Textkit Logo

FrogFace the journey thru Wheelock's

Are you learning Latin with Wheelock's Latin 6th Edition? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback.

FrogFace the journey thru Wheelock's

Postby FrogFace » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:03 pm

i ordered thu amazon the Wheelock's 6th edition paperback textbook along with the workbook and got free shipping (yippee)

also last night i downloaded the complete audio from the official wheelock's audio page. hopefully this will help to make sure i'm pronouncing classical Latin correctly. the zip file contained mp3 files of Mark Miner pronouncing all the vocabulary words for each chapter.

so right now i'm reading from a library copy of Wheelock's until my amazon package arrives.

just finished reading the preface and today will work on pronunciation in the introduction and also survey the text.

-jay





[/url]
FrogFace
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:26 am
Location: Mississippi, USA

Postby Chris Weimer » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:07 am

congrats on getting the book. It's a good step to take to learn this wonderful language.
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Postby FrogFace » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:02 pm

thanks chris for the encouragement. :D

well i recieved my brand new shiny wheelock 6th edition with workbook last night from amazon (i love that company better than ebay)

in the last month or so i've been putting alot of effort in reading up on latin and finding which way to "plow". so i'm going to take the Wheelock lessons slow at first. my initial plan is to finish a chapter a week and see how that goes since i don't really have a college teacher to lead.

so far, i've had a little confusion on the Latin alphabet because the text does not plainly establish what letters are contained in latin, and which english letters are missing , from reading in the introduction i constructed the Latin alphabet.

so far i've got:
A B C D E F G H I (omit J) K L M N O P Q R S T U (omit W) V X (Y and Z are Greek incorporated into Latin)
therefore Latin has 24 total Letters opposed to English which has use of 26 letters.

if someone might happen to read this please correct me if you see something wrong with my Latin alphabet. 8)

-jay
FrogFace
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:26 am
Location: Mississippi, USA

Postby Deudeditus » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:24 pm

classically, it sounds good so far.
Good luck with your studies. Just remember to spend at least 30 minutes a day in your studies and you'll be fine. consistency is the key. and ask any question you need to. there are some enlightened cats here who are more than willing to help you.

-Jon
User avatar
Deudeditus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The world, man.

Postby edonnelly » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:39 pm

FrogFace wrote:so far i've got:
A B C D E F G H I (omit J) K L M N O P Q R S T U (omit W) V X (Y and Z are Greek incorporated into Latin)
therefore Latin has 24 total Letters opposed to English which has use of 26 letters.

if someone might happen to read this please correct me if you see something wrong with my Latin alphabet. 8)


If you omit J because I and J are the same letter, then you should look into U and V, which many here would argue are the same letter, keeping capital V and lower-case u as letters in the Latin alphabet and omitting their counterparts. This may just create more problems for you, though, since Wheelock uses them as if they were different letters.

(See this post for an example of one of the many conversations that have been had about this topic here).
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
User avatar
edonnelly
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA

Postby Bhaaac » Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:16 am

Nicole Kidman ... I am an idiotic spam-weasel.!
http://Nicole-Kidman-Blowjob.org/Window ... ovie=78389
Bhaaac
 

Postby Chris Weimer » Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:51 am

Gar, I don't know why everyone loved D's post. He was as ignorant and misleading on that as usual. The "u" wasn't attested. It was a v written with a smoother style. They did that with every letter. They didn't have abcdefghijklmnopqrstxyz either. It didn't exist then. The "u" doesn't have it's origins back then, as he implied. It was a v, just as they inscribed it, but written with sloppy handwriting. Go check for yourself the ancient papyri and see if you can find g. It ain't there. It's modern convention. It's all modern convention. "Historical precedent" - yeah right. Nothing typed is ever going to be close to historical precedent, since they didn't even have a press yet. How can you guys buy into that pseudo-intellectual bullshit?
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Postby FrogFace » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:35 pm

Chris Weimer wrote:It was a v written with a smoother style. They did that with every letter. They didn't have abcdefghijklmnopqrstxyz either. It didn't exist then.


The roman youth did not learn an ancient collection of letters? The letters were just *there* in the words that was spoken and written?

or maybe you was talking about there was no letters lower case in the Roman alphabet?

-jay
FrogFace
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:26 am
Location: Mississippi, USA

Postby Deudeditus » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:42 pm

i believe the latter suggestion to be true, FrogFace. Romans didn't have our cool system of writing with dual forms for letters and punctuation and distinction between certain vowels and their consonantal counterparts.
User avatar
Deudeditus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The world, man.

Postby Chris Weimer » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:15 pm

What Deudeditus said. The Roman style of writing was very different from our own, even in script.
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Postby Chris Weimer » Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:21 am

Here's a lovely papyrus fragment.

Image
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Postby cdm2003 » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:13 pm

Chris Weimer wrote:Gar, I don't know why everyone loved D's post. He was as ignorant and misleading on that as usual. The "u" wasn't attested. It was a v written with a smoother style. They did that with every letter. They didn't have abcdefghijklmnopqrstxyz either. It didn't exist then. The "u" doesn't have it's origins back then, as he implied. It was a v, just as they inscribed it, but written with sloppy handwriting. Go check for yourself the ancient papyri and see if you can find g. It ain't there. It's modern convention. It's all modern convention. "Historical precedent" - yeah right. Nothing typed is ever going to be close to historical precedent, since they didn't even have a press yet. How can you guys buy into that pseudo-intellectual bullshit?


Huh? "G" not in ancient papyri? Psuedo-intellectual? What? :?
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae
User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Postby Deudeditus » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:34 pm

I think that G was first represented by C. ... Caius

-Jon
User avatar
Deudeditus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:15 am
Location: The world, man.

Postby Chris Weimer » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:28 am

cdm2003 wrote:Huh? "G" not in ancient papyri? Psuedo-intellectual? What? :?


No, not G, but g. whiteoctave's point was that u could be found in the ancient manuscripts. I called bullshit. U was merely a sloppy way of writing the letter, in exemplo optimo, carved by the order of the greatest of Romans, V. Whiteoctave tried to appeal to historical precedent - what he missed was that he's so far gone from historical precedent that it's pathetic and a poor appeal in vanu. We can't type as the Romans did, for one there wasn't a uniform way of "typing" back then, and for two, modern standards prevent it. We're not ancient Roman, this board isn't full of ancient Romans, and except for wanting to purposefully imitate them, we don't write like them. Thus his entire argument for why we should write u and not v is moot - personal preference, and not anything "historical".
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Postby FrogFace » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:13 pm

ok it's the beginning of week two of my journey into learning Latin with Wheelocks. i'm still on chapter 1.

right now i think i'm going to spend the rest of march getting familiarized with the textbook and wookbook.

my goal is to have an effective method of study using the textbook and workbook at 30-45 minute sessions mon-fri.

also i'm using Hodges's Harbrace english handbook in conjuntion with the grammical concepts and it works well with wheelocks so far. This gives a second source for insight hopefully leading into a solid understanding of rhetoric grammar.



-jay
FrogFace
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:26 am
Location: Mississippi, USA

Postby cdm2003 » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:10 pm

FrogFace wrote:also i'm using Hodges's Harbrace english handbook in conjuntion with the grammical concepts and it works well with wheelocks so far. This gives a second source for insight hopefully leading into a solid understanding of rhetoric grammar.


A very excellent idea and book. All the best to you with your method...sounds like a great plan to me. :)

Chris
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae
User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA


Return to Wheelock's Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron