Learning Vocabularly "in Latin"

[reltuk]

Ok, so I've read that it's better to read a Latin word and conjure up pictures and concepts than it is to think of an English word, that in turn represents what the Latin word does. My question is: what's the best way to drill this?

Right now I'm reading Lingua Latina, and I'm on Chapter VI. Most of the words I've encountered are in my passive vocbulary, many of them not having to go through English when I read them. This makes me think that Lingua Latina is working remarkably well. However, I can't go the other way nearly as well. I realize active vocabulary takes longer to come than passive vocabulary, but I was wondering what the perferred way to gain it is.

Normally I would use a flash-card program with English words on one side and Latin words on the other. Are there any alternatives that would result in generating Latin words without going through English?

Thanks a lot,

--reltuk

[Lucus Eques]

I dictionary would be enough, no? Then you can see all the possibilities, but have the examples in Lingua Latina to guide you.

[mfranks]

Hi Reltuk,

We are more or less at the same place in Lingua Latina. I just finished Capitulum VI myself. I too am trying to "visualize" more when I read Latin which is not easy since I tend to "translate" as is only natural.

I started the Forum topic Lingua Latina because of some difficulites I was having and recieved lots of good advice. The people here are awesome - I think we are all bound by a common struggle...

I purchased a number of texts, learning aids etc. and I'm still on the lookout for more - my wife chastises me often over this. One of my purchases was from Rosetta Stone - an interactive CD-ROM which uses images as the primary learning method. You can download sample programs in many different languages to try it out before you purchase a copy.

Here's a link to their website:

http://www.rosettastone.com/ind/catalog?language=lat

Click on the "Free Online Demo" in the left pane between "Retail Locations" and "Product Tour". You will be asked to fill out the form before gaining access to the demo program.

For the money, I would expect more... Part I doesn't advance you very far (my only criticism)... So I don't feel I got the value I had hoped.

Good Luck in your study!

Regards,

Mark

[reltuk]

Thanks Mark! I'll definitely check it out.

I just finished Chapter VI as well, and am forging on to Chapter VII. I was suprised that Lingua Latina introduced passive voice so early, and I think it will take some time to internalize which preposition take the ablative case and which take the accusative (there doesn't seem to be any pattern...). As a consequence, I spent a lot of time with Chapter VI, but I feel like I learned a fair amount.

I'm trying to read the book in the manner that the Dowling Method suggests, but I'm still trying to dodge writing the forms two hundred times. So far, so good, but I'm sure the grammar is going to get a good deal heavier in the chapters to come.

I have a couple weaknesses that might bite me in a couple chapters. I can recognize the interrogative and demonstrative pronouns, but I have a hard time generating the correct ones without referring to the text or to table in the back. I also have problems remembering which -ir verbs keep the i in the plural third-person passive voice (-untur versus -iuntur).

So far, I've written each chapter out by hand, transfering one sentence at a time without referring back to the sentence. I know what the sentences mean almost always, but I ask myself how each word is indicating it's form for almost every sentence I read.

Going forward like this, I make sure I can do the Pensums at the end of the chapters without referring back to the chapter. If I can't, I re-read the chapter again very carefully, asking myself lots of questions.

Is your process similar, or more or less stringent? Do you have similar problems or have you encountered different ones? Any tips for my weaknesses?

Anyway, it's good to know that I have a partner in crime .

--reltuk

P.S. -- I just took a job in Seattle, WA; signed the acceptance letter less than a week ago. I'm moving out there when I finish school, probably some time in July. How cool is that?

[Lucus Eques]

Regarding the prepositions, you're right; there isn't so much in the way of a pattern for the cases they take. The only clear exception is "in" which is accusative when it involves motion, locative and therefore ablative when it involves location. You can usually figure out which one it is by falling back on the English; in English "in" we use for location, in the same way; but if you can say "into" (even if you'd say "in" colloquially), that means it's probably the accusative. Exempla:

"I'm in the building." Clearly locative: "In aedificio sum."

"I'm going in the building." But you can also say, "I'm going into the building." That means it's accusative, direction towards: "In aedificium eo."

Otherwise, yes, you just have to memorize which cases go with which prepositions. You can check with WORDS or another dictionary always, possibly make a little list; there is a review section on them all in the final chapter.

Regarding the "-ire" verbs (the verbs of the 4th conjugation), all of them will have the 'i'-stem: finire, finio, finiunt. The trick is the verbs of the 3rd declension, because some are 'i'-stems and have forms resembling the 4th, like capere: capio, capiunt.

My recommendation would be to write out all the verbs, at once; that way you'd already know exactly how they declining, making sure you write all the long vowels; it's not just a convention, it's essential to the grammar.

[reltuk]

Thanks Lucus.

I picked up on the in + acc. meaning into and in + abl. meaning in/within at the beginning of Chapter VII. One thing I like about Lingua Latina is that it makes you think about the changes and differences that you see. Thinking critically about the text and deriving some of the rules yourself really helps commit it to one's memory. Orberg makes it a point to use "in" many times in it's different capacities right at the beginning of Chapter VII.

