills, it tends to just be accepted.
Most people do learn some math skills. Many kids learn more than the basics. Obviously experiences vary. Yes, there are a lot of out-of-classroom factors.
I think second language learning is a more extreme case though. Many language programs seem to produce very little. Math doesn't have that kind of variance. If kids' math skills are years behind another school system's... that gets noticed and acted on. If a language program produces almost no language skills, it tends to just be accepted.
> I'm never going to use this
I agree but I think the difference with languages is that it's almost impossible to avoid that for most people. Most children go to countries speaking other languages very rarely.
I live in the UK and "learnt" French in school. I went to France twice before I was 18.
Obviously there are places where it's different. I bet schools in California have some success teaching Spanish for example. But it's easier for subjects like Maths and English to answer "why will I ever need this" (even if they still usually do a pretty terrible job).
I agree but I think the difference with languages is that it's almost impossible to avoid that for most people. Most children go to countries speaking other languages very rarely.
I live in the UK and "learnt" French in school. I went to France twice before I was 18.
Obviously there are places where it's different. I bet schools in California have some success teaching Spanish for example. But it's easier for subjects like Maths and English to answer "why will I ever need this" (even if they still usually do a pretty terrible job).
> I live in the UK and "learnt" French in school. I went to France twice before I was 18.
A trip to South Kensington is probably easier for almost the same result ;)
A trip to South Kensington is probably easier for almost the same result ;)
I think that the distinction is much more "what is fun or immediately rewarding" then "what rationally will be useful". Kids know they need to learn foreign languages, but until they are at high enough level adults gotta put a lot of effort into kids actually being willing to learn. It is just boring grind and most kids have hard time to entirely overcome that. But when it is fun for them, they will learn the hell of it regardless of how useless it is. Also, Netflix and Youtube are motivating factors only once the kid understands at least little bit. They are rarely eager to watch and listen videos they dont understand.
I also think that most kids do actually learn a lot math in schools. Some don't and are totally clueless, but most of them are acceptably good and most of them don't make all that much fuzz about having to learn it.
I also think that most kids do actually learn a lot math in schools. Some don't and are totally clueless, but most of them are acceptably good and most of them don't make all that much fuzz about having to learn it.
> Should we shut down math?
Math teaching in school? Maybe. It doesn't seem to be very efficient, and mostly a waste of time.
(And I say that as someone who has studied math at university.)
Math teaching in school? Maybe. It doesn't seem to be very efficient, and mostly a waste of time.
(And I say that as someone who has studied math at university.)
In Biology (and Chemistry), there was/is a philosophical dispute playing out over what should be taught in high school. Many of the text books more or less teach dumbed down versions of what a Biology undergraduate university student would learn in their first semesters — heavy on the theory, but hampered by a lack of rigorous mathematical etc underpinnings.
My father, who was a biology teacher, advocated that high school biology should be taught largely for the benefit of the vast majority of students who would never take another biology class in their life — a self contained curriculum focusing on nature observation and on practical interactions of biology with the world.
I went through a high school curriculum focused on classical languages, and went on to a math-heavy CS school. The entirety of my high school math probably helped me for less than one semester. The math of my colleagues who attended a math focused high school track helped them for maybe one more semester at most (Their drafting classes might have been more valuable). Yet my Latin and Greek, which I never studied anymore after high school, still occasionally comes in handy to prop up my vocabulary or read street signs in Athens.
My father, who was a biology teacher, advocated that high school biology should be taught largely for the benefit of the vast majority of students who would never take another biology class in their life — a self contained curriculum focusing on nature observation and on practical interactions of biology with the world.
I went through a high school curriculum focused on classical languages, and went on to a math-heavy CS school. The entirety of my high school math probably helped me for less than one semester. The math of my colleagues who attended a math focused high school track helped them for maybe one more semester at most (Their drafting classes might have been more valuable). Yet my Latin and Greek, which I never studied anymore after high school, still occasionally comes in handy to prop up my vocabulary or read street signs in Athens.
I’m an engineer, so I went through university mathematics. I haven’t used it since… but the problem-solving ability I learned has literally transformed the way my brain works.
The content of high school math is important only in the sense that it must interest the kids and might be vaguely useful later on. The real prize is systematic problem-solving skills and confidence.
The content of high school math is important only in the sense that it must interest the kids and might be vaguely useful later on. The real prize is systematic problem-solving skills and confidence.
But it doesn't generally do either. You don't learn any "problem solving maturity" in highschool and most of what I remember was that students who weren't good at number crunching got discouraged and gave up on math entirely, labeling themselves as "not a math person."
I did biology at shcool. My parents had to buy me a dissection kit - scalpels, forceps, lancets and so on. The curriculum was quite heavy on dissections. We had to dissect frogs, dogfish and rats. We once also had to do an experiment on a live (pithed) frog. We were marked on the drawings we had to make of our dissections. These labs were double classes - a bit more than two hours.
I have no idea how worthwhile that kind of instruction was; knowledge of anatomy hasn't featured in my career. I suspect it would have been very helpful if you decided to become a physician.
I have no idea how worthwhile that kind of instruction was; knowledge of anatomy hasn't featured in my career. I suspect it would have been very helpful if you decided to become a physician.
Add physics to that list. It's taught freshman year at the local high school which guarantees zero calculus is involved.
Yes. Though you can do a lot of fun and useful physics without calculus.
My view is biased, because I had some very good physics teachers in high school and an interest in the subject.
So here again, I doubt that a typical student at a typical school gets all that much out of the lectures.
My view is biased, because I had some very good physics teachers in high school and an interest in the subject.
So here again, I doubt that a typical student at a typical school gets all that much out of the lectures.
> [...] a self contained curriculum [...for a terminal biology course...]
Is there any interesting thought on how to incentivize quality in outcomes and content creation there? Where the usual pervasive failure doesn't get the disaster-triage-chain-of-care back-pressure of follow-on instruction? It's an issue I've been puzzling over.
Even first-tier college intro biology still struggles to leave students with a firm grip on even central dogma, something that can be taught down through middle-school. But at least improvement is incentivized when follow-on intro genetics is forced to remediate. In contrast, with mostly-terminal college intro astronomy, of the top ten-ish most used textbooks, most all have even the color of the Sun wrong, perpetuating the pervasive kindergarten misconception even into first-tier astronomy graduate school. A failure that's been long-term multi-decade stable, and seems unlikely to improve any year soon. And there's teaching order-of-magnitude size, a part of most-every science and engineering curriculum. But it's little used in subsequent instruction, so there's little selection pressure to teach it successfully. Leaving even first-tier medical school graduate students with little idea how big cells are. And even with narrow objectives and chain-of-care feedback, chemistry education content is described by chemistry education research using adjectives like "incoherent", and as leaving both students and teachers steeped in misconceptions. Science education content is pervasively very not wonderful, and would seemingly lose some of its very few quality constraints by not targeting follow-on instruction.
At the other extreme, in the context of pre-K science education, there's been a suggestion that students have a human right to make sense of their world. "Now", not a K-lifetime later in middle-school. We're very not set up for that. (Or even to do that in middle-school, or high-school, or undergrad, or ...). We are largely unable to even imagine what it might look like. Crafting content for it would seemingly require a massive collaborative effort from the science research community. But it's very not clear how to incentivize, or even to characterize it.
Which ties back to language learning. I talked with someone doing remote tutoring of French. For students with diverse objectives - the AP French exam, family culture, travel for tourism, and for work. And thus with diverse curriculums. Apparently the AP French exam tests for a particular type of conversational French, and is very hard. So even teaching to the test, it is a struggle to get good outcomes. So there's just not room for expanding scope, for other curricular objectives, for other aspects of what it can mean to learn French.
Which reminded me a lot of "physics" education, and physics education research. The pursuit of a worthwhile goal, and hard one. With even the rare excellence of best practices struggling for good outcomes. But also a narrow goal, with little room for scope expansion, with no room for much of the beautiful breadth of Physics. The old professorial lament, of "why would students be interested in majoring in physics, when they've never been shown any interesting physics?". (Or for a feel for reasonable values, etc). Which prompted me to wonder: Perhaps "making sense of the physical world" is fruitfully viewed as a goal distinct from normal "science" education? Rather than framing it as transformative improvement of science education?
If we take up a big hairy audacious goal like making sense of the physical world, in K or in college, or just a goal like a quality terminal self-contained "biology for poets", how do we avoid it being the usual dreck, but now without even the usual weak quality checks of high-stakes exams, of dependent follow-on instruction, and of pretending it's not largely a disaster? ... Thoughts? Thanks.
Is there any interesting thought on how to incentivize quality in outcomes and content creation there? Where the usual pervasive failure doesn't get the disaster-triage-chain-of-care back-pressure of follow-on instruction? It's an issue I've been puzzling over.
Even first-tier college intro biology still struggles to leave students with a firm grip on even central dogma, something that can be taught down through middle-school. But at least improvement is incentivized when follow-on intro genetics is forced to remediate. In contrast, with mostly-terminal college intro astronomy, of the top ten-ish most used textbooks, most all have even the color of the Sun wrong, perpetuating the pervasive kindergarten misconception even into first-tier astronomy graduate school. A failure that's been long-term multi-decade stable, and seems unlikely to improve any year soon. And there's teaching order-of-magnitude size, a part of most-every science and engineering curriculum. But it's little used in subsequent instruction, so there's little selection pressure to teach it successfully. Leaving even first-tier medical school graduate students with little idea how big cells are. And even with narrow objectives and chain-of-care feedback, chemistry education content is described by chemistry education research using adjectives like "incoherent", and as leaving both students and teachers steeped in misconceptions. Science education content is pervasively very not wonderful, and would seemingly lose some of its very few quality constraints by not targeting follow-on instruction.
At the other extreme, in the context of pre-K science education, there's been a suggestion that students have a human right to make sense of their world. "Now", not a K-lifetime later in middle-school. We're very not set up for that. (Or even to do that in middle-school, or high-school, or undergrad, or ...). We are largely unable to even imagine what it might look like. Crafting content for it would seemingly require a massive collaborative effort from the science research community. But it's very not clear how to incentivize, or even to characterize it.
Which ties back to language learning. I talked with someone doing remote tutoring of French. For students with diverse objectives - the AP French exam, family culture, travel for tourism, and for work. And thus with diverse curriculums. Apparently the AP French exam tests for a particular type of conversational French, and is very hard. So even teaching to the test, it is a struggle to get good outcomes. So there's just not room for expanding scope, for other curricular objectives, for other aspects of what it can mean to learn French.
Which reminded me a lot of "physics" education, and physics education research. The pursuit of a worthwhile goal, and hard one. With even the rare excellence of best practices struggling for good outcomes. But also a narrow goal, with little room for scope expansion, with no room for much of the beautiful breadth of Physics. The old professorial lament, of "why would students be interested in majoring in physics, when they've never been shown any interesting physics?". (Or for a feel for reasonable values, etc). Which prompted me to wonder: Perhaps "making sense of the physical world" is fruitfully viewed as a goal distinct from normal "science" education? Rather than framing it as transformative improvement of science education?
If we take up a big hairy audacious goal like making sense of the physical world, in K or in college, or just a goal like a quality terminal self-contained "biology for poets", how do we avoid it being the usual dreck, but now without even the usual weak quality checks of high-stakes exams, of dependent follow-on instruction, and of pretending it's not largely a disaster? ... Thoughts? Thanks.
If you're in the US, studying French was the first mistake.
Over time, it's increasingly struck me as negligent (in most US localities) to teach anything besides Spanish. We've got a huge sub-population that faces all kinds of obstacles because the English-speakers can't communicate with them and we're fucking around with Latin?
My extended family on my dad's side speak Spanish and I took Latin in high school? I can't talk with 3 out of 4 of the guys working on my house!
Over time, it's increasingly struck me as negligent (in most US localities) to teach anything besides Spanish. We've got a huge sub-population that faces all kinds of obstacles because the English-speakers can't communicate with them and we're fucking around with Latin?
My extended family on my dad's side speak Spanish and I took Latin in high school? I can't talk with 3 out of 4 of the guys working on my house!
