The Dowling Method

jadenbane · Post by **jadenbane** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:42 am

I was just wondering about the Dowling Method (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~wcd/Latin.htm). When the author mentions "the grammatical tables in the back of Wheelock" is he reffering to tables similar to the "TABVULA DECLINATIONVM" in the back of LINGVA LATINA? Would they not work just as well; they seem to include all the various declensions he refers to.

nostos · Post by **nostos** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:08 am

The tables in the back of Wheelock are more complete (III conj. -io verbs, as well as a lot of the irregulars like fio, eo, volo, nolo, malo)

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:15 pm

That's right. Also, Ã˜rberg uses the unfortunate North European order of declensions (N, A, G, D, Ab), as opposed to the Classical order used by the Romans, being N, G, D, A, V, Ab.

jadenbane · Post by **jadenbane** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:11 pm

Alrighty, thanks. I guess I am going to have to consult Wheelock's then.

Episcopus · Post by **Episcopus** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:29 pm

Ah! How much the origin of good old Hans pleases me! LATIN - det kan du selv lÃ¦re...Skolens opgivende holdning til faget latin tvinger os til at tage sproget op som selvstudium. He is quite right though.

~E

jadenbane · Post by **jadenbane** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:13 pm

Episcopus wrote: LATIN - det kan du selv lÃ¦re...Skolens opgivende holdning til faget latin tvinger os til at tage sproget op som selvstudium. He is quite right though.

~E

Sorry could you translate that for me?

Episcopus · Post by **Episcopus** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:50 pm

There is an english version of his site too - he's basically saying that the fact that latin is rarely taught in schools these days, so we are forced to teach ourselves, which is quite true. In fact I prefer it like this.

~E

jadenbane · Post by **jadenbane** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:08 am

Do any of the textbooks on Textkit.com offer a similar (to Wheelock) set of tables? What about the sections on Wikipedia pertaining to Latin Conjugation and Declension ?

Iulianus · Post by **Iulianus** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:39 am

Lucus Eques wrote:That's right. Also, Ã˜rberg uses the unfortunate North European order of declensions (N, A, G, D, Ab), as opposed to the Classical order used by the Romans, being N, G, D, A, V, Ab.

Funny you say that because, as far as I know, we here in the Netherlands use the second order (although I'm not sure about the place of vocative - they usually leave it out over here) - but then again, we're not the most north of northern Europe I guess... (so were you referring to Scandinavia or Great Brittain and/or Germany as well?)

edonnelly · Post by **edonnelly** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:29 pm

jadenbane wrote:Do any of the textbooks on Textkit.com offer a similar (to Wheelock) set of tables?

Appendix I of D'Ooge has it all.

jadenbane wrote:What about the sections on Wikipedia pertaining to Latin Conjugation and Declension ?

In typical Wikipedia fashion, it seems to be woefully lacking. I don't see anything on adjectives, adverbs, pronouns...[Though the official "Dowling method" appears to require only nouns, verbs, and adjectives]. Even the conjugation and declension areas on Wikipedia seemed to be bogged down with excessive text. I think the D'Ooge appendix is a much better option for what you're looking for.

ingrid70 · Post by **ingrid70** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:59 pm

Iulianus wrote:
Lucus Eques wrote:That's right. Also, Ã˜rberg uses the unfortunate North European order of declensions (N, A, G, D, Ab), as opposed to the Classical order used by the Romans, being N, G, D, A, V, Ab.
Funny you say that because, as far as I know, we here in the Netherlands use the second order (although I'm not sure about the place of vocative - they usually leave it out over here) - but then again, we're not the most north of northern Europe I guess... (so were you referring to Scandinavia or Great Brittain and/or Germany as well?)

In my more modern Dutch grammars, the vocative is either dangling at the bottom, or directly following the nominative or skipped altogether (with a footnote for the second declension). Older grammars put it, as above, between accusative and ablative, except Boot's translation of Madvig's grammar, which uses the N, A, G, D, Ab, but Madvig was Scandinavian...

Ingrid, Dutch too, and having far too many grammars

.