As for the prepositions and the demonstrative/interrogrative pronouns, I think I've been thinking about them more since I wrote that post and they're beginning to cement. I'm going to make a couple lists and copy / recite them, however, because there are ever more pronouns (Chapter VII starts introducing demonstrative "this" --- hic, haec, hoc) and I want to be sure not to make an insurmountable mountain of them that I have to retroactively study.

As for the verbs, are there only four conjugations? Are there massively irregular verbs, or is esse the only irregular? I see now that the long -i in the fourth conjugation is what causes it to stay (although shortened) in the passive voice.

--reltuk

[nostos]

retulk, not only with 'in', but most prepositions meaning outside the thing (whether near to it, or starting from outside and going across it, or starting from outside and travelling into it or under it) are +acc.

most prepositions starting from within the thing itself and moving out of it, or being in or with it (not moving, or starting from it and moving out) are +abl.

I have a picture of this at home, I dopn't know if it'll work to place it on this board. Anyway I can try later. It helps if you think that with most preps, motion into (from without) or near to is acc, motion out of (or remaining inside it, without motion) is abl. This is of course general tendencies. Ultimately there are gonna be some which make little sense and you'll just have to memorise

[Lucus Eques]

As for the "shorted in the passive voice," it's not shortened in the passive voice. "finitur," it is finished, with the thematic 'i' long, where as "capitur" has a short 'i'.

Go to the back of Wheelock and learn all the irregular verbs! Most of them are pretty cool.

[Lucus Eques]

nostos: I dare you to explain to me "ante" acc. and "prae" abl., or "supra" acc. and "ex" abl.

[reltuk]

I meant shortened in the third person plural passive form, of cousre (-iuntur).

Sorry for the ambiguity. I'm checking the back of Wheelock's for irregular verbs now. Should be interesting, thanks for the pointer .

(As for ante acc., doesn't it fit nostos' loose guidelines (ex., of course, doesn't, and I don't know prae or supra yet). Basically, acc. when it's near or around or being moved towards (prope, post, ante, circum, inter, ad, in, ...).)

--reltuk

[edonnelly]

Go to the back of Wheelock and learn all the irregular verbs! Most of them are pretty cool.

Haha -- I think you and I may have a slightly different definition of the word cool!

[nostos]

nostos: I dare you to explain to me "ante" acc. and "prae" abl., or "supra" acc. and "ex" abl.

mi Luce, amice sine corpore , here goes an attempt:

I see the ablative and the accusative as actually giving the utterance meaning. The preps are just there to do some fine tuning on exactly what kind of 'from/inside' (abl.) is meant, or exactly what kind of 'movement near to' (acc).

The accusative and all of its prepositions implying movement into something from outside it, movement under/above something from outside of it, or movement until just before getting to something from outside of it (including movement near to or towards). This would include 'ante' in the sense 'before', because 'ante' states that something is without, not within. I guess the Romans also thought of movement in some sense being associated with 'ante', or else they didn't really care and this is all just meaningless theorising anyway, but it helps you remember! Anyway preps: ad, apud (in the presence of something standing aprt, not inside of something), circum (around the outside of something), supra (staring from outside it and moving above it), post (antithesis of 'ante'), prope (near to), trans and per (both implying 'across', staring outside of the object and moving through it), propter (because of the object, which implies something external to it; not within it), in (starting from outside and moving into), etc.

Ablative implies either within the object, or moving out from the object but starting in it, or standing still (this is where 'ante' gets a little iffy, because it could be ablative but just isn't, no logic that I can see at all). Preps: cum (the 'with' implies that you have it in you, thus with you), ab, ex (implying that something is within the object moving out), pro (something being traded from within an object - again rather iffy!), sine (the antipodes of cum), de.

I tried writing out these 2 circles which Word lets me do to explain it better, but I can't on the board. If you like, Luce, I can send you the word file, though I take it you're totally against this method of learning (amply justified - no need to do so here, amice, as I do see your position's validity) and it might even render something which you had all figured out into temporary confusion, which is the exact opposite of its intention. I personally feel that both methods (theoretical and practical) should be used, though my leanings are toward the practical more and more to actually get and use it.

as for 'prae', just memorise the damn thing!

[nostos]

Reading this again, I feel like somewhat of an idiot if it was meant to be sarcastic. But whatever, this is what I believe, in the right now; and I guess it's really not important if you were just speaking as a joke.

I do love these boards, and everyone on them with their quirks and idiosynchrasies (including my own). We all share a common passion, all those who aren't just passing through. I don't believe anyone actively means to slight or otherwise hurt anyone else here (surely not you, Kynete, even before your apology in another post. I recognised my self in your speech and I knew what you meant.)

This sounds cheesier than I intended. I'm tired and rambling and will probably kick my shins tomorrow for it.