Perhaps people learn French, Latin, and German because they want to. Who are you to say what they may or may not choose to learn? A diversity of education and knowledge is a good thing for a culture, and if it was not, people would still be justified in learning what they want to learn.
Besides, that we have a sizable population that either has not yet learned English or has chosen not to does not create an obligation in others to learn their language. Are you certain it's more important to enable a sub-community that has not embraced the dominant language of the country, rather than be able to experience the thoughts of the ancients in their own Latin? To extend your argument, I live in an area with a large Hmong population that has not fully embraced English; should the schools here abandon education in all languages but English and Hmong?
Besides, that we have a sizable population that either has not yet learned English or has chosen not to does not create an obligation in others to learn their language. Are you certain it's more important to enable a sub-community that has not embraced the dominant language of the country, rather than be able to experience the thoughts of the ancients in their own Latin? To extend your argument, I live in an area with a large Hmong population that has not fully embraced English; should the schools here abandon education in all languages but English and Hmong?
I took French because that's what my school taught. If I could have taken Spanish or mandarin I'd have been happy to. When I got to high school, the French (especially endless conjugation) made me so despise language class I didn't even try Spanish, just added more math / science. My HS offered Spanish, French and Latin. It was a prep school so they suggested you only took Latin if you were interested in Law, Medicine or the Clergy.
It'd have been better for me to spend all the time in French class in France instead (eg instead of an hour a day for 3 years, 11 weeks, hell even a month). I've picked up more on Spanish and French in 2 weeks in other countries than I did in 3 years in a classroom.
There's a full immersion school around me for spanish, that seems to work a lot better.
It'd have been better for me to spend all the time in French class in France instead (eg instead of an hour a day for 3 years, 11 weeks, hell even a month). I've picked up more on Spanish and French in 2 weeks in other countries than I did in 3 years in a classroom.
There's a full immersion school around me for spanish, that seems to work a lot better.
I do think English and Hmong should be mandatory in such an area, if the Hmong population is large enough
I'm not against more languages as an elective, I just didn't manage to say so
I'm not against more languages as an elective, I just didn't manage to say so
French instruction starts very early in our town in Vermont because there are over 8 million French speakers right next to us, including almost 2 million living right over the border in Montréal. The ability to communicate in French has been incredibly useful over the course of my career, not just in North America, but across Europe and Africa. There are 29 countries that speak French as an official language and about 274 million fluent speakers.
Spanish has 4x more speakers and a far easier ortography.
French was more useful to me. Our state shares a border with Canada and my own extended family on my mom's side is Quebecois.
Or for speaking with sub-populations, Arabic would probably be the most useful here. US =/= California and the South
Or for speaking with sub-populations, Arabic would probably be the most useful here. US =/= California and the South
Spanish is the most commonly spoken non-English language in all but a few states, not just the sun belt.
Yeah I'm in a city in a mid Atlantic state and it's Spanish by a country mile here
I respectfully think that teaching only Spanish would be a terrible idea, not because of Spanish or those speaking it.
Teaching Latin makes many languages after Latin trivial: the case system and inflections on the verbs, adjectives, nouns reveal a common theme across many IndoEuropean languages. Russian would too, I believe, having had Russian after 4 years of hardcore Latin. Polish would do better than Russian in this regard, since Russian has simplifications of grammatical distinctions still present elsewhere.
Not faulting any language, as English and Swedish, for examples, simplify things more complex still in German.
I just think if only one language were to be taught, it would be strategic for it to represent more than one present-day set of simplifications of a richer grammatical past, one to which people might be exposed in other modern day languages.
(Spanish and Italian, for examples, collapse/simplify some of the structure present in their main common predecessor. )
Teaching Latin makes many languages after Latin trivial: the case system and inflections on the verbs, adjectives, nouns reveal a common theme across many IndoEuropean languages. Russian would too, I believe, having had Russian after 4 years of hardcore Latin. Polish would do better than Russian in this regard, since Russian has simplifications of grammatical distinctions still present elsewhere.
Not faulting any language, as English and Swedish, for examples, simplify things more complex still in German.
I just think if only one language were to be taught, it would be strategic for it to represent more than one present-day set of simplifications of a richer grammatical past, one to which people might be exposed in other modern day languages.
(Spanish and Italian, for examples, collapse/simplify some of the structure present in their main common predecessor. )
People study languages for many reasons. I do not think it is fair to demand that people learn a language to „help” others. You seem to imply that some spanish-speakers can’t communicate in English in most US localities. Is this true? Do you have any data/reference on that? Assuming that is the case, surely English lessons (maybe sponsored or free) would be a more direct solution.
Yes, there are many first generation immigrants in the US with poor grasp of English.
There are many free ESOL resources; regardless, English is hard.
There are many free ESOL resources; regardless, English is hard.
English is one of the easiest languages to become "understandable" in. Presumably because of how many people invaded England historically. When another culture invades, some of the language rules are adopted, but they are universally the simpler rules, and the more advanced rules aren't integrated.
Spoken English, with it's reliance on word order, lack of genders, relative lack of verb conjugations and noun declensions make it ridiculously easy to be understood in comparison to other languages. You won't be Shakespeare, but you will be able to communicate.
Written English, admittedly, is much harder (mostly because of the early standardization), but enough natives also have trouble spelling enough words that you can still be understood.
Spoken English, with it's reliance on word order, lack of genders, relative lack of verb conjugations and noun declensions make it ridiculously easy to be understood in comparison to other languages. You won't be Shakespeare, but you will be able to communicate.
Written English, admittedly, is much harder (mostly because of the early standardization), but enough natives also have trouble spelling enough words that you can still be understood.
Agree. I've seen this insightful bon mot attributed to G. B. Shaw (though I can't find a reliable source):
English is one of the easiest languages to speak badly, but one of the most difficult to speak well.
English is one of the easiest languages to speak badly, but one of the most difficult to speak well.
English has a very difficult ortography (or lack of it) making it very difficult to write down a newly heard word (or the opposite, pronouncing some word you read.
Also it has far more vowels than the average romance.
Also it has far more vowels than the average romance.
It's not a romance language, rather a west Germanic one.
> (in most US localities)
I agree, there are some, but is this in most of the US? That is what was claimed, without any backup. I do not think that English is harder than any other language, but it is always difficult to learn a new language. We agree there too.
It seems to me the argument is a bit backwards. If the poster cares about promotimg language skills for integration, why not address that instead of moralizing on people for not learning the right language?
I agree, there are some, but is this in most of the US? That is what was claimed, without any backup. I do not think that English is harder than any other language, but it is always difficult to learn a new language. We agree there too.
It seems to me the argument is a bit backwards. If the poster cares about promotimg language skills for integration, why not address that instead of moralizing on people for not learning the right language?
There's much more to life than asking where the bathroom is. French and Latin (and other languages) open the door to universes of perspectives and knowledge outside the 21st century USA. Learning about other perspectives and cultures is essential to maturing as people and as a society.
I can workaround the bathroom issue; I can't workaround the other.
I can workaround the bathroom issue; I can't workaround the other.
> We've got a huge sub-population that faces all kinds of obstacles because the English-speakers can't communicate with them
Maybe the solution is to teach said sub-population English?
Maybe the solution is to teach said sub-population English?
I believe Southwestern Louisiana might have a bone to pick with you.
I work IT in a manufacturing industry. Over the last 10 years, the plant operations have moved to almost 100% Spanish speaking. There's also Portuguese, French (Haitians), Igbo, Xhosa, Swahili, Afrikaans, and whole host of indigenous languages spoke out there (Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal, Chol, who knows what else) ...
Most Americans who did study Spanish are hardly able to make practical use of it. Shit, I majored in it and I hardly ever use the language, aside from watching the odd TV show or reading a news story now and then. People mostly don't learn languages well unless they have to, and Americans at the moment don't.
Studying latin in the way it's currently taught in schools does help with the SAT, supposedly (I got a good score!)
That said, most schools have dropped Latin in favor of Spanish, French, or Italian for precisely the reason you state, especially in high school.
That said, most schools have dropped Latin in favor of Spanish, French, or Italian for precisely the reason you state, especially in high school.
The classroom is useful to help bootstrap the understanding of the language: here are some common words, here are the rules they follow. But there's no substitute for diving into real texts, and there's not enough time in the classroom to do that enough.
I spent years learning various languages at school, but moving to another country and being forced to read text (etc) in this new language day in, day out, taught me far more in the space of just a year or two.
I spent years learning various languages at school, but moving to another country and being forced to read text (etc) in this new language day in, day out, taught me far more in the space of just a year or two.
> But there's no substitute for diving into real texts, and there's not enough time in the classroom to do that enough.
True, but classroom is still necessary if you want to go beyond conversations in a more or les broken language. I often hear people complaining about school and arguing that you just need immersion in the culture. But looking at the grammar and the way the language works is invaluable to make sense of what you hear, truly understand it, and make progress beyond just repeating things you've heard already.
True, but classroom is still necessary if you want to go beyond conversations in a more or les broken language. I often hear people complaining about school and arguing that you just need immersion in the culture. But looking at the grammar and the way the language works is invaluable to make sense of what you hear, truly understand it, and make progress beyond just repeating things you've heard already.
The longest-term knowledge I gained from my high school Spanish classes was learning all the parts of speech that I should have learned in the fourth grade but didn’t pay attention in class.
Agreed, and with Latin, it's entirely defensible, because there is no country or province other than the vatican where you can even select it as a language on the ATM machine. Latin's positioning as a purely academic pursuit, both as a cultural treasure trove and an excellent gateway to linguistics is the only thing that even makes sense. Modern day spoken Latin revival is cute, and I certainly support it insofar as it can aid reading fluency, but it's about as useless and artificial as Esperanto.
> We don't teach languages very well. Formal education settings often achieve pretty weak results.
We need to stop teaching languages and start using them. Practically every child in Norway can speak English by the end of primary school but this is not because Norwegian teachers have some magic inaccessible to the rest of the world; it is because they are surrounded by English on the web, on television, film, computer games and they find it useful.
My three children were fluent in their second language (Norwegian) by the time they were four years old with no formal language instruction of any kind, we just sent them to the local kindergarten three days a week from the age of three once they were fluent in English. if memory serves Montaigne said that he learned Latin much the same way, his father hired a tutor who was instructed to speak only Latin.
We need to stop teaching languages and start using them. Practically every child in Norway can speak English by the end of primary school but this is not because Norwegian teachers have some magic inaccessible to the rest of the world; it is because they are surrounded by English on the web, on television, film, computer games and they find it useful.
My three children were fluent in their second language (Norwegian) by the time they were four years old with no formal language instruction of any kind, we just sent them to the local kindergarten three days a week from the age of three once they were fluent in English. if memory serves Montaigne said that he learned Latin much the same way, his father hired a tutor who was instructed to speak only Latin.
> we just sent them to the local kindergarten
That is how I came to learn French; I went to a Paris kindergarten aged 3. Apparently I hated it for 6 months, but after that I was pretty fluent.
When we returned to England, and I went to an English school, I was marked down by the French teacher for using the subjunctive before I had been taught it.
That is how I came to learn French; I went to a Paris kindergarten aged 3. Apparently I hated it for 6 months, but after that I was pretty fluent.
When we returned to England, and I went to an English school, I was marked down by the French teacher for using the subjunctive before I had been taught it.
The best way I found to learn a language (as an adult) is to read dual-language books.
At least at my public schools, languages weren't tracked, unlike the other subjects (i.e. one level for everyone, not A/B/C or Honors/Advanced/Standard). Tracking is controversial, but those classes were circuses. The teacher has to cater to the lowest common denominator (or the lowest 25%-ile at most) and can make excruciatingly slow progress. The high performers get bored and also start causing distractions. It's a rough job and it seemed like it had high turnover.
French is the only thing I was taught at school that I still use. We were not taught it well but it provided enough of a base for me to build on and teach myself to a what I would like to think is a fairly high standard.
I also learned Latin. The Head Teacher was a Latin graduate and he ran a class after school, it was informal and fun and I feel that I picked it up quite quickly.
I also learned Latin. The Head Teacher was a Latin graduate and he ran a class after school, it was informal and fun and I feel that I picked it up quite quickly.
