I am a couple of weeks away from finishing Peter Jones's Learn Latin primer. It's been a terrific introduction to the language, traditional in its drill, drill, drill methodology, but enlivened by generous doses of Roman and Church history and "potty" humor.
It's time I settled on an intermediate course. I've narrowed it down to three options:
(1) Wheelock
(2) Collins's Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin
(3) Hans Orberg's Lingua Latina program
Wheelock practically needs no introduction. A veritable cottage industry has grown up around it, filling in whatever gaps exist in the text. Dale Grote has assembled some useful resources, including a downloadable (for a fee) audio-visual course. The downside is that Wheelock seems to have as many detractors as enthusiasts, with the chief complaint being that it's dull.
Collins is more focused on the sort of Latin that interests me, since I suspect I'll use it more in explorations of the Vulgate and the Liturgy. Catholic University Press is issuing an answer key this November -- a big plus. Canonist Ed Peters swears by Collins, but uber-apologist Jimmy Akin likens its methodology to a root canal procedure (or some such thing).
A late entrant is Lingua Latina. Dutch scholar Hans Orberg pioneered the so-called "Direct Method," which is like a simulated immersion; students read only Latin and gradually build up a comprehensive vocabulary and understanding of grammar as the readings increase in difficulty. There is also an interactive CDROM course that looks especially helpful to those pursuing self-study. I have heard that there is a limit to how far this approach can take you, and since my interest is (eventual) mastery, that's a concern.
I suppose the answer to the trick question "What's the best form of exercise?" is instructive here: "It's the one you do." That said, I'd be curious what some of you further along Via Roma would suggest.
Posts
17 comments:
My bona fides - undergrad classics major, Ph.d. in medieval stuff, taught high school Latin part time for 8 years, worked with Catholic home schooling group teaching Latin for 2 years.
1. Wheelock is best if you want try for a deep (well, as deep as you make yourself go) knowledge of the full classical grammar. It is not a thrilling book. The panoply of aids on the market make it far and away the best choice for depth and breadth. But . . . you're an adult.
2. Collins is a great little book (it's in two volumes), and the vocabulary has that enormous focused quality. I'd say that for an adult with focused interests in church stuff this will be your best choice - and thanks for alerting me to the answer key! That will make it a better thing to recommend for self-study. If you want to read scripture, understand liturgical texts, and get through average Church prose (though not the private letters of Ciceronian churchmen) you'll be fine, but if you suddenly find yourself yearning to read Vergil's Aeneid or Tacitus's histories, you're out of luck. You'll have to go back and pick up Wheelock for 6 months before you can make a decent start.
3. Never heard of the third choice, but it's the WORST METHOD FOR SELF-LEARNERS and the worst method for adults. The "direct method" is a foreign language pedagogy predicated on the idea that small children learn languages effortlessly and quickly. Yes. But are you a small child? No. In fact, the direct method is O.K. (but only o.k.) even for adults in an IMMERSION setting that lasts for months. Otherwise it's a waste of time. Sorry to sound so narrowminded, but I actually succeeded in learning to speak Italian at 40 - but only by living in Rome for 8 months. I still don't read it *nearly* as well as I read French, which I learned thoroughly and grammatically over a 4 year period at 19-23 or Latin.
So go with Collins, buy Wheelock for the reading resources (Collins is not a very rich book), and feel free to drop me an email if you have any questions!
Michael Tinkler
http://crankyprofessor.com
Rich
I had 4 years of Latin in high school (1966-70) and have always been interested in the preservation of the language. However, I did not keep up my Latin studies until a few years ago.
I actually started classes that use Orberg's "Lingua Latina". All I can say is this. I do not know how adults who have not had a background in Latin get past the first chapter. The entire book is in Latin, even the "Grammatica" No English whatsoever, not even "exempli" to reinforce a construction.
Maybe it's just me and the way that I learn, but immersion - at this point in my life - has to be limited to the hot tub.
I bought myself an updated Wheelock's a year ago and now I am using that as a supplement. There is a TON of learning aids for Wheelock on the Internet too. I think you can't beat this one for self-study.
I have Collins but I have not started looking at it yet. I am interested in the liturgical use of Latin so I will get there eventually.
