How to use Lingua Latina

[Stoic]

After a couple of runs through Wheelock and its accoutrements, I've been looking for something to give me some reading practice, and settled on Lingua Latina.

Going through Wheelock, I took notes on all the grammar, translated all the exercises, etc., on my computer. I've been using Lingua Latina more casually, however, sitting in my easy chair and reading -- although this is occasionally awkward when I come across words I don't know and can't make out just from the context, and thus have to consult a dictionary in hard copy or on my computer.

I read several weeks ago that someone here transcribed and translated all of Lingua Latina. Was this a useful exercise?

Since Lingua Latina contains no guide to how it might be used, I'm wondering how some of the rest of you have used it, and whether or not you've found the strategy effective.

Thanks.

[Amadeus]

Amadeus Stoico s.p.d.,

I read several weeks ago that someone here transcribed and translated all of Lingua Latina. Was this a useful exercise?

Yes, transcribing LL is a very helpful practice if you want to really retain the Latin. The same cannot be said, however, of translation. The aim of LL is to make you read Latin without any intermediary language, and if you start translating, it defeats that purpose. So, transcribe, read aloud both the narrative and the Q&A, record and listen to yourself, but stay away from translation.

Since Lingua Latina contains no guide to how it might be used, I'm wondering how some of the rest of you have used it, and whether or not you've found the strategy effective.

You might want to take a look at "Latine Disco" and "Latine Doceo", supplements to Lingua Latina.

Vale!

[thesaurus]

As with you, after a grounding in Wheelock's and similar texts I read through most of the LL series. I also read it in a leisurely way, as I would read a novel. I think this is the best possible practice, because you'll actually enjoy reading, you'll make progress, and it won't feel like you're slaving away at some hostile foreign language anymore. When you move onto other texts you'll be much more comfortable.

Resist using a dictionary as much as possible. Not every word will be immediately transparent. Somtimes after it's occured several times it's meaning will suddenly snap into place because you've seen it in a variety of relevant contexts.

[Kyneto Valesio]

The aim of LL is to make you read Latin without any intermediary language, and if you start translating, it defeats that purpos

e.

Absolutely wrong (with all due respect)!! You, I believe, have completely misconstrued the method of Lingua Latina. It is in effect a progressive "translation" program. Go back to chapter 1 ... pretend you can't translate anyhhing into your language...well in that case you don't know what anything means do you ? .. Italia est in Europa. How can you be said to understand this phrase if you can't render it in your own language? The entire method is based on the learner being able to understand (translate mentally) as progressively more difficult texts are provided. At each stage the learner is expected to be able to translate into his/her language. Were it not so, in what sense could the learner be said to understand what he/she is learning?

Furthermore I strongly doubt, despite the extravagant claims that we have seen here, that anyone has attained full access to the ancient texts on the basis of Lingua Latina alone. Show me a case of a single moderately intelligent home schooler, who aided by his/her Mom/Dad, and who using Lingua Latina alone can now easily dive into Cicero. Martial, Boethius, Augustine, Erasmus etc. There aren't any such students! Or if there are, produce one! So stop this fraud and kindly stop telling people, if you are one of the "all you need is lingua latina" folks", that just this resource is sufficient for all purposes. For the overwhelming majority of learners, Lingua Latina is not sufficient according to me. In fact for the majority of learners LL is not sufficient because we are not children and cannot consequently learn thoroughly as children learn without the benefit of abstract explanations.. I just can't imagine any learner getting to the end of volume 2 without any other help. And if one or two have achieved this it does mean that this is path accessible to the majority. Just my opinion.

Lingua Latina is a reading/translation program... So long as you can still understand (translate) you can keep moving forward. However, when you get to a point that you can no longer translate you need to go back to the beginning or at least to a point where you are no longer confused (i.e. to point where you understand and can still translate). Very best regards. With foreign languages, if you can't translate into your native language, then you can't understand them.

[Kyneto Valesio]

For the original poster: LL is a great program.. combine it with "Latin an Intensive Course" as well as daily readings from Cicero or the classical author of your choice. You will go far. And never stop!

Ken

[Gonzalo]

The aim of LL is to make you read Latin without any intermediary language, and if you start translating, it defeats that purpos

e.

Absolutely wrong (with all due respect)!! You, I believe, have completely misconstrued the method of Lingua Latina. It is in effect a progressive "translation" program. Go back to chapter 1 ... pretend you can't translate anyhhing into your language...well in that case you don't know what anything means do you ? .. Italia est in Europa. How can you be said to understand this phrase if you can't render it in your own language? The entire method is based on the learner being able to understand (translate mentally) as progressively more difficult texts are provided. At each stage the learner is expected to be able to translate into his/her language. Were it not so, in what sense could the learner be said to understand what he/she is learning?

