<br /><br />Somebody mentioned this book was available on Amazon. I haven't actually seen it in any bookstore, and would love to hear someone's review of it.<br />Alundis wrote:<br />Latin Super Review by D'Ooge is available. Is it reprint or a different work?
<br /><br />It is a different book entirely....<br /><br />KilmenyAlundis wrote:<br />Latin Super Review by D'Ooge is available. Is it reprint or a different work?<br />
<br /><br />I don't think there is any one clear answer. The real question here is why do textbooks go out use?<br /><br />I think some of the reasons are purely economical. Publishers compete with one another to sell books.<br /><br />Others factors have to do with changes in the educational environment. Both students and teacher were very different back when this book was first published. <br /><br />The textbooks also had different goals back then as well too. For example, White's First Greek Book is totally designed to get the student reading Xenophon and it was meant to be used for two terms meaning the following term would be spent on Goodwin's First Four Books of Xenophon and Goodwin's Greek Grammar. Sadly, most Greek in the U.S. is taught not in high school but in college and students can't spend 3 or 4 semesters on only Xenophon. So textbooks must have a good fit with the today's curriculum.<br /><br />Finally, our knowledge of Greek and Latin is always changing and perhaps some concepts or theories (although small) are out-dated or just plain wrong.<br /><br />For me, this is a fascinating subject. <br /><br />Why have these books been replaced?<br />What strengths and weaknesses are there in both modern and public domain textbooks?<br />Is there a place on today’s bookshelf for public domain textbooks?<br />Will they rise again?<br /><br />Of course, some books have never fallen out of style and can easily be found in reprints.<br /><br />Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar<br />A&G's Latin Grammar<br />Smyth's Greek Grammar<br />Goodwin's Moods and Tenses<br />and more!<br /><br />but all of these above are more reference material and they are not in-class textbooks.<br /><br />that's my two-cents - anyone else have an opinion?<br /><br />jeff<br />Episcopus wrote:<br />In all seriousness (albeit tinged with incredulity and of course anger) I do not be understanding why Latin For Beginners is not for sale, for example, on amazon.com.
<br /><br />Really? I started with Wenham for koine and Wheelock for Latin, and they both have exercises going *both* ways so you practice reading *and* writing.<br /><br />I think the problem of texts changing and getting better or worse is lessened the more you diversify your learning materials... If you learn from a number of sources then your knowledge is much more rounded and complete :)ingrid70 wrote:<br />The disadvantage for me of newer books, is that they focus entirely on translating from Latin into whatever your language is. I want to be able to write Latin too, and you don't learn that if you don't practise. On the other hand, the oldest Dutch Latin books I have (around 1900) are Dutch to latin only, that's a bit overdone :). I like to have some examples of how it should be.<br /><br />Ingrid<br />
<br /><br />This is horrible advice. How could you possibly hope to render a decent translation of a Latin sentence into English before you understand it? <br /><br />I am amazed that this poor method of instruction has persisted for so long; even I was taught this way in high school! William Hale outlined a far more logical method of instruction in 1887 in The Art of Reading Latin: How to Teach It The first half is a publication of a speech he gave; the second a later addendum. In bound form, the entire work comes to 74 pages, but I highly recommend it. Here is an excerpt in which Hale presents his plan:<br /><br />Observe the following suggestions:<br /><br />1. Read the Latin sentence through to the end, noting endings of nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.<br />2. Read it again and see if any of the words you know are nominatives or accusatives. This will often give you what may be called the backbone of the sentence; that is subject, verb, and object.<br />...<br />6. When the sentence is correctly translated, read the Latin over again, and try to understand it as Latin, without thinking of the English translation.
