Glidersleeve vs. A&G New Latin Grammar

[MDS]

While I wait patiently for Glidersleeve to arrive (in about 2-3 weeks :'( I was wondering what others think of it. Perhaps this has already been discussed, if so please point me to the topic. <br /><br />I have also been flipping through A&G New Latin Grammar on Textkit (yay Textkit! ) but havn't purchased my own copy yet.<br /><br />Are Glidersleeve and A&G too similar for me to have both? Please keep in mind that I am a poor student who eats macaroni and cheese for dinner 5 nights a week to feed my literature addictions! (and my chocolate addiction too admittedly )<br /><br /><br />If anyone can think of pros/cons of either book that'd be great!<br />Thanks!

[adz000]

<br />I'm a Gildersleeve partisan myself, but I'll admit to not having much experience with A&G on which to make an accurate assessment. There have been a few posts on the subject, you might want to search the "Learning Latin" forum for occurrences of "Gildersleeve" over the last month or so. I think one thread I posted to was called "Advanced Latin".<br /><br />Good luck!

[mariek]

<br />Good idea Adz. You gave a nice description of Gildersleeve in the Advanced Latin thread. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions on A&G.<br /><br />MDS: you can find the Advanced Latin thread here http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic . php?t=445;start=0<br /><br />

[MDS]

Thanks for the link!

[Lumen_et_umbra]

I have them both; I find Gildersleeve to be a better reference source. Each is quintessentialy reliable and accurate. Gildersleeve, however, is not quite so parsimonious of his examples and explanations of a topic.<br /><br />Both books more or less being reference texts, A&G is much more so than Gildersleeve. Though, A&G's explantion of the uses of the subjunctive is an exception to my rule above, being more satisfying and sufficiently loquacious for my tastes compared to Gildersleeve's.

[mariek]

So you're saying we should get both, and cross-reference what they say about a topic. <br /><br />So where does Bennett's book fall compared to A&G & Gildersleeve?

[adz000]

I had Bennett in school and still refer to it sometimes. In the final analysis it will remain a school text: good rules for learners, the pages are laid out much better visually than Gildersleeve, and subtlety is eschewed for simplicity. It has its uses for reference certainly, but will fail to satisfy the more than merely curious. (except in combination)<br /><br />But Lumen is right: the more grammar the merrier. Sometimes different authors explain things in ways that are clearer for others. It won't set you back more than $10 to bring another incredibly learned, useful authority on Latin into your house, so why not?

[mingshey]

I'm anxious to know whether wheelock has any virtue compared to the books mentioned. I have the 3rd edition of it. I'd like to know before enumerating my stock of grammars. ;D

[Lumen_et_umbra]

Wheelock's does have merit: for less advanced students, it holds the reader's hand along the way. Wheelock's is approximately the same, save that it isn't quite as generous of some of its explanations nor of the listing of alternate forms of words, which may appear, from time to time. One of the most irritating differences between Wheelock's and the other books is that Wheelock's Latin doesn't explain the many uses of the subjunctive aptly, omitting many of the commoner usages.

[mariek]

[quote author=mingshey link=board=3;threadid=550;start=0#5101 date=1062209149]<br />I'm anxious to know whether wheelock has any virtue compared to the books mentioned. I have the 3rd edition of it. I'd like to know before enumerating my stock of grammars. ;D<br />[/quote]<br />You must peruse the Rant against Wheelock's Latin thread. <br />http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic . php?t=53;start=0<br /><br />

[mingshey]

You must peruse the Rant against Wheelock's Latin thread.