Furthermore I strongly doubt, despite the extravagant claims that we have seen here, that anyone has attained full access to the ancient texts on the basis of Lingua Latina alone. Show me a case of a single moderately intelligent home schooler, who aided by his/her Mom/Dad, and who using Lingua Latina alone can now easily dive into Cicero. Martial, Boethius, Augustine, Erasmus etc. There aren't any such students! Or if there are, produce one! So stop this fraud and kindly stop telling people, if you are one of the "all you need is lingua latina" folks", that just this resource is sufficient for all purposes. For the overwhelming majority of learners, Lingua Latina is not sufficient according to me. In fact for the majority of learners LL is not sufficient because we are not children and cannot consequently learn thoroughly as children learn without the benefit of abstract explanations.. I just can't imagine any learner getting to the end of volume 2 without any other help. And if one or two have achieved this it does mean that this is path accessible to the majority. Just my opinion.

Lingua Latina is a reading/translation program... So long as you can still understand (translate) you can keep moving forward. However, when you get to a point that you can no longer translate you need to go back to the beginning or at least to a point where you are no longer confused (i.e. to point where you understand and can still translate). Very best regards. With foreign languages, if you can't translate into your native language, then you can't understand them.

Hi,

Kynete, you have got it right. Translation is needful, at least for me. Besides reading every chapter once aloud and some more times silently (as much as I need to understand the text without help of lexicon), one must do the exercises proposed without any intermediate translation.
Ok, but in my opinion one should be able to know his own language so that he or she may be able to produce texts via translation. For instance, today I have translated some pages of Tusculanæ disputationes and I really went crazy when I was not able to get the correct translation of a sentence. But I took pains to be able to do that and I am enjoying when I translate some texts, after reading and understanding them. It was a great effort, and it took me around fifteen minutes this morning to translate half a page (!)... I am not very acquainted with translation. It´s only an anecdote but I would recommend to translate and do the effort, besides understanding naturally Latin, because one will get more knowledge of Latin grammar, which is also very important.

Regards,
Gonzalo

[MiguelM]

I have been using Lingua Latina since January or December. I had had previously about 1 year of previous Latin experience, so it wasn't a total dive, and my case can't thus serve for the "LL is enough" argument.

However, I do agree fully with Amadeus on the dangers of translation. Of course that you can translate if you so wish! You understand the LATIN! the "pretend you can't translate anyhhing into your language" statement is fallacious: the point is that, compared to most other methods, I don't *need* to. On a shadow degree of what ancient Romans did, you understand the language as is.

I take Latin classes in uni too. They mostly bore me. For every 15 minutes we read, we spend another 15 getting it to Portuguese, seeking a way for the words to work, for the Portuguese to match, to look for synonyms, etc. All the while reading a sentence, hunting for the verb, the direct object, the "this word agrees with which? *hunt text*", etc. When I read in LL "Roma in Italia est", I never go back and think... "So, let me think, that is Roma fica na Itália or Rome is in Italy"-- I don't need to. The Latin is clear as is.

That is the point of it. To translate if needed be (in the same manner that I translate a Portuguese sentence into English if I am asked to, but that I can think and write in English without needing to resort to constant Portuguese-English word-by-word comparison).

[Amadeus]

Kyneto,

I have to say you totally misrepresented my views. I have never, ever said that all one needs is Lingua Latina. If you can quote me saying so, then I shall retract myself, but I don't think you'll be able to. In fact, if you do some diggin around the forum, you'll catch me criticizing Familia Romana for being a little light on the grammar at the end.

I just can't imagine any learner getting to the end of volume 2 without any other help

Well, I reached the end of volume 2 without the need for any written translation and without the old grammar books. See at that stage you should be "thinking in the language".

You, I believe, have completely misconstrued the method of Lingua Latina. It is in effect a progressive "translation" program.

Nay, nay. You might be "mentally" translating at first (if the context provided by Ørberg is not sufficient), but as you progress through the book, you should stop translating. Go to any foreign language school, and you'll see that the aim in all will be to get the student to "think in the language". I, for instance, know that I have a good handle of English precisely because I do not need to translate, neither in writing nor mentally.

With foreign languages, if you can't translate into your native language, then you can't understand them.

Understanding is not the same as "translating mentally". On what do you base this assertion?

Sorry, Kyneto, but in this case I think you are dead wrong, with all due respect.