And if you have a couple of months open next summer, check out Fr. Reginald Foster's Latin class in Rome. Haven't been (yet) but it is definitely on my list of things to do before I die. Even if you don't go, do look up Fr. Reggie, as he is called. He's a hoot and a half!! He even has a weekly spot on Vatican Radio.
Look here and find out more:
http://frcoulter.com/latin/foster/foster2.html
I would go with Wheelock, but as a high school student('86-'90), I used Jenney's First Year Latin and Second Year Latin. You might want to try to find a used copy to supplement your Wheelock or Collins. I have a vague recollection that even then we used earlier editions because our teacher didn't like later revisions. If I had to guess, I think the reasons would have been the addition of "cultural history", i.e. the roles of women, slaves, they used this kind of pottery, etc. Apart from that, it certainly isn't dry. I think the first included sections from Livy's History of Rome (Romulus and Remus, the Tarquin Kings, the oath of the Horatii, etc.), with more grammar and Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars in the second. While not ecclesiastical, it would be interesting if you've never been to Rome and want to go. It also has lots of photos of sarcophagi relief, temples, aqueducts, etc. I think the best part was lots of different exercises. The trouble is, I don't think there are answer keys.
You might also want to look at textkit.com, a free resource for Classics. A lot of the grammars seem to be really old books that are public domain. Still, you might find the same grammatical information you'd find in the Wheelock cottage industry.
Mr. Tinkler- you shouldn't comment so forcefully on works which, as you yourself say, you've "never heard of".
I currently teach adults with Lingua Latina.
Rich- if you want to actually learn to _read_ and _understand_ Latin, you should use Lingua Latina. Period. Do not worry about "how far it will get you". I can assure you, if you make it through Pars I&II (not to mention his annotated additions of Cena Trimalchionis, De Bello Gallico, etc.) you will be a very competent Latinist indeed. Your peers will be searching for the subject and puzzling over periphrastics while you're reading Church Fathers with ease. Eventually. (It does take time of course; your goal right now is just to start on the right trajectory).
If you want to learn to _puzzle_ through syntax, and _decode_ Latin (rather than understand it as a language), pick up Wheelock's or Collin's. This is not meant to disparage their utility entirely. They are useful books: if that is what you want.
You can read more about the resources available for LL at:
http://www.pullins.com/txt/LinguaLatina.htm
(including answer keys, etc. for self-learners).
If you want to see a few chapters of the book, to decide for yourself, see:
http://www.lingua-latina.dk/index2.htm
(and click on sample pages).
Some more tips:
(1) Look over the texts on Pullins website, but order them from Amazon (much cheaper).
(2) Buy the answer key to help you with self study.
(3) Commit to reading a little every day.
If you have more questions about actually using this text, email me at olsson AT math dot umd dawt edu.
pax et fac ut valeas!
Scott
I am so happy to have seen the link to this discussion from Amy Wellborn's blog! I have been trying to figure out the best way to learn latin on my own as well. I am enrolled in the Franciscan U Masters of Theology program through distance learning, and after the first course decided that I really have to learn latin in order to get the most out of the materials I have and will be reading. Thanks for bringing this topic to light. I am one of the post-Vatican II generation who wishes latin had not been thrown out by the "reformists".
Rick,
Good luck with the Latin. I've floated around lower level Latin for a number of years (i.e. not a classics student). I would generally agree with the Wheelock folk, though I bet if you picked up a reader or two with accompanying English and started plowing through you'd pick it up pretty quickly. The Vulgate (at least to me) is not as easy as some say, it gave me fits.
Avoid the highly pedagogical texts, used those a couple times and they were a disaster. I'm still recovering from the loss of skill.
I started out my undergrad Classics Degree with the three-part Oxford Latin Course, and it served me well. However I don't know how well it would work without in-class instruction complementing it.
If you try to do Latin study on-line, I have created a learning tool I think would benefit any intermediate student at semi-fluent.com
It links each word of a text(hymns or the like) into an on-line dictionary, and creates a vocabulary list from the words and grammatical forms you don't know.