<br />why, thanks!<br />it's quite a long thread, but i'd better read it thru.<br />am i a little lucky i have the 3rd edition of wheelock? i got it about 17 years ago; invested hardly any time on latin in the mean while.<br />

[MDS]

Ah, finally read that thread, very interesting discussion you guys had there. I see I will have to pick up M&F too, though I will have to slug through Wheelocks in school as one of those very busy first year univ students with 4 other courses and no money to buy it. I am however bringing my Gildersleeve (that was a good day when it finally arrived!) and my BLD (go Dr. D'Ooge!) so I feel confident at the moment. <br /><br />Though I do mind learning the language at a slower pace I've found you have to supplement everything at one point or another.<br />

[Jeff Tirey]

It is becoming clear to me through topics on both the Latin board and the Greek board that many beginners don't fully understand the difference between the hand holding class room style grammars such as Wheelock, D'Ooge and White and the reference grammars such as Gildersleeve, A&G, Goodwin and Smyth. It would be sad for an absolute beginner to pick up A&G without first exploring D'Ooge or Collar and Danniel.<br /><br />I invite someone to write a VERY beginner friendly tutorial that assumes nothing and can clear up this issue up by explaining what features are common to pedagogical grammars such as paradigms, exercises, lessons and vocab lists and what features are common to reference grammars such as extensive indexing and broader more in-depth discussions. Also it could show perhaps examples of how classical readers cite reference grammars.<br /><br />Even the term "grammar book" is used in a casual way (myself included). A definition of a true grammar book that moves through phonology, morphology, syntax.., might be a good place to start.<br /><br />The next Latin newsletter is Sept. 16th.<br /><br />Any takers?<br /><br />Jeff<br /><br /><br /><br />

[MickeyV]

Well, concerning the two contending grammars, at the moment I only have Gildersleeve, but, after making a succint comparison with A&G as I found it here, it appears to me that there is no real victor. In fact, I decided to purchase A&G as well, so as to serve as a complement to Gildersleeve. As pointed out, it is often expedient to allow a subject to be illustrated by the light of different specialists, so as to allow the subject to be clarified in a more elucidating fashion by their corroborated efforts.<br /><br />What strikes me as odd however is that, and of course I may have overlooked, after a swift survey of this forum I found hardly any reference made to the rather elaborate, detailed and therefore excellent syntaxisbook by Woodcock. Quite contrary to the author's name, the book is hardly silly. It sheds a very clear light on basically every aspect of the syntaxis, but does considerably more than enumerate and succinctly explicate, such as a referencework does: it lavishly adstrues the syntactical concepts against the background of and by the (historic) development of the language. I'd say that Woodcock is inexpendable for him who desires to attain an understanding of the finer logic underlying the grammatical principles of the language.

[mariek]

[quote author=MickeyV link=board=3;threadid=550;start=0#5131 date=1062344496]<br />What strikes me as odd however is that, and of course I may have overlooked, after a swift survey of this forum I found hardly any reference made to the rather elaborate, detailed and therefore excellent syntaxisbook by Woodcock. [/quote]<br /><br />This Syntax book by Woodcock doesn't ring a bell. Why do you suppose it is so unpopular? Just lesser known than the other two?<br /><br />If one should have both Gildersleeve and A&G to complement each other, where does Woodcock fall in?<br /><br />In any case, I will add it to my wish list, and purchase it when I'm more advanced in Latin... which would be in about 40 years at the rate I'm going!<br /><br />

[Episcopus]

I do understand the difference between A&G and B.L.D.<br /><br />They are two different things. Now I do see that, a long time ago I did not.<br /><br />Both types require a certain gift, a piece of brilliance.

[MickeyV]

[quote author=mariek link=board=3;threadid=550;start=0#5320 date=1062701385]<br />[quote author=MickeyV link=board=3;threadid=550;start=0#5131 date=1062344496]<br />What strikes me as odd however is that, and of course I may have overlooked, after a swift survey of this forum I found hardly any reference made to the rather elaborate, detailed and therefore excellent syntaxisbook by Woodcock. [/quote]<br /><br />This Syntax book by Woodcock doesn't ring a bell. Why do you suppose it is so unpopular? Just lesser known than the other two?<br /><br />If one should have both Gildersleeve and A&G to complement each other, where does Woodcock fall in?<br /><br />In any case, I will add it to my wish list, and purchase it when I'm more advanced in Latin... which would be in about 40 years at the rate I'm going!<br /><br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />Both Gilders and AnG are referenceworks. Woodcock is an elaborate treatment in advanced fashion concerning syntaxis. It assumes a good knowledge of the reader insofar it regards to morfology (which is not treated therein) and the fundament of syntaxis, upon which it seeks to erect the building of Latin mastery.