[Kyneto Valesio]

Amadeus

If I have misrepresented your views please forgive me. Mentally I was putting you in the camp of persons that believes that LL is all you need. I think it is a great program but I doubt any homeschooler or even dedicated autodidact can become "fluent" on the basis of lingua latina - it was that view that I was arguing against. If you have not espoused that view, others have I believe and it was that extreme position that I was takinu exception to. Once again kindly overlook it if I have overly vehemently argued against views that you have not even explicitly espoused.

I agree with you that one becomes fluent when one no longer translates mentally from the target language into the native language - however this can take years and years and may never be attained even by some highly intelligent persons, Orberg not withstanding. Before one attains that stage there is an intermediate stage in which one still mentally translates yet outwardly appears quite conversant and comfortable. I know because I have attained that stage with Spanish. So far as Latin is concerned, I doubt that that there are 50 persons in the world who are fully fluent - who can speak and read with complete ease without necessity of registering mentally the native langauge equivalents.

I made very good progress learning biblical greek in a several month period using a method written Rev. Dobson. He stated either in the introduction or in one of the lessons that it has been scientifically proven that providing a translation (as opposed to making the student come up with a translation) is an optimal way of imparting a foreign language. I agree with him. At first glance Orberg doesn't follow this method - but on closer examination i think he does. Even a beginner can translate (understand) chaper 1. Understanding Chapter one is the same as being able to translate it. If the beginner can understand chaper 1 he is ready for chapter two. By various clues etc Orberg brings the student to a point where he can understand (translate mentally) chapter two. Thus by clues and hints and a little grammar understanding (ability to translate) increases. Thats the Orberg Method but this method is not really different than Oxford course other than the fact that all the instruction is in latin. In the end, they are both progressive reading courses and as you go along if you can't translate mentally what you are reading then you can't be said to understand it or know it.


For myself I have twice attempted LL. Both times I got as far as the middle of 2nd volume. At that point the going became very very slow and I went off to do other things. Sooner or later I will come back to complete the course. One problem I had once I got deeply into the course was that since there is no comprehensive glossary if the going gets tough there is no choice but to go back.

I think volume 1 of LL is great for persons who already have a good grasp of grammatical concepts. However, the typical homeschooler is definitely not in this group or at least that is my impression. I consider it a given that home schoolers labor under very significant deficiencies with regards to being able to ingest (at first sight) grammatical thought. I don't fault them for this because it is quite understandable. But the consequence is that LL (after the first 10 chapters) is unsuited for most homeschooling situations

[Kyneto Valesio]

Having said all this and having gone back to read the original post, let me state that LL is great follow up to Wheelock. My recommendation to the original poster is that he follow a three fold program:

1. Use LL or Oxford Latin Course as a progressive reader
2. Use Latin, An Intensive Course to cement grammar (study it every day)
3. Read a little bit of Cicero every day in a dual language edition.

Oh and read out loud.

[Lucus Eques]

I transcribed the entire first volume of LL, and it was invaluable to my apprehension of the language in a very real and vivid way. This method negates the bad habit of parsing, and forces one to internalize true Latin syntax. Then, practice writing in full sentences and paragraphs your responses to the questions, which will be the same as paraphrasing the chapters before — exactly as we do in life as we learn to communicate, in microcosm.

[Stoic]

I appreciate all these responses, from which I've learned a lot. I'd not thought of the Oxford Latin Course, but I'll look into it. I'm really enjoying taking up LL several times a day, but was wondering how some of the rest of you used it.

Thanks very much.

[Stoic]

I appreciate all these responses, from which I've learned a lot. I'd not thought of the Oxford Latin Course, but I'll look into it. I'm really enjoying taking up LL several times a day, but was wondering how some of the rest of you used it.

Thanks very much.

[Interaxus]

Re translation, LL, and foreign language acquisition:

For the sake of argument, let’s assume there are 5 fluency levels – all except the last one reflecting ‘limited fluency’.

Fluency Level 1 is when you’ve internalized, let’s say, the early sections of your course or course-book(s) so thoroughly that you can navigate/ manipulate the items covered without referring back to your native language. (For a modern language, this might mean being able to greet people, buy a ticket, etc. For Latin, … not quite sure yet ).

Fluency Level 2 is when you’ve ‘mastered’ the next set of items. And so on up to level 5, which represents Advanced Fluency (= near-native proficiency - for Latin, Caesar, Cicero & Co. will serve as natives).

Whether or not you use translation to reach each new level, you no longer need it to function at that level. It might then become more of a hindrance than a help..

The beauty of LL is that it puts you into a kind of Virtual Fluency Mode from the word go. It invites you straight into a Latin-Only Landscape. No distracting native-language exposition, etc, to call you back like a poor Orpheus every time you turn the page.