Yes, that's my worry also (knowing nothing about the world of contemporary classicists): in Anglophone countries such as the USA and UK it's become normal even among educated people to think that speaking a foreign language is just utterly beyond them. It's pretty embarrassing.
almost nothing government does “declares bankruptcy” even in the face of obvious failure.
Because she is routinely subjected to horrific misogynistic abuse online, I think this near-end paragraph bears repeating:
Mary Beard is a great scholar, and I don't want to be misunderstood as saying otherwise. There is more than just language proficiency to successful academic life, after all, and it is by no means the most important thing. For many reasons, knowing a language well is less valuable in academia than than knowing something else about the people who used the language, or having something worthwhile to say about texts written in it. The Czech writer Jan Kresadlo was at home enough in Homeric Greek that he was able to write a brilliantly hilarious Science Fiction Epic in it. But his facility with the language did not mean that he knew the first thing about Ancient Ionian land tenure practices.
But, that said, I think I agree with a couple of the authors points: She is brave to admit her lack of fluency and may have overstated how hard it is to learn.
Also worth reading is this, linked from the original blog: there's a conversation amongst latinists/classicists and they don't all agree with this polemic:
https://www.metafilter.com/181221/Lingua-pulcherrima
Mary Beard is a great scholar, and I don't want to be misunderstood as saying otherwise. There is more than just language proficiency to successful academic life, after all, and it is by no means the most important thing. For many reasons, knowing a language well is less valuable in academia than than knowing something else about the people who used the language, or having something worthwhile to say about texts written in it. The Czech writer Jan Kresadlo was at home enough in Homeric Greek that he was able to write a brilliantly hilarious Science Fiction Epic in it. But his facility with the language did not mean that he knew the first thing about Ancient Ionian land tenure practices.
But, that said, I think I agree with a couple of the authors points: She is brave to admit her lack of fluency and may have overstated how hard it is to learn.
Also worth reading is this, linked from the original blog: there's a conversation amongst latinists/classicists and they don't all agree with this polemic:
https://www.metafilter.com/181221/Lingua-pulcherrima
Why is she the subject of abuse? I am a total layperson here.
She's not just a Cambridge don. In the UK, she's well-known as a TV and radio broadcaster about classics, history, and art. She is of the left and approaches those subjects with a progressive slant, which attracts negative attention from conservatives (in my view, much of it justified), but also some vile sexist attacks from morons, which are definitely not justified.
There's a debate between her and Boris Johnson on youtube arguing the Romans vs the Greeks and he makes her look like an amateur both in delivery and content of her arguments
Any specific examples? I've seen people say the opposite.
I think people dislike her because she’s informal and popular in talking about a subject which is traditionally elite. She talks a lot about ordinary lives rather than great events, and she presents herself as an ordinary person, wearing trainers, with normal hair and teeth. A lot of it frankly is that she is not young and doesn’t attempt to make herself up to look young. You can see in many places there are very few women over the age of 50 on TV who have not been heavily made up.
All of this could be thought of as progressive or left wing but not in a way which anyone should object to! The only reasonable criticism of her I’ve seen is the discussion around the “ordinary British family in Roman times”, which was obviously wrong but made an underlying point which was valid, i.e. the lack of a modern idea of race in Roman civilization.
I think she has also objected to some aspects of gender self-id which would apparently make her right wing in a US context.
All of this could be thought of as progressive or left wing but not in a way which anyone should object to! The only reasonable criticism of her I’ve seen is the discussion around the “ordinary British family in Roman times”, which was obviously wrong but made an underlying point which was valid, i.e. the lack of a modern idea of race in Roman civilization.
I think she has also objected to some aspects of gender self-id which would apparently make her right wing in a US context.
> I think she has also objected to some aspects of gender self-id which would apparently make her right wing in a US context.
Or a gender-critical feminist.
I agree with you about the rest, to some degree. I enjoy her shows, and she knows her stuff. But she does have a tendency to make foolish and out-of-touch comments: like the Roman family thing and the Oxfam thing.
Or a gender-critical feminist.
I agree with you about the rest, to some degree. I enjoy her shows, and she knows her stuff. But she does have a tendency to make foolish and out-of-touch comments: like the Roman family thing and the Oxfam thing.
I am unsure what the purpose of this comment is, which apart from making the assertion that Beard is "routinely subjected to horrific misogynistic abuse online" merely consists of copy-pasted snippets of the article. Perhaps we can assume that the purpose is simply to include is this former component. One must wonder, however, how much of this "abuse" is merely criticism brought about by perceptions of shortcomings in her work (such as those outlined in TFA), rather than by any inborn prejudice.
You might read https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/21/mary-beard-suf... or https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/troll-slayer which is about the "abuse" problem. I don't think the problem is just criticism brought about by perceptions of shortcomings in her work. As to the relative ratios, and nature of the problem, I don't know how that could be assessed.
I posted one snippet and a link. I stated why I posted the snippet. It is to set context: the blog author is aware of this abuse problem and wants to draw a contradistinction between their view and the abuse. I agree with them, and I too wish to draw a contradistinction between my view and the abuse. Also, the link is relevant here. Not every latinist agrees with the statement of the problem, there is an debate amongst latinists about the complexity of the language and nuance in the meaning of unfamiliar texts. It bears thinking about. I found it interesting, which is why I posted. I'm sorry you think my comment is pointless.
Although in hypothesis, it is tenable to argue the complaints about Prof. Beard are simply misunderstood, and in fact its legitimate debate about her thesis and lines of reasoning, I think its not solely down to this, and I don't think the problem is mischaracterised. That's informed by having read popular history works by Prof. Beard, and also read about her problems being a public TV figure.
I posted one snippet and a link. I stated why I posted the snippet. It is to set context: the blog author is aware of this abuse problem and wants to draw a contradistinction between their view and the abuse. I agree with them, and I too wish to draw a contradistinction between my view and the abuse. Also, the link is relevant here. Not every latinist agrees with the statement of the problem, there is an debate amongst latinists about the complexity of the language and nuance in the meaning of unfamiliar texts. It bears thinking about. I found it interesting, which is why I posted. I'm sorry you think my comment is pointless.
Although in hypothesis, it is tenable to argue the complaints about Prof. Beard are simply misunderstood, and in fact its legitimate debate about her thesis and lines of reasoning, I think its not solely down to this, and I don't think the problem is mischaracterised. That's informed by having read popular history works by Prof. Beard, and also read about her problems being a public TV figure.
When I was at University studying history (among other subjects) our medieval history professor was fluent in reading, writing and speaking Latin. Having studied the language in school (with more than mediocre outcome) I was in awe.
My command of the language was that bad that I had to do certification at university studying the language again for three semesters.
He, having read and written Latin professionally for many years was from another realm. He once explained that the foreword of editions of primary medieval sources were done in Latin by everyone doing the editions as then these forewords would not have to be translated as everybody studying medieval sources would by trade be fluent in Latin.
My command of the language was that bad that I had to do certification at university studying the language again for three semesters.
He, having read and written Latin professionally for many years was from another realm. He once explained that the foreword of editions of primary medieval sources were done in Latin by everyone doing the editions as then these forewords would not have to be translated as everybody studying medieval sources would by trade be fluent in Latin.
I had Latin beaten into me for just over a decade of my childhood, and dropped it at 15, as soon as it was permitted. I hated it with a passion - endless declensions, recitations of stodgy poetry, copying and translation of texts so dull that it was normal for half the boys to fall asleep in class - usually swiftly adjusted with a board eraser or a meter rule kept for the purpose. There were no textbooks per se - just leatherbound copies of various literature, filled with the bored scrawlings of generations of schoolboys, which were usually far more interesting than the text itself.
As an adult, I find what I learned extremely useful, again and again. I moved to Portugal a bit over two years ago without a jot of Portuguese or Spanish to my name - just some rusty French, similarly imprinted by my Victorian schooling - however I rapidly realised that I could get away with speaking Latin with a Portuguese sound and be understood, as I pieced in the actual modern language, palimpsest-like, over the Latin. It allowed me to go from non-speaker to amply conversational in under a year, and knowing the underlying grammar and much of the vocabulary has similarly unlocked Spanish and Italian for me. I’ve even found that Mirandese, a dialect that native Portuguese speakers find quite impenetrable, has been no more of a challenge than Portuguese - less so, in fact, as it largely comprises vulgate Latin. The cognates in all of the Romance languages are profligate, and having Latin as a root from which to grow the various trunks has, I feel, given me insight into Latin as she was spoke, as it were, as hearing the incidences in common words between all provides a bridge to what the commonality in sound is, and how Latin may have actually sounded.
It’s also a delight to be able to walk around Roman ruins and museums and rattle off translations of inscriptions and writings, but I digress.
I hope that the teaching of Latin has improved since my day (80’s/90’s), as it’s an incredible tool to have in one’s arsenal, but to say I was unenthused by their pedagogical approach would be an understatement.
As an adult, I find what I learned extremely useful, again and again. I moved to Portugal a bit over two years ago without a jot of Portuguese or Spanish to my name - just some rusty French, similarly imprinted by my Victorian schooling - however I rapidly realised that I could get away with speaking Latin with a Portuguese sound and be understood, as I pieced in the actual modern language, palimpsest-like, over the Latin. It allowed me to go from non-speaker to amply conversational in under a year, and knowing the underlying grammar and much of the vocabulary has similarly unlocked Spanish and Italian for me. I’ve even found that Mirandese, a dialect that native Portuguese speakers find quite impenetrable, has been no more of a challenge than Portuguese - less so, in fact, as it largely comprises vulgate Latin. The cognates in all of the Romance languages are profligate, and having Latin as a root from which to grow the various trunks has, I feel, given me insight into Latin as she was spoke, as it were, as hearing the incidences in common words between all provides a bridge to what the commonality in sound is, and how Latin may have actually sounded.
It’s also a delight to be able to walk around Roman ruins and museums and rattle off translations of inscriptions and writings, but I digress.
I hope that the teaching of Latin has improved since my day (80’s/90’s), as it’s an incredible tool to have in one’s arsenal, but to say I was unenthused by their pedagogical approach would be an understatement.
I also studied Latin at school around the same time, was bored by it, but also found it useful when living abroad and needing to learn a language.
However, I don't think this is particular to Latin. In fact, Latin was the only grammatical teaching that I had at school. Vocabulary and phrases were considered more important than grammar, for all modern languages including English.
When taking lessons as an adult, my French teacher told me to forget everything I'd learnt; I needed to go back and learn the structure and conjugations and grammar like native French speakers do at school. That was where I found Latin had a benefit. If I had actually been taught properly at school, however, I don't think I would have found it so beneficial. It would simply have been another, less practical language.
However, I don't think this is particular to Latin. In fact, Latin was the only grammatical teaching that I had at school. Vocabulary and phrases were considered more important than grammar, for all modern languages including English.
When taking lessons as an adult, my French teacher told me to forget everything I'd learnt; I needed to go back and learn the structure and conjugations and grammar like native French speakers do at school. That was where I found Latin had a benefit. If I had actually been taught properly at school, however, I don't think I would have found it so beneficial. It would simply have been another, less practical language.
> In fact, Latin was the only grammatical teaching that I had at school.
Almost the same. I only did Latin for two years but found the the grammar concepts I learned in Latin were much richer than I got in five years of French.
Almost the same. I only did Latin for two years but found the the grammar concepts I learned in Latin were much richer than I got in five years of French.
> Latin was the only grammatical teaching that I had at school
Me too. Perhaps that's why I value my Latin training (which I flunked). Maybe it's learning grammar that is desirable, not learning Latin per se (pardon the Latin).
They say learning Latin makes it easier to learn other (European?) languages. Perhaps it's learning grammar that is really what helps.
Me too. Perhaps that's why I value my Latin training (which I flunked). Maybe it's learning grammar that is desirable, not learning Latin per se (pardon the Latin).
They say learning Latin makes it easier to learn other (European?) languages. Perhaps it's learning grammar that is really what helps.
In school I didn't get it. The way it was taught was (at least to me) making it more difficult to understand anything about the grammar and the structure of the language.