I think Lingua Latina is the book we used in high school Latin 1. It featured a drunk uncle, as I recall. Sadly, that is all I recall. I had to go through Wheelock over the summer to get ready for Latin II.
I disagree with the idea that immersion is the best way to actually learn to _read_ and _understand_ Latin because immersion takes the learner immediately to "how" without spending much energy on "why." The quote proves my point: it is incorrect English usage to split infinitives, but most American English usage ignores that rule. An "immersed" English speaker learns how to make his point but not how to make his point well. The best reason for Americans to learn Latin is to learn proper English. More immersion will not help, only structure and old-fashioned hard work.
I think Lingua Latina is the book we used in high school Latin 1. It featured a drunk uncle, as I recall.
You're referring to Ecce Romani.
I disagree with the idea that immersion is the best way to actually learn to _read_ and _understand_ Latin because immersion takes the learner immediately to "how" without spending much energy on "why."
You are exactly backwards. It is the grammar-centric method which teaches how before why. The "how" is the syntax; the "why" is the conveyance of meaning. Wheelock's has shown generations of students where the verb goes but not what the verb _means_.
The quote proves my point: it is incorrect English usage to split infinitives, but most American English usage ignores that rule. An "immersed" English speaker learns how to make his point but not how to make his point well. The best reason for Americans to learn Latin is to learn proper English. More immersion will not help, only structure and old-fashioned hard work.
Sorry, this is nonsense. And you don't believe it either. The goal when learning English is to learn to _communicate_, not to fall over confused when someone breaks a pseudo-constraint on the language.
Besides, to carefully split an infinitive is no sin.
ps- Please, for heaven's sake, don't study Latin to improve your English. That's a phenomenal waste of your time. Study Latin to, gasp, understand Latin. If you want a better SAT score, go study _English_.
Michael Tinkler responds to Scott:
Scott, I comment forcefully on the *method*, not the text. "Lingua Latina" may be a great text for its approach, but the direct method is based on an idea of childhood language acquisition which I believe on the basis of my experience is not particularly applicable to adults, least so to self-instructed adults (the situation Mr. Leonardi describes).
You seem to be using it in a class situation. It may work very well there.
Michael Tinkler
http://crankyprofessor.com
Further resources:
Here's a resource if you want to listen to Latin on tape:
http://www.hieronymus.us/Venalia/IndEngl.htm
Fr. Suitbert's accent drives me nuts, but there you go. I'm just not cut out for taking spoken Latin very seriously. I bought his course and his recording of Matthew.
Note this statement about his oral/aural course (and look back at Scott's evaluation of Wheelock and Collins): It is entirely different from other available instructional materials in method and approach to the language; you learn from the very beginning to think in Latin and to avoid the usual method of "deciphering and decoding" by grammatical analysis and by constructing "translations". Moreover, this course is based on the obvious assumption that language is an acoustic phenomenon and has to enter into our mind through the ears and not through the eyes, and that our memory has to keep the sound of the words and not the image of a printed text; therefore the cassettes which go with the Cursus are an essential part of this method.
That's the theory of the "direct method" for you in a nutshell. It's great for those under puberty, or 9, or 6 (linguists disagree about the age at which the rapid acquisition of a new language ceases).
One of the great powers of the adult mind over the child's mind is the power to analyze and decode. I think we're best off using it. Language learning isn't what our Lord meant in Matthew 18:3.
Tapes aren't a bad resource even for what I suggest.
--M.C.Tinkler
Any would-be student of Latin needs not only to choose the "best" book in the abstract but also to ask what is the best book "for me." It is a very rare student who can, alone and without a fluent tutor, create a total immersion environment and learn a language. Even with a fluent tutor most adults have a hard time absorbing a language that way. At the age of 29 I went to Italy after working through a year's worth of Italian. I was told, don't worry, you will pick it up. In spite of living in a nonglot Italian religious community my active Italian was actually worse after two months. I finally began to spend several hours a day memorizing vocabulary cards and grammatical structures. Then I used the people around me as an opportunity to practice what I learned on my own. By the end of the year, my Italian was merely competent. By the end of two years, I could preach, hear confessions, and even write for publication. But this would never have happened by omosis or passive learning. Some adults can "pick up" a language passively, some lost that ability when they were seven or so.
