Paul Derouda wrote:Well, we still don't have a big crowd. But I'm willing to do it. How about you, Nate? I think we could just get started, people might hop in later too.
Paul Derouda wrote:Nate, like I said we have different backgrounds and different working methods and that's fine by me. We are not doing a school project or anything like that, we're planning to read Agamemnon. And as far as backgrounds go, from your previous posts you seem to know a lot more Greek than I do! And I think that counts in this kind of entreprise...
I propose this schedule: We start with Ἀγαμέμνονος ὑπόθεσις, now. October 1st we start with Agamemnon proper, chunk #1, lines 1-39, "deadline" October 7th, and then one chunk per week. Is this ok for you?
NateD26 wrote:Yes, Paul. I will begin working my way through the hypothesis tomorrow after work.
Here's something I've found in Google books regarding the hypothesis and how it somewhat
differs on the extant version of the play:
Agamemnon in Performance 458 BC to AD 2004 (p.57)
NateD26 wrote:Yes, Paul. I will begin working my way through the hypothesis tomorrow after work.
Here's something I've found in Google books regarding the hypothesis and how it somewhat
differs on the extant version of the play:
Agamemnon in Performance 458 BC to AD 2004 (p.57)
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:You going to to this Agamemnon thing in one huge thread like Thucydides?
Seems kind cumbersome. Easier to follow if you just have a thread on each problem
you want to discuss.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:NateD26 wrote:Yes, Paul. I will begin working my way through the hypothesis tomorrow after work.
Here's something I've found in Google books regarding the hypothesis and how it somewhat
differs on the extant version of the play:
Agamemnon in Performance 458 BC to AD 2004 (p.57)
This link is context sensitive. Doesn't work for some of us. Common problem with google books.
CSB
Paul Derouda wrote:I think you're right, we shouldn't do this in one huge thread; but let's still try keep some kind of limit to new threads or we'll overflow the forum and people will get sick of Agamemnon and us...
cb wrote:also my non-existent willpower just crumbled and i just ordered the raeburn & thomas. cheers, chad
NateD26 wrote:I'm ready to begin this journey, slow and difficult though it may be.
cb wrote:also my non-existent willpower just crumbled and i just ordered the raeburn & thomas. cheers, chad
Paul Derouda wrote:cb wrote:also my non-existent willpower just crumbled and i just ordered the raeburn & thomas. cheers, chad
Welcome, Chad!
My willpower did the exact same thing. I also reserved West's Studies in Aeschylus at the university library. West is like a god to me...
Paul Derouda wrote:My approach to reading Greek is (usually) this: I try to read as much as I can as fast as possible. I first use a dictionnary, and if I don't get it, I don't hesitate to look up in translation and/or a commentary almost at once. As soon as I think I have really understood the meaning of a sentence, I go on. My aim is to get an instinctive feel of the language by being exposed to as much Greek as possible. I believe this is a natural way of learning a language. It certainly is for children (this is how I learned English as kid, by playing computer games), and I believe up to certain points it works for adults too. I've often wondered if I should go on even faster, if I should set a time limit after which I go on even if I haven't understood the meaning of passage.
I have never spent an hour of my life in Greek class, and I have read textbooks and grammars as little as possible; but I think relative to the amount of time spent studying Greek, my ability read, understand and translate a passage is good, probably above average. On the other hand, my grasp of grammatical concepts is rather poor and often I can't explain what a particular construction is or why it has been chosen for the particular occasion, although I can understand it. I understood an epic τε when I encountered one long before I knew there was a name for that. I don't mean it's ok not know your grammatical concepts; on the contrary, I think's it's especially beneficial when we're talking about a dead language. It's just that it has not been my number one priority.
So, that's my method. A systematic reading of Agamemnon like we're starting is of course quite different from what I usually do - and I welcome it!
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Sounds a little like Randall Buth and his friends. I find it ironic that Buth, a linguist who taught workshops in discourse analysis with Stephen Levinsohn now parades around making "analysis" sound like the original sin of language study. What is natural for ESL students isn't natural for linguists who habitually analyze texts even if they can read them without analysis.
In my humble opinion, using Buth's second language learning (SL) method to read Agamemnon of Aeschylus would probably be about as successful as giving the Cantos of Ezra Pound to a student from Turkmenistan who is trying to learn to speak English. In other words, Agamemnon isn't a good text for SL learners. For one thing none of the secondary literature will be intelligible to an SL learner, I find the the 19th century stuff difficult to comprehend just because the linguistic frameworks I use are from the second half of the 20th century. I have a number of old grammars, but I read them with difficulty.
Buth advocates using a language in order to learn it, rather than memorizing paradigms and grammatical rules.
Users browsing this forum: danbek and 92 guests