In university I had a great teacher. She was able to show (with colored pens) the way Latin declinations are being constructed. I only had to understand the pattern and could re-/deconstruct from there. Same with sentence structure were she taught us how to parse sentences and think of them in terms of math formulas with lots of brackets and how to ensure that ever open bracket is being closed again and how to find the main sentence first and start from there.
4 hours a week of intensive schooling and about 20 - 30 hours of homework (next to my regular course work).
In university I had a great teacher. She was able to show (with colored pens) the way Latin declinations are being constructed. I only had to understand the pattern and could re-/deconstruct from there. Same with sentence structure were she taught us how to parse sentences and think of them in terms of math formulas with lots of brackets and how to ensure that ever open bracket is being closed again and how to find the main sentence first and start from there.
4 hours a week of intensive schooling and about 20 - 30 hours of homework (next to my regular course work).
[deleted]
For all my years of learning Latin and Greek in school, it all went over my head. Declensions remained impenetrable as I couldn't instinctively map them to any patterns. In my case it extended to Spanish, which I found impossible to comprehend and articulate a sentence in because of a complete lack of interest for the classes I was taught the language in.
A few years after school I took to reading Medieval Latin and found it quite easy. Not so much because the Latin itself bears the traces of Romance, but because I wanted to read Latin. As it happens my Spanish is now decent and Greek is coming along.
A few years after school I took to reading Medieval Latin and found it quite easy. Not so much because the Latin itself bears the traces of Romance, but because I wanted to read Latin. As it happens my Spanish is now decent and Greek is coming along.
> He once explained that the foreword of editions of primary medieval sources were done in Latin by everyone doing the editions as then these forewords would not have to be translated as everybody studying medieval sources would by trade be fluent in Latin.
Now we just drop a PGP public key block in there and call it a day.
Now we just drop a PGP public key block in there and call it a day.
> I think it is partly that most of us, … still learn ancient languages largely passively.
This fascinates me for two reasons.
In my high school, which drew from every corner of the city of Boston, taught Latin (a required subject) as a living language and most students were as reasonably fluent as you would expect high schoolers could be. You’d encounter it in other subjects, not just Latin class. For many students Greek too. What’s the point otherwise?
I am somewhat surprised to hear that actual classicists might not be fluent — again, what’s the point? Didn’t they choose their domain because they loved the language or material? Computer scientists who are poor programmers are not uncommon but then they know their mathematics, the language of their trade (academic computer engineers tend to be better programmers).
But my son observed that many of the faculty and grad students of his university’s German department similarly were mostly not strong German speakers. While I noticed that in the 80s the political science profs who taught geopolitics all appeared to be fluent in Russian (though tbh how could I know?)
This fascinates me for two reasons.
In my high school, which drew from every corner of the city of Boston, taught Latin (a required subject) as a living language and most students were as reasonably fluent as you would expect high schoolers could be. You’d encounter it in other subjects, not just Latin class. For many students Greek too. What’s the point otherwise?
I am somewhat surprised to hear that actual classicists might not be fluent — again, what’s the point? Didn’t they choose their domain because they loved the language or material? Computer scientists who are poor programmers are not uncommon but then they know their mathematics, the language of their trade (academic computer engineers tend to be better programmers).
But my son observed that many of the faculty and grad students of his university’s German department similarly were mostly not strong German speakers. While I noticed that in the 80s the political science profs who taught geopolitics all appeared to be fluent in Russian (though tbh how could I know?)
At my secondary school, Latin, Greek and Classical Studies were all distinct subjects. It was uncommon for someone to do Classical Studies and either language - rather, Classical Studies was seen as the “can’t hack Latin/Greek” class, and most switched to it after the mandatory year of Latin.
Of the people I schooled with who are now classicists, they almost universally studied Classical Studies. The linguists, only one, as far as I know, is now a classicist.
I think the explanation is straightforward. The language teaching is, or was, practically designed to make you despise the topic. Classical Studies involved field trips, videos in the classroom, archaeological surveys - and was positively engaging.
Therefore, people who studied the languages, usually at the behest of their parents, ran from the classical world as fast as they could. The ones who dropped the languages and did classical studies instead, found themselves engaged by the subject matter and went on to be classicists.
Of the people I schooled with who are now classicists, they almost universally studied Classical Studies. The linguists, only one, as far as I know, is now a classicist.
I think the explanation is straightforward. The language teaching is, or was, practically designed to make you despise the topic. Classical Studies involved field trips, videos in the classroom, archaeological surveys - and was positively engaging.
Therefore, people who studied the languages, usually at the behest of their parents, ran from the classical world as fast as they could. The ones who dropped the languages and did classical studies instead, found themselves engaged by the subject matter and went on to be classicists.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Shameless plug: my wife produces Latin content for beginners on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/c/SaturaLanx).
Fun fact: during 2021 she earned quite more with her Latin teaching business than me as a full time software engineer. Not bad!
Fun fact: during 2021 she earned quite more with her Latin teaching business than me as a full time software engineer. Not bad!
> Fun fact: during 2021 she earned quite more with her Latin teaching business than me as a full time software engineer. Not bad!
Not that I am doubting what you're saying, but I find that fact surprising. I see on her channel info that she has 363,157 views in total. Does youtube pays really that well that with 300k views you can make more than as a software engineer? Or do I misunderstand what you're saying?
Not that I am doubting what you're saying, but I find that fact surprising. I see on her channel info that she has 363,157 views in total. Does youtube pays really that well that with 300k views you can make more than as a software engineer? Or do I misunderstand what you're saying?
I'd guess the youtube videos are just a part of a "Latin teaching business" that also involves paid courses. The main income is from people who directly pay for tuition/resources, not from youtube monetisation.
Ah yes, I misread the first comment, he’s talking about her Latin teaching business, not just the YouTube channel.
Thanks for pointing that out
Thanks for pointing that out
Not the above poster, but many language teachers YouTube channels are basically advertising for their paid individual lessons.
It's amusing how intense Nietzsche's contempt was for his fellow classicists during the heyday of the profession in the 19th century. Here is an excerpt from his "We Philologists"[1]:
Greeks and Classicists
The Greeks: pay homage to beauty; develop the body; are articulate; are religious transfigurers of ordinary things; are listeners and observers; are prone to symbolism; possess freedom as men; have a pure outlook on the world; are intellectual pessimists
The Classicists: are windbags and dilettantes; are repulsive-looking creatures; stutter; are filthy pedants; are hair-splitters and screech owls; are incapable of symbolism; are passionate slaves of the state; are Christians in disguise; are Philistines
It's probably unreasonable to expect the average classicist to possess the linguistic skills of the people whose legacy have survived over two millennia.
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20162817
Greeks and Classicists
The Greeks: pay homage to beauty; develop the body; are articulate; are religious transfigurers of ordinary things; are listeners and observers; are prone to symbolism; possess freedom as men; have a pure outlook on the world; are intellectual pessimists
The Classicists: are windbags and dilettantes; are repulsive-looking creatures; stutter; are filthy pedants; are hair-splitters and screech owls; are incapable of symbolism; are passionate slaves of the state; are Christians in disguise; are Philistines
It's probably unreasonable to expect the average classicist to possess the linguistic skills of the people whose legacy have survived over two millennia.
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20162817
I cannot read your comment without visualizing the "virgin vs chad" meme template, it's a perfect fit :)
Nietzsche would have been the best reddit shitposter.
Nietzsche would have been the best reddit shitposter.
To be fair, this is an old tradition in philosophy. Socrates was arguably the original forum troll, even if Diogenes took it to another level.
If Socrates had lived in Rome, he could have trolled on the original Forum.
Fine, ἀγορά.
Nietzsche's point has nothing to do with linguistic proficiency. Basically no Greeks of the attic era would have learned any other languages, except maybe a trader or merchant. Even Aristotle could not speak any other language than Greek...
Not all of them were ignorant of foreign languages. Xenophon ("Foreign Talker") is literally called that because he knew Persian. And his Anabasis is considered one of the best works in Attic Greek.
The Greeks were sexi, contemporary classists spend less time doing sports and caring how awesome they look, therefore ...
I mean, this shows Nietzsche's being capable of contempt and emotional/aesthetician argument, but not much else.
I mean, this shows Nietzsche's being capable of contempt and emotional/aesthetician argument, but not much else.
Another related academic field that has this quirk is musicology.
You can have a successful career writing books and papers on musicology without needing to know how to play or write music.
To me it feels analogous to an academic who writes on history of math without being able to prove or understand theorems.
You can have a successful career writing books and papers on musicology without needing to know how to play or write music.
To me it feels analogous to an academic who writes on history of math without being able to prove or understand theorems.
Many historians of mathematics are knowledgeable about mathematics but don’t really know how to practice history, which I think is worse. It leads to lots of bad practices like whiggishness.
> To me it feels analogous to an academic who writes on history of math without being able to prove or understand theorems.
You're suggesting that in order to study the history of something, you also need to be a practitioner of it? So for example, a professor of military history needs to have combat experience? An art history teacher needs to be an artist?
You're suggesting that in order to study the history of something, you also need to be a practitioner of it? So for example, a professor of military history needs to have combat experience? An art history teacher needs to be an artist?
It depends on how technical a subject is and whether practicing it helps understand it. It's not terribly surprising that most historians of science who cover modern (post WWII) science have at least some science background. You can't meaningful deal with the debates over the nature of the genetic code or particle physics unless you understand the technical issues.
>You're suggesting that in order to study the history of something, you also need to be a practitioner of it? So for example, a professor of military history needs to have combat experience? An art history teacher needs to be an artist?
I don't know if the parent is suggesting it, but I surely am. You can do it without being a practitioner, but worse (everything else, like your knowledge of the subject or writing skills, being equal).
I don't know if the parent is suggesting it, but I surely am. You can do it without being a practitioner, but worse (everything else, like your knowledge of the subject or writing skills, being equal).
So....an arson investigator should have a sizable arrest record for arson?
No - they should know their way around matches and fires, and seen many in action. Including setting up fires themselves, just not illegally. Duh!
Practitioner doesn't mean "illegal practictioner".
Arson investigators' training (and even practice) includes setting up controlled fires to study how arsonists works or how a specific arson case played out...
Does anyone seriously has to put this lame "so to be a professor/investigator of X, one must do X?" (illegal or impossible) question, when the answer is not only obvious ("no, but they should be aquainted with X to the best possible and legal degree") but has been clarified again and again in this thread?
Practitioner doesn't mean "illegal practictioner".
Arson investigators' training (and even practice) includes setting up controlled fires to study how arsonists works or how a specific arson case played out...
Does anyone seriously has to put this lame "so to be a professor/investigator of X, one must do X?" (illegal or impossible) question, when the answer is not only obvious ("no, but they should be aquainted with X to the best possible and legal degree") but has been clarified again and again in this thread?
Well, if you want to be a professor of military history, it certainly helps if you have at least tried handling a sword or gun. Perhaps show up to a few HEMA (Historical European martial arts) classes, if that's close to your area of study.
An art history teacher would be well served having tried her hands at using the historical techniques a few times to get a feel for them. But no need for her to be a brilliant artist.
An art history teacher would be well served having tried her hands at using the historical techniques a few times to get a feel for them. But no need for her to be a brilliant artist.
Lecturing on “historical mathematics” without being able to follow a mathematicians papers seems dubious to me.
Lecturing on music without being able to play music is also suspicious.
I would feel very fake if I were one of those people.
You would only be able to use second hand sources where someone with real ability has predigested the original works for you.
Lecturing on music without being able to play music is also suspicious.
I would feel very fake if I were one of those people.
You would only be able to use second hand sources where someone with real ability has predigested the original works for you.
So to return to my question, would you apply this criteria to all historical courses? That the lecturer must have firsthand practitioner knowledge of the field? How would this work for, say, ancient history?
No, my criteria is whether you can understand the original source without relying on another person with real ability to process the source for you.
For example, if you want to write the work of a mathematician but cant read or understand the writings of the mathematician, then I would be uncomfortable with that.
For example, if you want to write the work of a mathematician but cant read or understand the writings of the mathematician, then I would be uncomfortable with that.