GlottalGreekGeek · Post by **GlottalGreekGeek** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:29 pm

Personally, I prefer the N A G D order myself (for Greek at least - I don't know about Latin). I really don't care what order the ancients used for their case - the N A G D order makes more sense to me, especially considering the neuter gender. But approximately 75% of my genes are Germanic (English, West German, East German), so go figure.

bellum paxque · Post by **bellum paxque** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:42 pm

Have there been any discussions - either among ancient grammarians or modern - about which order of cases is more suited for learners? I can see the advantage of the NAGDAb, since it tends to match identical forms (D&Ab in the plural, N&A in the neuter). What particular advantages, if any, are there to the ordo antiqua (NGDAAb), aside from the antiquity itself?

-bpq

edonnelly · Post by **edonnelly** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:07 pm

bellum paxque wrote: What particular advantages, if any, are there to the ordo antiqua (NGDAAb), aside from the antiquity itself?

Well, I don't know about any data out there (though I bet someone did a thesis on this somewhere), but I like the NG part of the ancient method because it matches what you will find in dictionaries and it matches the traditional way to learn noun vocabulary.

jadenbane · Post by **jadenbane** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:17 pm

Hey does anyone have feelings about the Dowling method in general? Does it seem "sketchy" to you?

ingrid70 · Post by **ingrid70** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:51 pm

Personally, I think it's a good method, apart from step 2, the brute memorization. Of course you have to memorize the endings some time, but to start with it and to such length? I think it kills all enthusiasm for learning the language. But that's my personal opinion.

So, if I had to start now, I would read the grammar summary on Dowling's page, and then start with Lingua Latina. It has all the tables you need at the end of the book (unless the American version is very different from the European one), and it presents the grammar systematically in the Grammatica Latina part of each chapter. By chapter VII you have had all the cases, and you can do you brute memorization of the first two declensions then.

If you are going to use Lingua Latina, I'd recommend buying the Exercitia (and the answers). Apart from the extra practice, it also has exercises on little points of grammar that are used in the text with a mere sidenote, but not explained in the grammar (e.g. the use of the abl. pretii in chapter VIII).

By the way, I use LL as a graded reader besides other books. I hardly come across new grammar when reading LL, but I think it's a great book for learning to read Latin as Latin, without translating into your native language. And that's my goal.

Ingrid

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:19 am

I keep the Dowling Method in my signature since I happened to use it to great effect â€” however, I've had a seemlessly endless font of enthusiasm for Latin in general, and Ingrid's warning against the misuse of the Dowling Method is well to be noted. At the very least, without putting any pressure on oneself, I would recommend at least writing them all out once or twice â€” however, only for a student who has already undergone the misfortunes of standard grammar-first instruction. Otherwise, Lingua Latina suffices very well on its own.

I concurr largely with Ingrid's statements and those of others.

Carola · Post by **Carola** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:30 am

bellum paxque wrote:Have there been any discussions - either among ancient grammarians or modern - about which order of cases is more suited for learners? I can see the advantage of the NAGDAb, since it tends to match identical forms (D&Ab in the plural, N&A in the neuter). What particular advantages, if any, are there to the ordo antiqua (NGDAAb), aside from the antiquity itself?

-bpq

Also the NAGDAb order seems to match the order these concepts are introduced to students. However, as I use both English and USA texbooks I have become accustomed to both methods, but if I have to write them out for someone I usually use the NAGDAb order.

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:14 am

Ironically enough, Ã˜rberg introduces the genitive right in the second chapter, after heavy nominative introduction in the first along with a passive use of the ablative.

jjhayes84 · Post by **jjhayes84** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:19 pm

I'm thinking about reading LL to further my Latin studies, and I noticed that this method states there are 4 volumes of LL, but I only see Pars I & II?

4) Repeat this process for each chapter until you have completed all four volumes of Lingua Latina.

Hu · Post by Hu » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:02 pm

It's possible he was alluding to an eariler version of the series.

Lucus Eques · Post by **Lucus Eques** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:06 pm

Or supplements that he mistook as "Partes."