<br /><br /><br />Now, you might say that D'Ooge and other books are perfectly fine if you simply replace their advice for reading Latin with Hale's. I would disagree. They teach some bizarre English-Latin conversion process, which does not deserve to be called translation.<br /><br />Here is my personal experience. After I memorized all the inflections, I decided to give the Vulgate a try. I knew the most common uses of the cases from my year of high school Latin, and I skimmed some material about verbs (what a deponent is, some vague notions about the subjunctive, the most common uses of the tenses, etc.) Then I started Genesis 1:1. I looked at the words in a sentence, one at a time, and mentally constructed a list of their possible functions. I hadn't read Hale yet, but I wanted to read Latin, not just muddle through it. This process seemed like the only way one could possibly understand a Latin sentence the first time through. It was very slow going. I had to look up multiple words from every sentence in a dictionary. The syntax seemed unusual...why does the imperfect subjunctive always refer to the present time and never to the past? But somehow, it usually made sense to me, even though I hadn't seen the constructions abstracted in some grammar. I checked myself with Douay-Rheims, and occasionally looked at it sooner when I was really stuck.<br /><br />After chapter Gen 6 or so, I decided to read some Latin textbooks. I was feeling rather shaky about my grammatical knowledge, and I wanted to clear some points up. So I read through most of D'Ooge, some thin grammar by Wilson, and I read all of M&F. This was during the summer, and I had a lot of free time, so this only took me seven weeks or so. I memorized as many constructions as I could, and I tried to memorize the vocabulary I didn't recognize in the lists, but somehow they didn't stick in my head. Fortunately, I had enough sense to ignore D'Ooge's suggestions. Unfortunately, (or perhaps fortunately) M&F contained no advice for reading Latin at all. But it did ask me to translates lots of contrived sentences from Latin to and from English, which I did not do. I forced myself to work through the sample readings in M&F. They started off okay, but sharply increased in difficulty after Cicero was introduced. And just when I started to get used to Cicero's style, the next reading would be Seneca, or Martial. When I finally got somewhat comfortable with Martial, it would switch to Caesar, or back to Cicero....Where was the slow, graded progression? Would you start off an ESL student with Shakespeare or Milton? I don't think so. <br /><br />When I finally finished the last chapter of M&F, I went back to reading the Vulgate. I swear that I was even worse at reading it than before I started with D'Ooge! I certainly learned some useful things from the textbooks, like indirect constructions with the accusative as subject, but you know what? That construction is rarely used in the Vulgate, and I bet I would have assimilated it into my reading apparatus if I had seen it more often. Moreover, I knew most of the vocabulary in M&F and D'Ooge just by writing on an index card every new word I came across in the Vulgate (and whatever else I tried to read.)<br /><br /><br />Around this time, I read Hale's address. I found it quite illuminating, and it confirmed many of my suspicions. I was immediately convinced of the correctness of his method for reading Latin. And I now appreciate the value of reference grammars. I'll use them to find out what a certain word could mean when it comes up in a sentence. But I will not go around memorizing lots of constructions in haphazard fashion, kind of like how they're presented in M&F and D'Ooge.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I don't have access to a real Latin class, but I'll try to practice Hale's system anyway. He recommends reading a series of graded texts. I think that Orberg's Lingua Latina series would fit the bill, but it's hard to find for sale here. Perhaps an even better text has been written, but I have no idea where to look for it. However, there is no shortage of books like Wheelock's and D'Ooge.<br /><br />Not really caring enough to find a copy of Orberg, I decided to stick with the Vulgate, because it works for me. It is not supposed to be difficult, after all. And I'm really I purchased a Clementine edition because it actually has punctuation (this was hard to find, my version was published in Spain, and I had to buy it through a Christian book store. I also bought ecclesiastical dictionary, because Cassell's isn't sufficient. I sometimes use Vulsearch, but I cannot stand to read on a computer screen for hours at a time.