Reading Mary Beard article, the ability to read texts for work was not issue at all. The issue was effective sight reading of complex text you are encountering the first time. She was writing about that being slow.
>How would this work for, say, ancient history?
In that they should be able to read the ancient languages of the culture they study, for one.
Nobody said anything about "firsthand knowledge" in the sense of "having lived in the time of the ancients".
But if you insist, sure, a historian that have actually lived at the time, would have a far better understanding of it (all other things being equal, like writing ability and so on). I'd take Thucylides over any modern historian of the Peloponesian war, for example.
In that they should be able to read the ancient languages of the culture they study, for one.
Nobody said anything about "firsthand knowledge" in the sense of "having lived in the time of the ancients".
But if you insist, sure, a historian that have actually lived at the time, would have a far better understanding of it (all other things being equal, like writing ability and so on). I'd take Thucylides over any modern historian of the Peloponesian war, for example.
>That the lecturer must have firsthand practitioner knowledge of the field?
All other things being equal first hand practical knowledge is then an edge, so not required but a benefit.
All other things being equal first hand practical knowledge is then an edge, so not required but a benefit.
Can't write about historical crime, unless you killed someone. I don't make the rules.
That's an unfair comparison. He seems to point out the fact that theory and practise are only the same in theory, but never in practise. One can always derive theory from practise, but never the other way round. There is room for doubt when someone lacks the practise to back up his theories.
A psychologist, who learned everything about psychology, without ever having actually practised it, is equally skilled as someone with experience. He isn't.
A psychologist, who learned everything about psychology, without ever having actually practised it, is equally skilled as someone with experience. He isn't.
Musicology is not about how to create or play music. Music theory is part of it, but so is history, sociology etc.
And the comparison does not work even in context of original topic. The article from Beard linked from this blogpost (or blog post itself).
And the comparison does not work even in context of original topic. The article from Beard linked from this blogpost (or blog post itself).
You really can't. Virtually all mainstream academic musicologists read fluently, because the job involves pulling cultural and social metaphors out of (mostly) written music - plus some history and source analysis of music criticism and theory, some philosophy, and other standard academic accessories.
Parent was talking about the activities other than reading: playing the music, and writing (new) music.
Seems like just an inevitable outcome of ever-increasing academic specialization. (Well, that and from the fact that classical languages aren't taught to many schoolkids anymore.) Maybe in the nineteenth century reading Thucydides would have posed no difficulty to the average classicist, but nowadays the scholar who specializes in Thracian numismatics or whatever probably doesn't have this facility and doesn't have much opportunity to develop or use it.
I can't read Greek but I've always heard that it's quite a bit harder than Latin, a language that I found to be preposterously convoluted. (I hated it and didn't get any farther than Caesar.) These languages are hard. I remember reading somewhere that a distinguished English-speaking Hellenist who'd been a professor for decades reported that after all that time he was able to read ancient Greek about as fluently as he read French. That's crazy.
I can't read Greek but I've always heard that it's quite a bit harder than Latin, a language that I found to be preposterously convoluted. (I hated it and didn't get any farther than Caesar.) These languages are hard. I remember reading somewhere that a distinguished English-speaking Hellenist who'd been a professor for decades reported that after all that time he was able to read ancient Greek about as fluently as he read French. That's crazy.
Idk. Mary Beard is not a present day schoolkid. The chair of the section in which I worked was about her age, and he could recite the opening of the Odyssee in Greek, and he was a psychologist. And he wasn't the only one.
But IMO it isn't "academic specialization". That just hides the nasty fact that it's publications and successful grant applications that determine a career, the latter being so politicized, that you can get away with bold, unproven statements if you know the right people.
But IMO it isn't "academic specialization". That just hides the nasty fact that it's publications and successful grant applications that determine a career, the latter being so politicized, that you can get away with bold, unproven statements if you know the right people.
If you read what she wrote, being able to recite something is not an issue at all. She said basically that she reads the same group of texts over and over, so she is super efficient at reading those.
But when she has to read complex text she never seen before, it is different and harder. And that she remembers other classicists saying the same. Then some musings about passive vs active learning of language and such.
Having something memorized is something entirely different then either of these.
But when she has to read complex text she never seen before, it is different and harder. And that she remembers other classicists saying the same. Then some musings about passive vs active learning of language and such.
Having something memorized is something entirely different then either of these.
And yet, modern academics are expected to have fluency in English even if it's a second language - academia has always required a lingua franca for obvious reasons, and English simply replaced Latin for that purpose (I think at one point in the early-to-mid 20th century a knowledge of German was required in US universities for some science and engineering subjects).
So most academics are required so spend a non-trivial amount of time learning a foreign language to very high proficiency, to the point of being able to read, write and deliver specialist papers in it.
So most academics are required so spend a non-trivial amount of time learning a foreign language to very high proficiency, to the point of being able to read, write and deliver specialist papers in it.
They're not using these languages as linguae francae, though. They're treating fluency in Latin and Greek as a mark of a scholar's preparation in the field of classics. (Less charitably, you might say they're using it simply as a shibboleth.) Seems kind of pointless to me, since AFAIK it's a matter of convention and institutional inertia that so many disciplines are grouped together under that label. I mean, if I'm a researcher in the bioarchaeology of Cretan olive cultivation, what have I got in common with a student of Attic tragedy, other than the fact that we both took Greek at some point and belong to the same university department?
I wouldn't blame this on specialization, per se. This is more like asking why aren't critics good at sports/music/whatever. "Empathy" with the subject of study to the point of total mimicry is or isn't part of the job description on a different axis.
The trend in modern social studies to emphasize "historical specificity", or an impossibility of fully embodying living some other context, might provide some cover to those that don't learn the language fluency, but this point didn't come up in the original reply or your comment.
If we want people to learn ancient languages fluidly, I think the right model is not even Academia, but, say the Europeans subsidizing rural quasi-traditional farmers for cultural reasons. Or "historically informed practice" in old music. It's not scientific study of the past, but an art or cultural practice in its own right.
A good question to ask is how well the Romans could speak 500 years prior Greek. (Older forms of their own language was already covered.) That was also an cultural practice of reverence.
The trend in modern social studies to emphasize "historical specificity", or an impossibility of fully embodying living some other context, might provide some cover to those that don't learn the language fluency, but this point didn't come up in the original reply or your comment.
If we want people to learn ancient languages fluidly, I think the right model is not even Academia, but, say the Europeans subsidizing rural quasi-traditional farmers for cultural reasons. Or "historically informed practice" in old music. It's not scientific study of the past, but an art or cultural practice in its own right.
A good question to ask is how well the Romans could speak 500 years prior Greek. (Older forms of their own language was already covered.) That was also an cultural practice of reverence.
Weird. I find Latin relatively easy and extremely clear, and much less convoluted than English. I love the wonderful terseness of Horace, the extreme information density it carries in a few words, all that's implied in these often non-written verbs, or these wandering adjectives floating miles away from their nouns. I dig Latin. I'm really bad at Greek, but I like it too -- it sounds beautiful.
In my experience, once you've studied a language for a while/to a certain level of competency, it's like riding a bike. I haven't studied French or Chinese for over a decade, but I can still (for example) read an article in Le Monde. On the other hand, my German and Arabic are basically non-existent while my Latin is somewhere in the middle.
Reading comprehension is also the thing that degrades the least in my experience (as long as there's an alphabet; bets are off with languages with Chinese and Japanese Kanji). I can recognize the subjunctif in French, but if I had to use it/conjugate it, I'd just stare blankly at you.
Reading comprehension is also the thing that degrades the least in my experience (as long as there's an alphabet; bets are off with languages with Chinese and Japanese Kanji). I can recognize the subjunctif in French, but if I had to use it/conjugate it, I'd just stare blankly at you.
To be clear, I'm saying it's crazy that after all that time and effort this guy could read Greek only as well as French, which, from what I understood, he had learned in order to read the secondary literature in his field.
> I can't read Greek but I've always heard that it's quite a bit harder than Latin
I actually found ancient Greek (most from Herodotos' time as that was my exam subject) actually much easier than Latin, but that might have more to do with my interest in everything around the language like the stories, culture and lifestyle. So maybe it's just a personal preference. If you ignore the different letterings sometimes used it's not even that bad. Fortunately all textbooks are in the Ionic writing scheme (and sometimes adapted to suit students more) so no sudden digamma's or other dialects.
I actually found ancient Greek (most from Herodotos' time as that was my exam subject) actually much easier than Latin, but that might have more to do with my interest in everything around the language like the stories, culture and lifestyle. So maybe it's just a personal preference. If you ignore the different letterings sometimes used it's not even that bad. Fortunately all textbooks are in the Ionic writing scheme (and sometimes adapted to suit students more) so no sudden digamma's or other dialects.
Interesting, I found Greek more complex, because, in my opinion, there are far more irregularities than in Latin (especially in verbs), and that there are countless dialectal variations to learn if you want to be able to read any Greek text, not just the Attic dialect.
I only brushed with Latin for about a month or so before I transferred classes, but I found it delightfully convoluted.
Latin probably feels different to a speaker of a flexive Slavic language, who is used to words being declined and word sequence in a sentence being rather relaxed all the time, than to someone who is used that words do not change and a fixed word order in sentences.
Latin probably feels different to a speaker of a flexive Slavic language, who is used to words being declined and word sequence in a sentence being rather relaxed all the time, than to someone who is used that words do not change and a fixed word order in sentences.
You make a good point, and this is why people claiming English is so much easier than Latin because it lacks noun cases is a pet peeve of mine — the word order conventions that we use instead of cases to convey information is grammar that has to be learned too!
As far as I know there is no one-dimensional metric that would let you say any language is uniformly easier than another.
As far as I know there is no one-dimensional metric that would let you say any language is uniformly easier than another.
Exactly. Latin is case-based as are Slavic languages even today. It would interesting to see if Russian (or Finnish, which despite not being Indo-European in origin also has a lot of cases) Latin scholars can read Latin more fluently in general as the grammar would not be as alien as it is to native English speakers.
Counterpoint: Classicists are not linguists and they're not supposed to be. There's no shame in a Classicist admitting they find Latin fluency hard, because it's a very secondary skill. There are some people who have that skill in abundance... so what?
Yes except linguists don't need to learn languages fluently either!
This is a lot like the modern jousters teasing medievalists. It's simply not the relevant skill.
A difference is, this person seemed pretty knowledgable (for an amateur? Not that I could properly judge) so it was much more enjoyable read than most of these sorts of things.
This is a lot like the modern jousters teasing medievalists. It's simply not the relevant skill.
A difference is, this person seemed pretty knowledgable (for an amateur? Not that I could properly judge) so it was much more enjoyable read than most of these sorts of things.
> because it's a very secondary skill
Really? Just wow.
Really? Just wow.
What I got from it is that Mary Bears assumes or implies that everyone has this struggle.
She made her comments in an article specifically about what it's like to be a Classics 'Don'.
And judging from the quotes, she caveated that some people do actively overcome this struggle.
There are quite some examples of contemporary Latin speakers, wow! However, I am surprised that Luke Ranieri (https://lukeranieri.com/) is not mentioned.
I suspect that, with notable exceptions, academics gain the level of proficiency they need.
However, practically everybody can at least read the characters of Latin.
I find this interesting to contrast to academics studying Ancient Chinese. Evemn native Chinese speakers require lots of training before they can even begin decoding the scripts and characters, let alone things like the poetic forms.
Now THAT'S a difficult language to do research in.
However, practically everybody can at least read the characters of Latin.
I find this interesting to contrast to academics studying Ancient Chinese. Evemn native Chinese speakers require lots of training before they can even begin decoding the scripts and characters, let alone things like the poetic forms.
Now THAT'S a difficult language to do research in.
Mmm the characters themselves are largely unchanged, precisely because they are so largely artificial!
But yes, merely recognizing the character doesn't mean one has much of a leg up decoding it.
But yes, merely recognizing the character doesn't mean one has much of a leg up decoding it.
> Mmm the characters themselves are largely unchanged, precisely because they are so largely artificial!
Your mileage may vary.
https://hanziyuan.net/#%E8%99%8E
Granted, that one starts out as non-artificial as it's possible to be. But compare https://hanziyuan.net/#%E7%94%B2 , where the original character is 十 and it develops through 田 and various intermediate forms into the modern form 甲. You don't get more abstract than 甲.
Your mileage may vary.
https://hanziyuan.net/#%E8%99%8E
Granted, that one starts out as non-artificial as it's possible to be. But compare https://hanziyuan.net/#%E7%94%B2 , where the original character is 十 and it develops through 田 and various intermediate forms into the modern form 甲. You don't get more abstract than 甲.
Oracle is quite a bit different, sure, but Seal is a lot more clear, and Clerical is completely clear.
I wish learning Latin/Greek as a spoken language would become the default pedagogical method.
I recently studied ancient Greek extensively in the Boston area. I was well aware of the living language community--people that speak and write Greek/Latin as they learn it and not just read it--and even joined some seminars, but these are all not for credit and are usually run by non-accredited institutions. Since I was in a masters program, I needed the credits for my language work. And I realized, it is nigh impossible to learn Greek as a living language in an academic settings. It's a real pity. Ancient languages are largely taught to pass the advanced language exams like the comps. If you want to learn it as a living language you have to step outside the academic mainstream.
Edit: clarify the credit thing.
I recently studied ancient Greek extensively in the Boston area. I was well aware of the living language community--people that speak and write Greek/Latin as they learn it and not just read it--and even joined some seminars, but these are all not for credit and are usually run by non-accredited institutions. Since I was in a masters program, I needed the credits for my language work. And I realized, it is nigh impossible to learn Greek as a living language in an academic settings. It's a real pity. Ancient languages are largely taught to pass the advanced language exams like the comps. If you want to learn it as a living language you have to step outside the academic mainstream.
Edit: clarify the credit thing.
> If you want to learn it as a living language you have to step outside the academic mainstream.
Your tone makes it sound like there is some conspiracy to keep ancient Greek out of curricula. In fact, the reason is that there is virtually zero demand. The "academic mainstream" are the student body that has no interest in it. I too took ancient Greek. There were 6 people in my program. It was closed two years after I completed it.
Your tone makes it sound like there is some conspiracy to keep ancient Greek out of curricula. In fact, the reason is that there is virtually zero demand. The "academic mainstream" are the student body that has no interest in it. I too took ancient Greek. There were 6 people in my program. It was closed two years after I completed it.
No, I do not believe there is a conspiracy like this. What I said was specifically about living language style learning vs. the traditional sight reading and then translating type of learning. The latter is the primary style, and if you want the former it is very hard to find in the universities. I know about the dwindling demand for ancient language learning in general, but in Boston there is still quite a bit of demand in the bigger universities.
However, I do think there could be more interest if learning Greek/Latin would not feel like such an immense grind, going at it more as a living language style would help a bit (it still hard, though).
However, I do think there could be more interest if learning Greek/Latin would not feel like such an immense grind, going at it more as a living language style would help a bit (it still hard, though).
If other languages were taught like Greek or Latin, I'm certain there would be almost no interest as well.
I must one of the few people that loved the grammatical-translation method and hated the "communicative" method. I had to learn English in a "communicative-centric" fashion and it was a torment: it was all memorizing useless sentences like "What is your name?" "What is your favorite color?" and then recite back with the teachers and classmates. After 11 years I couldn't even read Harry Potter while after 2 years of Latin Grammar I could read whatever author I was pleased with and had no more need to mentally translate.
I spent seven years of school learning Latin based on Kennedy's Latin Grammar. I took an exam after five years, and failed. I retook it after seven, and scraped a pass.
By contrast, I got top marks in a French exam a year early; and top marks in German after just a year of lessons. The difference is that the modern languages were taught mainly conversationally (i.e. not based on a grammar book, but "as she is spoke"). I wish I had learned Latin that way. It would have been a lot less painful, and I'd have spent much less time in Latin classes.
By contrast, I got top marks in a French exam a year early; and top marks in German after just a year of lessons. The difference is that the modern languages were taught mainly conversationally (i.e. not based on a grammar book, but "as she is spoke"). I wish I had learned Latin that way. It would have been a lot less painful, and I'd have spent much less time in Latin classes.
I hesitated to mention this, because I assumed people would all be jumping in to say this.
Roman Catholics have been using Latin continuously since it was a Lingua Franca. No doubt many of them are pretty fluent.
Clerical Latin is a dialect; I don't know much about it, but I know it's different from (for example) legal Latin, or vulgate Latin. But I assume that at least some practitioners of clerical Latin are fluent, and I also assume that there is a pronunciation tradition in the Catholic Church that runs back to Lingua Franca days.
It was pointed out to me in some other HN thread that Latin is not a "dead language" - it experiences the same kinds of drifts and changes in grammar, semantics and so on as modern languages. I accept that. The same can't be said of Sanskrit, I think.
Roman Catholics have been using Latin continuously since it was a Lingua Franca. No doubt many of them are pretty fluent.
Clerical Latin is a dialect; I don't know much about it, but I know it's different from (for example) legal Latin, or vulgate Latin. But I assume that at least some practitioners of clerical Latin are fluent, and I also assume that there is a pronunciation tradition in the Catholic Church that runs back to Lingua Franca days.
It was pointed out to me in some other HN thread that Latin is not a "dead language" - it experiences the same kinds of drifts and changes in grammar, semantics and so on as modern languages. I accept that. The same can't be said of Sanskrit, I think.
Internet gurus are hacking language learning and the consensus is moving towards the importance of a steady diet of "comprehensible input" versus grammar instruction. That was always the expert opinion I think but the internet has accelerated it. One important factor is that the early content you consume be translated from your native language into the target language. For instance Latin learners should start with something like Harry Potter latinus. It's interesting to think about why translated-from-native material is the best for beginners; it probably reduces the mental overhead and focuses the learner on learning the language instead of learning the language & content at the same time.
I love that “hacking language learning” turns out to be “mostly do what babies do”: consume as much content as possible. Babies take it one step further by trying things without embarrassment or any attempt at “getting it right”, only focused on raw communication.
Not to denigrate the efforts of folks who study and practice “the act of language acquisition”, I’ve just been surprised and delighted to watch my now 2 year old daughter learn to speak, which has made me think about how different her experience of “learning a language” is from all of my poor attempts at learning foreign languages.
Not to denigrate the efforts of folks who study and practice “the act of language acquisition”, I’ve just been surprised and delighted to watch my now 2 year old daughter learn to speak, which has made me think about how different her experience of “learning a language” is from all of my poor attempts at learning foreign languages.
The places that have a track record of actually getting people to speak languages like the Mormons' Missionary Training Center, Defense Foreign Language Institute, or Middlebury all use methods similar to the comprehensive input method and have for a while. The problem for self-learners is that most languages don't have the right materials to do that easily.
[deleted]
It's interesting to me that that Japanese language learning community seems to take the opposite approach to what I think is the view you're describing. For example, they focus very heavily on memorizing a lot of kanji early, without as much grounding in the spoken language or in reading simpler texts and building up fluency. It always seemed like these learners were going about it the hard way since you have almost no context when learning kanji you don't know from the spoken language.
I don't think what you're describing is actually different from the popular approach of comprehensible input. There's just a step that needs to happen before most input is comprehensible, and that's understanding the meanings of the most common kanji.
One simply cannot read most Japanese content online without understanding at least a few hundred kanji. It's like if you wanted to learn the English language but had no understanding of the alphabet (ignoring kana for the sake of the analogy). You've got to bootstrap with some rote memorization first, then go start learning new kanji / grammar in context.
Lucky, this doesn't take much time at all, and one can memorize the first few hundred kanji and vocab meanings / readings with a spaced repetition tool.
And in parallel, there are resources one can start with knowing only the kana / furigana, such as these graded readers: https://tadoku.org/japanese/en/free-books-en/
One simply cannot read most Japanese content online without understanding at least a few hundred kanji. It's like if you wanted to learn the English language but had no understanding of the alphabet (ignoring kana for the sake of the analogy). You've got to bootstrap with some rote memorization first, then go start learning new kanji / grammar in context.
Lucky, this doesn't take much time at all, and one can memorize the first few hundred kanji and vocab meanings / readings with a spaced repetition tool.
And in parallel, there are resources one can start with knowing only the kana / furigana, such as these graded readers: https://tadoku.org/japanese/en/free-books-en/
For comprehensible input you shouldn't need to learn the meaning when learning kanji. You should already know the meaning/sound from spoken language. There is definitely memorization required to learn to map the kanji to the words they represent, but the way most learners do it is not comprehensible input.
There are textbooks that follow a CI approach, e.g. Eleanor Jorden's. John Defrancis's textbooks are similar but for Chinese. If you look at the reviews the main complaint people have is that they are not learning kanji from the start, despite Jorden explaining exactly why she's not doing that.
Maybe CI is not the best way to learn languages like Chinese and Japanese, but the approach most learners take is definitely not CI.
There are textbooks that follow a CI approach, e.g. Eleanor Jorden's. John Defrancis's textbooks are similar but for Chinese. If you look at the reviews the main complaint people have is that they are not learning kanji from the start, despite Jorden explaining exactly why she's not doing that.
Maybe CI is not the best way to learn languages like Chinese and Japanese, but the approach most learners take is definitely not CI.
Interesting. It's hard for me to envision an efficient way of learning Japanese that doesn't involve at least some rote memorization of Kanji meanings and readings (after all, that's even how native Japanese speakers learn). But I'm interested in this approach. I'll pick up Jorden's book and give it a try.
Do you mind sharing some links or references where I can see language hacking discussion?
It's not a new idea being discussed in language learning circles, and 99% of the recent online discussion about this is based off of this youtube video [1] of Stephen Krashen (a linguist) talking about comprehensible input in the 80s.
If I had to guess, most of the recent discussion has started again in the Japanese language learning community, as Japanese is a notoriously difficult language to acquire for anglophones.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUc_W3xE1w
If I had to guess, most of the recent discussion has started again in the Japanese language learning community, as Japanese is a notoriously difficult language to acquire for anglophones.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUc_W3xE1w
You really think that grainy video from forty years ago is driving the discussion? It's unwatchable.
I realize how it sounds, but yes. It's the source of "comprehensible input" discussion that is cited again and again in online Japanese language learning circles if you dig through the rabbit hole of citations people make.
This guy who learned Japanese from anime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG9kpqTRmU&t=681s
Learning Latin with Harry Potter latinus.
http://indwellinglanguage.com/reading-latin-extensively/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG9kpqTRmU&t=681s
Learning Latin with Harry Potter latinus.
http://indwellinglanguage.com/reading-latin-extensively/
A Latin Perl module:
https://users.monash.edu/~damian/papers/HTML/Perligata.html
Author’s reasons are fascinating.
https://users.monash.edu/~damian/papers/HTML/Perligata.html
Author’s reasons are fascinating.
Latin ~~Skyrim~~ Caelifinis conversion mod:
https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/27433
It wasn't finished last time I played it though. Amusing project none the less.
https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/mods/27433
It wasn't finished last time I played it though. Amusing project none the less.
latin not withstanding, most language learning classes are a waste of money.
You know whats cheaper than taking a college course on spanish? traveling down to Colombia with a small book on Spanish grammer and a duolingo membership while living here for 3 months.
I wouldn't say I'm fluent but I have picked up enough to navigate the city, ask for directions, flirt with the locals and make a few friends. And isn't connecting with people why we ultimatly want to learn a new language?
You know whats cheaper than taking a college course on spanish? traveling down to Colombia with a small book on Spanish grammer and a duolingo membership while living here for 3 months.
I wouldn't say I'm fluent but I have picked up enough to navigate the city, ask for directions, flirt with the locals and make a few friends. And isn't connecting with people why we ultimatly want to learn a new language?
I think these scholars should try immersion: watch some Roman dramas in Latin, Roman music videos, Roman news, Roma documentaries, ..., for a few hours a day at least until they understand everything without subtitles. I don't think you will get the hang of seven case declension from just reading. Practicing speaking is important too. Find a Roman friend for language exchange, maybe.