Collins or Wheelock? Again this depends on what kind of student you are. I believe that the only way to learn a language on your own is to start reading huge amounts of it as fast as possible. Both Collins and Wheelock are supposed to get one reading "real" fairly difficult Latin, be it ecclesiastical or classical as quickly as possible. The result is that the shift from book exercises to texts comes with very heavy dictionary flipping. This is, again for the average adult, a real impediment to reading lots of Latin. Deciphering a few sentences an hour means that most never pick up the "habitus" of Latin (an ability to read it without converting everything into English, i.e. learning to think in Latin at least passively). As a result, the student reads less and less each day and forgets more and more. Classes and tests solve this problem for students in school (by forcing them to keep working day in and day out) but the lone student must fight on alone. Most give up sooner or later.
There is an other solution, much as it will make some purests unhappy. Get a book that is specifically meant to give proficiency in the specific grammar and vocabulary of a corpus of easy Latin (the Vulgate). Then start reading the Vulgate every day for at least an hour. Since the Bible is familiar already the need for dictionary flipping is minimal. And the reinforcement is constant. The much maligned Scanlon and Scanlon, _Latin Grammar_ (TAN Books) is focused on getting ONLY the vocab and grammer necessary to read the New Testament.
You will be able to read the N.T. with nearly no dictionary work when you have finished it. Then read the Bible every day for an hour or so. To make this easy, I recommend getting a Latin Breviary and reading it everyday (except the Patristic reading at Office of Readings, which will be too hard). Eventually the "habitus" will come. I took Latin in High School and 4 years of College. I only stopped deciphering while a graduate student (medieval history) because I read enough Latin each day to get the habitus--and it was by religiously reciting the Breviary. Then when you can read the Latin Bible quickly and easily, you might work through a classical Latin textbook for the same of the more complex grammar and classical vocab.
There is an elementary textbook for Greek set up the same way: Wenham's _Elements of New Testament Greek_ (Cambridge UP). You will be able to read John without a dictionary by the time you are half way.
Finally, a word for the old D. C. Heath High School Latin texts. We used them in my public high school back in the 1960s. The best of all was the "Purple Vergil" by Clyde Pharr, still in print. It has the dictionary entries for each page at the bottom of the page. No more flipping. And comprehensive grammar explanations there too. If you want to get the habitus of Virgil, this is the way to do it--a book that allows you to read a hundred lines at a sitting without wasted time.
Repetitio mater memoriae!
"The result is that the shift from book exercises to texts comes with very heavy dictionary flipping. This is, again for the average adult, a real impediment to reading lots of Latin."
Dictionary flipping is exactly the problem I hope semi-fluent.com helps remedy, though it doesn't help people who can't learn well in front of a computer.
I second the recommendation for the Clyde Pharr edition of Vergil. That was my text for Latin 202.
Dear Rich,
David Meadows is starting a new Wheelock's beginners group, first assignments due in early October. See http://www.atrium-media.com/latin/atriumlatin.htm
Cheers -
Bill
Rich,
Depending on how much vocabulary you currently have, I highly recommend trying to read the Gospels (start with Mark, probably) along with a dictionary; also pray the Psalms ("old" Vulgate psalter, not the nova, nor the Bea -- just for ease of vocab, not for accuracy). You'll encounter almost all the "Church" Latin you need, and will recognize a great deal of the Mass.
Of course, check out Fr. Foster's "unauthorized" online course (do all the worksheets of experience 1 & 3, you'll be a master), or some of the other options suggested here.
Also try and LISTEN to some Latin. It's all over the web; e-mail me and I'll try to find some links. God bless and "bona fortuna".
Rich:
On Father Andrew's last comment.
Listen to some Latin.
I am not interested in a deep study of Latin by I have found it helpful, and am learning Latin by going to the Latin mass and reading the English side of the readings as the priest does them in Latin and reading the Latin side as the priest does them in English. This has helped me out considerably. It has also not cost me any extra time studying because I am there anyway.
Well, It is some time since you made your post, but you might be interested in my Latin Podcast,
http://latinum.mypodcast.com
Cheers,
Evan
Post a Comment