<br /><br />Finally, no, I don't care if I'm damaging my Latinity, or that I'm not reading the golden age of Latin. Otherwise, I would have ordered Orberg. I rather enjoy ecclesiastical and medieval Latin. Besides, I would want to read the Vulgate eventually, so I might as well start now. And I can honestly say that reading Latin is fun and enjoyable. <br /><br /><br />Now, it will not do to say that students, by beginning in this way, get, quite early, beyond the need of it. At any rate, I can testify, from my own experience, that, in spite of the admirable efforts of the schools in "sight-reading," they do not, when they come to Harvard or Cornell. I allow myself in my class-room – keeping well inside of what is said to be customary among college professors – one jest a year. When I first meet the new Freshman class (for I could not bear to leave such precious material wholly to the most perfect assistant), I question them: "Suppose, now, you are set, as you were at the examination for admission the other day, to tell me the meaning of a sentence in a book you never say, – say an oration of Cicero, – how do you proceed to get at the writer’s meaning?" There is at once a chorus of voices (for they are crammed for that question, having learned printed directions, as we have seen, in the first books they studied), "First find the – SUBJECT," three-quarters of them say; "PREDICATE," the other quarter. "Now here," I say to them, "is an unhappy difference of opinion about first principles in a matter of everyday practice, and of very serious importance. Which is right?" They do not know. "Which do you suppose the Romans who heard the oration delivered in the Forum first hunted up, the subject or the predicate?" That little jest, simple as it is, always meets with great success; for it not only raises a laugh (of no value in itself), but it shows at once, even to a Freshman, the entire absurdity of trying to read Latin by a hunting-up first of either his subject or his predicate; and so enlists his sympathy in favor of trying some other way, if any can be shown him. But, at the same time, it proves to me that the method taught at the most critical of all periods, the beginning, is still wrong. Only in late years, and very rarely, does some student answer my question with: "First read the first Latin word without translating it, then the second, then the third, and so on to the end, taking in all the possible constructions of every word, while barring out at once the impossible, and, above all, erring, if anywhere, in the direction of keeping the mind in suspense unnecessarily long, waiting, at least, until a sure solution has been given by the sentence itself." <br /><br />Yet this is the one method that should everywhere be rigorously used, from the day of the first lesson to the last piece of Latin that the college graduate reads to solace his old age. Only, the process which at first is at every point conscious and slow, as it was not with the Romans, becomes, in Latin of ordinary difficulty, a process wholly unconscious and very rapid, precisely as it was with the Romans.<br />
<br /><br />Episcopus, I very strongly advise you to rethink your cultish devotion to the good Dr D'Ooge if this sort of ad hominem outburst is going to be a typical feature of your devotions.<br /><br />The Good Doctor is beyond all human cares now, and does not need defending.<br /><br />As a general rule of thumb, when you feel compelled to end a post with "I'm not being rude" - or anything like that - it may be best to delete the post, and try again later.<br /><br /><br />I will address the substantive questions in this little debate when I have more time this weekend.Episcopus wrote:<br />I agree about the advice; it's not the best - I know not how I read Latin exactly, but what I DO know is that I can trucking read it. Because of Latin For Beginners. Therefore I <br /><br />a) Resent your comments<br />b) accept that everyone does be different<br />c) know, because of my great progress with just one book, that you have no reason. <br />
<br /><br /> >:( >:( >:( Episcopus, visitors have the right to say exactly what they think and this forum is here to exchange and debate ideas - it's not a place for rudeness. Your 'resentment' for the opinions of others speaks poorly about your own character. It's ok to disagree but it's not ok to be a jerk about it. Alundis was giving you his comments on your post and you need to digest what others say without getting personal. <br /><br />I think you need to get up from your keyboard and take a walk and only return if you can respect others' opinions.<br /><br />Episcopus wrote:<br />Then why make me more angry? I think that you should delete your post.<br />
<br /><br />ouch. <br /><br />I don't believe anything I have ever said here can be classified as "mocking"--that is much too strong. Friendly teasing is all that was meant, and is not unjustified considering the inordinate passion you have for this book.<br /><br />However, if my comment was offensive I apologize and will refrain in the future.Episcopus wrote:<br /> (less than klewlis mockingly, as usual, predicted). <br />
Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], manoj01 and 35 guests