As evidenced from [0], for example, Classical Latin is rather complex, and original Latin texts are often more difficult to read than texts in Ancient Greek, in my non-expert opinion.
[0] https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/latol
[0] https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/latol
I'm curious how you'd come to that last conclusion from that article, as the historical Greek languages/dialects have the noun and verb forms therein (except for the ablative case, which fell into disuse by the classical period, and prepositions taking ablatives took genetics case nouns instead)
Greek has more forms as well, having a dual number (in addition to singular and plural, a middle voice in addition to active and passive, the aorist tense...
Now, I never studied Latin, only Greek, so I have a very basic understanding of the terms as I learned them from Greek, but I've always felt like Latin was way more regular and consistent. It's a much "younger" language, too, at least compared to Attic and Homeric Greek. But, I really don't know Latin well, so I'm not in a good position to compare...
Greek has more forms as well, having a dual number (in addition to singular and plural, a middle voice in addition to active and passive, the aorist tense...
Now, I never studied Latin, only Greek, so I have a very basic understanding of the terms as I learned them from Greek, but I've always felt like Latin was way more regular and consistent. It's a much "younger" language, too, at least compared to Attic and Homeric Greek. But, I really don't know Latin well, so I'm not in a good position to compare...
Author has a point yet inexplicably dresses it up with bashing classicists. Author sure seems to know a lot about all classicists all from what a single one of them said, apparently carelessly and without rigor, in a setting that no one should have taken too seriously. This is employing the fallacy of hasty generalization, which the author uses as a point of departure but never strays too far before coming back again to bash classicists' command of Latin. I wish a classicist would respond. Most of them are mental giants that would make quick work of the author's meandering editorial, if only they were remotely interested in anything written in the last 1200 years. Author is clearly not an academic. Academics don't bicker... there is no hierarchy or pecking order there, with the economists on top, physicists in the middle, and theater professors at the bottom. In general, they all respect each other's work and PhDs (except interdepartmentally... head of dept. stuff is political), because they know how much work they invested in their own.
> Most of them [classicists] are mental giants
Ha!
> Academics don't bicker... there is no hierarchy or pecking order there
Ha ha!
> In general, they all respect each other's work
Now I know that you're trolling. Poe's law almost got me...
Ha!
> Academics don't bicker... there is no hierarchy or pecking order there
Ha ha!
> In general, they all respect each other's work
Now I know that you're trolling. Poe's law almost got me...
I think it worth posting this resource for those who might be actively studying the classics: https://geoffreysteadman.com/
>It's not just that this assumption would be news to people like Galileo, Kepler or Descartes.
some of the smartest people who ever lived learned Latin and Greek, so you can see how easy it must be.
I mean not to say that it isn't just as possible as learning any other language, but the reason why we don't is that it is not that important all things considered to read Cicero in the original for most people. If it is important they will learn the language, and if they do that will probably become a source of income for them as it is a rare skill.
some of the smartest people who ever lived learned Latin and Greek, so you can see how easy it must be.
I mean not to say that it isn't just as possible as learning any other language, but the reason why we don't is that it is not that important all things considered to read Cicero in the original for most people. If it is important they will learn the language, and if they do that will probably become a source of income for them as it is a rare skill.
> some of the smartest people who ever lived learned Latin and Greek, so you can see how easy it must be.
Those are just the people we remember today; many more were fairly fluent, but we haven't heard of them.
Those are just the people we remember today; many more were fairly fluent, but we haven't heard of them.
My problem is not with the idea that people can learn the languages, but that the example chosen as to why it should not be too difficult is among the set of people whom, judging from brain power, would probably find it easier than the normal learner.
In other words it is a rhetorically poor argument.
on edit: changed set up to set of.
In other words it is a rhetorically poor argument.
on edit: changed set up to set of.
John Milton was famously fluent in both. Paradise Lost is written in the style, form, and diction of an ancient epic. It also biased towards words with classical roots
Indeed. And they did bot use it in their daily speech, which is what makes a language “alive”.
As I said in another comment, I can talk the language of schemes. It does not make that langauge any more “alive” as a tongue than Latin.
As I said in another comment, I can talk the language of schemes. It does not make that langauge any more “alive” as a tongue than Latin.
Is it much to ask to have people who are academics, specialists in a field to have an aptitude for it? Like, is it unfair to demand that a professor is smart?
I was forced to learn Latin for six years during high school and college, and I detested it. Also two years of Greek. I argued it would be much more useful to learn a living language like German, Italian, whatever. And I am fluent in English, French and Spanish.
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Doesn't have all that much to do with the article, though.
(Not sure why you are downvoted so much.)
(Not sure why you are downvoted so much.)
Probably because it is completely offtopic.
My point is that Latin is not all what it's cracked up to be in a modern context. If Latin is so great, why was it such a loathsome experience? I was 11 years old when I started rosa, rosa, rosam, rosae.... In six years, you'd think I could find one teacher that could inspire me? BTW I graduated Magna cum, first of my class, so I'm not impervious to learning.
That's certainly evidence, but perhaps not damning evidence?
Compare mathematics (or even programming): from first hand experience I can tell you that they are interesting topics, but also that most teachers that most people have are awful.
In any case, Latin is just one language amongst many. It's fine, if you don't like it. There's plenty more you can learn, if you want to.
Compare mathematics (or even programming): from first hand experience I can tell you that they are interesting topics, but also that most teachers that most people have are awful.
In any case, Latin is just one language amongst many. It's fine, if you don't like it. There's plenty more you can learn, if you want to.
(2019)
From my personal point of view: native speaker of Chinese & self-taught Japanese; not particularly good at Latin—your typical Vergil, Tacitus, Sallust level but did some phonological history research in university setting. I admit I can’t sight read well (beyond Osberg’s textbooks)
I agree with the other commenter that woefully, Latin is a dead language. The author lists examples of modern usage of Latin in the article that, imo, are few and far between. They almost always resort to neologisms and English back ports on the spot, or reuse some Latin vocabulary that hopefully makes sense. In the manned mission to Mars video by Paideia the author linked, the speaker rather handwavily refers to the rovers Opportunity and Curiosity as instrumenta, while his slides uses carri (wagons). I don’t think there is any consensus on what rovers should be called. Articles on the Latin Wikipedia (that the author also links to) painstakingly avoids this issue by de-Anglicizing official NASA monikers (so Curiosity is Laboratorium Scientificum Martianum, or just vehiculum).
I’m not saying the way modern Latin creates new vocabulary is bad--most non-English languages have gone through a similar process. I am lamenting the absolute lack of consistency or consensus, because the corpus is so small and because Latin speakers rarely actually communicate in Latin about such matters for practical ends. The Maritian mission lecture can uncharitably be said to be a mediocre high school presentation on the subject, with the novelty of it being in Latin (and again, I like Latin as a language a lot. I almost went on a Paideia trip before their scandal cropped up). And yes, novelty is the biggest factor here--why are all the numbers in Roman numerals? Cultures around the world have adopted to Arabic numerals despite all having indigenous systems.
I am aware that the Latinitas Foundation publises a Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, and you can see a small portion of it on the Vatican website: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/la.... The problem is that it simply has lemma in Italian and Latin explanations to them, which is not exactly helpful (or sometimes correct). “Jet” is explained as aërināvis celérrima (the fastest airship) and “jumbo” as capacíssima aërināvis (the largest airship; wouldn’t it be prudent to think it might refer to things other than a plane?). Also I am under the impression that planes are more often referred to as aeroplanum, because loaning from English gets more traction (like computatrum vs ordinatrum). It’s ironic that in the information age, when dialects in living languages are increasingly homogenized, Latin is so fragmented—-again, probably because people don’t actually communicate in it. Remind me how Latin got replaced by the veraculars?
This is becoming a huge rant, but as someone who has experience teaching myself language to fairly high levels, an excess of engaging learning materials is crucial for achiving proficiency. Imagine learning English and you get to choose from the huge and diverse corpus of Shakespeare, Milton, Samuel Richardson, Shelly and Dickens. Not that any of those is not a great work, but to achieve listening and speaking skills, you obviously need other materials: news, pop culture, entertainment, instruction manuals, random people’s posts online–the equivalents to which Latin cannot provide. If you are trained to read and analyze only the classics, you will be able to do that--maybe you can't listen or speak or sight read, but what did you really expect.
That said, I do not regret not having been part of a “living” kind of Latin language course. Language instruction in the US is atrocious, and I learned nothing from 3 years of French courses despite good grades. Grammar-translation might not be ideal (I didn’t do it for long either), but at least it has rigor.
I agree with the other commenter that woefully, Latin is a dead language. The author lists examples of modern usage of Latin in the article that, imo, are few and far between. They almost always resort to neologisms and English back ports on the spot, or reuse some Latin vocabulary that hopefully makes sense. In the manned mission to Mars video by Paideia the author linked, the speaker rather handwavily refers to the rovers Opportunity and Curiosity as instrumenta, while his slides uses carri (wagons). I don’t think there is any consensus on what rovers should be called. Articles on the Latin Wikipedia (that the author also links to) painstakingly avoids this issue by de-Anglicizing official NASA monikers (so Curiosity is Laboratorium Scientificum Martianum, or just vehiculum).
I’m not saying the way modern Latin creates new vocabulary is bad--most non-English languages have gone through a similar process. I am lamenting the absolute lack of consistency or consensus, because the corpus is so small and because Latin speakers rarely actually communicate in Latin about such matters for practical ends. The Maritian mission lecture can uncharitably be said to be a mediocre high school presentation on the subject, with the novelty of it being in Latin (and again, I like Latin as a language a lot. I almost went on a Paideia trip before their scandal cropped up). And yes, novelty is the biggest factor here--why are all the numbers in Roman numerals? Cultures around the world have adopted to Arabic numerals despite all having indigenous systems.
I am aware that the Latinitas Foundation publises a Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, and you can see a small portion of it on the Vatican website: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/la.... The problem is that it simply has lemma in Italian and Latin explanations to them, which is not exactly helpful (or sometimes correct). “Jet” is explained as aërināvis celérrima (the fastest airship) and “jumbo” as capacíssima aërināvis (the largest airship; wouldn’t it be prudent to think it might refer to things other than a plane?). Also I am under the impression that planes are more often referred to as aeroplanum, because loaning from English gets more traction (like computatrum vs ordinatrum). It’s ironic that in the information age, when dialects in living languages are increasingly homogenized, Latin is so fragmented—-again, probably because people don’t actually communicate in it. Remind me how Latin got replaced by the veraculars?
This is becoming a huge rant, but as someone who has experience teaching myself language to fairly high levels, an excess of engaging learning materials is crucial for achiving proficiency. Imagine learning English and you get to choose from the huge and diverse corpus of Shakespeare, Milton, Samuel Richardson, Shelly and Dickens. Not that any of those is not a great work, but to achieve listening and speaking skills, you obviously need other materials: news, pop culture, entertainment, instruction manuals, random people’s posts online–the equivalents to which Latin cannot provide. If you are trained to read and analyze only the classics, you will be able to do that--maybe you can't listen or speak or sight read, but what did you really expect.
That said, I do not regret not having been part of a “living” kind of Latin language course. Language instruction in the US is atrocious, and I learned nothing from 3 years of French courses despite good grades. Grammar-translation might not be ideal (I didn’t do it for long either), but at least it has rigor.
Thanks for an interesting read (and the lecture video link in the comments!).
Never met a Latin teacher who could hold a conversation, although one said he had been to a convention where they dressed up in Roman gear and greeted each other in Latin "SALVETE".
I was studying Latin for 4.5 years in secondary education, my summary is it isn't as useful and as logical a language as many claim: there are plenty of tables to memorize, many exceptions to remember, and then advanced texts leave important words implicit (e.g. main verbs). As someone passionate about language and languages, I was initially excited, but quickly disappointed and bored by Latin grammar books and textbooks that taught it. The typically historic texts are mostly war-related (Caesar, De bello gallico).
In contrast, Spanish grammar is lean, beautiful and simple. The exceptions are fewer, and somehow one doesn't even need to study much to pick up the essentials for daily communication, one tends to pick it up intuitively (after four years of Latin, I still couldn't "Vamos a la playa" in Latin, but I could say "Vamono" in Spanish after two years - "let's go!", emulating the slang of the Canary Islands where the -s ending is often dropped, to sound more native-like).
Ironically, of course, Spanish is a Romance language and therefore derived from Latin. In linguistics, there is an observation that over time, languages simplify and drop cases, conjugations and endings indicating other grammatical systems generally. For instance, English once had a "dual" in addition to singular and plural, which was only used for things with cardinality two (e.g. two apples, a pair of shoes), but this was eventually shed [1,2].
It is important to know more than one language well enough to have conversations and read books, as this totally broadens one's perspective. This is because categorial divisions are done differently in each language and the world is organized differently - along different grammatical dimensions - and the leads to an increased ability to take alternative viewpoints. Learning a second language opens your mind and makes accessible another vast body of books you can read and people you can communicate with. It's vital that this is taught you people in schools, and it's importal to do that well, as later people have insufficient time and focus, and older humans learn much more slowly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_(grammatical_number)
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327510106_The_Loss_...
Never met a Latin teacher who could hold a conversation, although one said he had been to a convention where they dressed up in Roman gear and greeted each other in Latin "SALVETE".
I was studying Latin for 4.5 years in secondary education, my summary is it isn't as useful and as logical a language as many claim: there are plenty of tables to memorize, many exceptions to remember, and then advanced texts leave important words implicit (e.g. main verbs). As someone passionate about language and languages, I was initially excited, but quickly disappointed and bored by Latin grammar books and textbooks that taught it. The typically historic texts are mostly war-related (Caesar, De bello gallico).
In contrast, Spanish grammar is lean, beautiful and simple. The exceptions are fewer, and somehow one doesn't even need to study much to pick up the essentials for daily communication, one tends to pick it up intuitively (after four years of Latin, I still couldn't "Vamos a la playa" in Latin, but I could say "Vamono" in Spanish after two years - "let's go!", emulating the slang of the Canary Islands where the -s ending is often dropped, to sound more native-like).
Ironically, of course, Spanish is a Romance language and therefore derived from Latin. In linguistics, there is an observation that over time, languages simplify and drop cases, conjugations and endings indicating other grammatical systems generally. For instance, English once had a "dual" in addition to singular and plural, which was only used for things with cardinality two (e.g. two apples, a pair of shoes), but this was eventually shed [1,2].
It is important to know more than one language well enough to have conversations and read books, as this totally broadens one's perspective. This is because categorial divisions are done differently in each language and the world is organized differently - along different grammatical dimensions - and the leads to an increased ability to take alternative viewpoints. Learning a second language opens your mind and makes accessible another vast body of books you can read and people you can communicate with. It's vital that this is taught you people in schools, and it's importal to do that well, as later people have insufficient time and focus, and older humans learn much more slowly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_(grammatical_number)
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327510106_The_Loss_...
[deleted]
Beard has commented on the correct pronunciation of "omicron".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...
She says it's pronounced "oh-MEE-cron". I took one term of ancient greek, and was taught to recite the greek alphabet; we were told it's pronounced "oh-MY-cron". I'm fairly sure that schoolboys have been taught to pronounce it that way since forever. It's beyond me why the BBC Pronunciation Unit decided it's pronounced "OMMY-cron".
I also wonder how Beard came by her knowledge of how the ancient greeks pronounced the letters of their alphabet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...
She says it's pronounced "oh-MEE-cron". I took one term of ancient greek, and was taught to recite the greek alphabet; we were told it's pronounced "oh-MY-cron". I'm fairly sure that schoolboys have been taught to pronounce it that way since forever. It's beyond me why the BBC Pronunciation Unit decided it's pronounced "OMMY-cron".
I also wonder how Beard came by her knowledge of how the ancient greeks pronounced the letters of their alphabet.
The accent is on the initial o, why would you stress the second syllable? (1) And why would Greek MI be pronounced MY? That’s a very English specific pronunciation of I. It definitely wasn’t a diphthong in Greek.
What is even your point? Nobody really knows just how it was actually pronounced, so we rely on standardized reconstructions. But that’s not really related to being able to read it.
Also, omicron and the Greek letters have become English words, and their pronunciation as English words doesn’t necessarily correspond to the (reconstructed) Greek pronunciation, these are different things.
1 Yes I’m aware that the accents originally denoted a melodic accent rather than a stress accent, I did take four full-time semesters of Greek, but something tells me that’s not the reason your teacher taught you that way.
What is even your point? Nobody really knows just how it was actually pronounced, so we rely on standardized reconstructions. But that’s not really related to being able to read it.
Also, omicron and the Greek letters have become English words, and their pronunciation as English words doesn’t necessarily correspond to the (reconstructed) Greek pronunciation, these are different things.
1 Yes I’m aware that the accents originally denoted a melodic accent rather than a stress accent, I did take four full-time semesters of Greek, but something tells me that’s not the reason your teacher taught you that way.
> What is even your point? Nobody really knows just how it was actually pronounced, so we rely on standardized reconstructions.
I imagine that ancient pronunciation can sometimes be induced from things like poetry.
> something tells me that’s not the reason your teacher taught you that way.
I imagine he taught it to me that way because that's how he learned it. I don't know how far down the turtles go, but this was at a school that has traditionally emphasized classics; all the teachers pronounced it that way, including those teaching science and maths. The BBC variant jars, because I have never heard it pronounced their way until this damned virus cropped up.
I imagine that ancient pronunciation can sometimes be induced from things like poetry.
> something tells me that’s not the reason your teacher taught you that way.
I imagine he taught it to me that way because that's how he learned it. I don't know how far down the turtles go, but this was at a school that has traditionally emphasized classics; all the teachers pronounced it that way, including those teaching science and maths. The BBC variant jars, because I have never heard it pronounced their way until this damned virus cropped up.
> I imagine that ancient pronunciation can sometimes be induced from things like poetry.
Yes, and from Modern Greek, contemporary loan words etc. It's a whole science. Erasmus was an important scholar here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_Ancient_Greek...
But that's not related to being able to understand a written text.
And again, the name of the letter omikron is an English word, so it's a different question really. Sort of like we pronounce the letter "CHI" with a k-sound and rhyming with "high", even though we know very well that the consonant Greek CHI was pronounced more like ch in Loch Ness, or Spanish J.
So even people who say oMYcron don't think that's how it was pronounced in Greek.
Yes, and from Modern Greek, contemporary loan words etc. It's a whole science. Erasmus was an important scholar here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_Ancient_Greek...
But that's not related to being able to understand a written text.
And again, the name of the letter omikron is an English word, so it's a different question really. Sort of like we pronounce the letter "CHI" with a k-sound and rhyming with "high", even though we know very well that the consonant Greek CHI was pronounced more like ch in Loch Ness, or Spanish J.
So even people who say oMYcron don't think that's how it was pronounced in Greek.
> So even people who say oMYcron don't think that's how it was pronounced in Greek.
I agree; and I also agree with the earlier commenter that the "ai" diphthong is an English thing (I don't know if it's restricted to British English, or whether it's also currency in the USA). It might even be a thing that's bound to English private schools; but note that English state schools have rarely taught classics.
This is why the BBC Pronunciation Unit's version jars; it sounds to my ear uneducated. Incidentally, Boris Johnson pronounces it the BBC way; he studied Greek at the same kind of school, and then at Oxford, and must have learned to pronounce it ohMYcron, as in MYcroscope.
I only did a term of Greek; I don't remember being taught anything about accents.
I agree; and I also agree with the earlier commenter that the "ai" diphthong is an English thing (I don't know if it's restricted to British English, or whether it's also currency in the USA). It might even be a thing that's bound to English private schools; but note that English state schools have rarely taught classics.
This is why the BBC Pronunciation Unit's version jars; it sounds to my ear uneducated. Incidentally, Boris Johnson pronounces it the BBC way; he studied Greek at the same kind of school, and then at Oxford, and must have learned to pronounce it ohMYcron, as in MYcroscope.
I only did a term of Greek; I don't remember being taught anything about accents.
>I imagine that ancient pronunciation can sometimes be induced from things like poetry
It can also be induced from loanwords into contemporary languages, and you can find ancient works on language which explained how things are to be properly pronounced, including the pitch accent.
It can also be induced from loanwords into contemporary languages, and you can find ancient works on language which explained how things are to be properly pronounced, including the pitch accent.
There’s plenty of Greeks in Greece she could ask. Why would the ancient Greek pronunciation be relevant? The ancient Greeks knew nothing of COVID-19.
Given how much I can explain about how to pronounce Archaic Portuguese, even with two high school terms analyzing "Cantigas de escárnio e maldizer" [0], I doubt fellow Greeks have much knowledge how it used to be pronounced during the heyday of Latin as European common language.
Sure anyone can explain how to say it today, and even that changes between mainland and the islands.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galician-Portuguese_lyric
Sure anyone can explain how to say it today, and even that changes between mainland and the islands.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galician-Portuguese_lyric
Beard was saying how the ancients pronounced the name of that letter, not how the ancients pronounced the name of the 2021 pandemic variant.
Go ask your average Burger to read the original Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and figure out if they know how to pronounce it. Ask the same of a Dutchman and Van Den Vos Reynaerde, or any other people and their ancient texts, barring perhaps Icelandic people.
They did know how to pronounce letters of their alphabet, though. "O-micron", as opposed to "O-mega".
Yes, that is my understanding; they are "little-o" and "big-o".
But then why isn't the latter pronounced "oh-MEG-er"?
But then why isn't the latter pronounced "oh-MEG-er"?
I doubt there are many (or any) other languages besides the very peculiar case of English-post-Great-Vowel-Shift that pronounces [i] as the diphtong [ai]. "Omicron" may be pronounced "oh-MY-cron" in an English context, but it absolutely is not elsewhere in the world.
The article presents latins as a “live” language.
That is a fallacy.
A live language is one passed from “mother” to child. It is always a “first” language.
The fact that Newton, Leibnitz etc used it did not make it a true “live” language.
This is something latinists have to learn to bear with. Latin is dead and is only academic. Nothing wrong with that or with using it.
But trying to comvince people that it is “flourishing” is like trying to defend, say, Cathegory Theory because it is a “flourishing language”: no, it is not. It is a convenient means of ACADEMIC (scientific even) information transfer.
That is a fallacy.
A live language is one passed from “mother” to child. It is always a “first” language.
The fact that Newton, Leibnitz etc used it did not make it a true “live” language.
This is something latinists have to learn to bear with. Latin is dead and is only academic. Nothing wrong with that or with using it.
But trying to comvince people that it is “flourishing” is like trying to defend, say, Cathegory Theory because it is a “flourishing language”: no, it is not. It is a convenient means of ACADEMIC (scientific even) information transfer.
Living languages and native languages are different things. A living language is just one that is actively used in the present. The majority of people using English in the world today did not learn it natively. To them, it makes no difference that there are native speakers of it in the UK and USA, etc. They learn it not because they care about them or wish to visit these places (although they might) but because English is (currently) the standard language for a variety of purposes such as science, just as Latin was in Newton's time.
> Latin is dead and is only academic.
Latin's mostly been kept alive thanks to the catholic church. The church operates on a different timescale than most organizations, and the audience of their documents and decrees aren't just people of the present.
When your organization is thousands of years old, it's very useful to stick to one language, so that you can read what your predecessor wrote 500 or 1000 years ago.
Latin's mostly been kept alive thanks to the catholic church. The church operates on a different timescale than most organizations, and the audience of their documents and decrees aren't just people of the present.
When your organization is thousands of years old, it's very useful to stick to one language, so that you can read what your predecessor wrote 500 or 1000 years ago.
> I once was sitting in O’Hare airport reading a book of Latin poetry when a guy looking like a monk walks up to me looking utterly lost and asks “Loquerisne Latine”? (Do you speak Latin?) To which I answer “Ita, possumne te adiuvare?” (Yes, can I help you?.)
> Turned out he was indeed a Polish monk and knew only Polish and Latin. Had never been outside Poland before, or even seen the inside of an airport, and needed help finding his way.
> That is my personal story of Latin as an auxlang.