Of course, translation will always have some role to play whatever your fluency level. We forget things. We don't have all the time in the world. And there’s always more to learn. This native English speaker will never throw away his English dictionaries!

Kyneto: I can see why you suspect a conspiracy to disparage or downplay the merits of translation. But we shouldn’t underestimate the risks of translation addiction either. After all, millions of past students went to their graves without having spoken a word of Latin despite countless hours spent in Translation Method classrooms.

That said, I confess that one of my favourite posters on this site is Adrianus whose parallell English/Latin sentences are inspirational for pre-fluency t-kitters like myself. Here’s hoping for more of the same!

Cheers,
Int

[Rufus Gulielmus]

I'm working through Wheelock's at my university as well as doing some LL on the side.

After reading through this thread, I've decided to go back through LL and transcribe it--I think it sounds like an awesome and fun way to begin to internalize Latin syntax. Thanks for the idea!

Valete,
Rufus

[Interaxus]

I said ...

one of my favourite posters on this site is Adrianus whose parallell English/Latin sentences are inspirational for pre-fluency t-kitters like myself.

... forgetting to mention that Thesaurus also does it sometimes too. Fantastic role models, both oy you. Plurimas gratias ambobus!

[Brian]

Friends

Pardon me, but could you explain what exactly you mean by transcribing? I am missing something here. Brain fade perhaps?

thanks for your understanding

Brian

[Kyneto Valesio]

Transcribing a text means to write it out in full. I may try this one day if all else fails. The people who have done it claim excellent results. There is a saying something like qui scribit bis discit - he who writes learns twice. The dowling method is based on this ; all the forms are written out many many times so the learner never forgets them. By transcribing lingua latina it is supposed with good reason that vocabularly, sentence structure, and the positions of long and short vowels will be become firmly imprinted in your brain.

[Rufus Gulielmus]

Another question about transcribing (seeing as I'm in the process of it right now...)

Is it helpful to have read (without re-writing) what you're transcribing first? I've previously worked through the first several capitula and am cruising with the transcription. Once I get to the chapters I haven't encountered yet, would it be beneficial to keep on writing them out?

Gratias vobis ago,
Rufus

[Amadeus]

Salve, Rufe:

I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but I will recommend this: Read the chapters (or the lessons) out loud first; do this several times until you understand what you're reading. Then, if you can, record yourself. After that, transcribe the lessons either having the book open in front of you or by listening to your recordings (and guessing where the macrons go). Sounds fun? You can also role-play with anyone else who follows Lingua Latina.

Vale!

Post scriptum: Welcome to the forum!

[Rufus Gulielmus]

Salve, Amadee (is this the correct vocative?)

After I posted my question I realized it didn't make much sense, but I was far too lazy to go back and edit it. Your answer meets all expectations, however. Thanks for the tip. I've just finished up CAP. IV... Medus servus improbus est!

Thanks for the welcome!

Vale,
Rufus

[thesaurus]

Edit: Beaten to the punch by Amadeus! Ignosce mihi cum scilicet sit celer callidusque Amadeus!

Another question about transcribing (seeing as I'm in the process of it right now...)

Is it helpful to have read (without re-writing) what you're transcribing first? I've previously worked through the first several capitula and am cruising with the transcription. Once I get to the chapters I haven't encountered yet, would it be beneficial to keep on writing them out?

Gratias vobis ago,
Rufus

I think writing out your lessons could only help you. It slows you down, and it forces you to think of the Latin syntax sequentially.

Scribendum cursus tibi solum auxilium fore opinor. Haec consuetudo tibi tarde discere, et latinitatis composituram in ordine cogitare oportet.

Generally, the more you repeat any of your lessons the better. If you really want to nail it, read passages outloud.

Plerumque, saepius cursum tuum repetit melior fit. Discendum in repetendo est. Si admodum studii momentum capere velis, voce repete eundem cursum.

A professor of mine told my class of late professor D.R. Shackleton Bailey, one of the best Latinists, Ciceronians, and textual-critics of our time. When learning Latin as a schoolboy he used the following technique: first he'd read through the text until the end; second, he'd look up all the vocabulary and work out any difficult grammar; third, he'd reread the text outloud, so that he would be committing the Latin meanings and constructions to memory, and not English equivalents.

Magister quidam illo de Shackletone Bailiense magistro, vir Ciceronianus, criticus, hoc latinitatis tempore doctissimus, cum decuria mea egit. Ille, cum adulescens Latinam disceret, hoc ratione usus est: primum, textus adusque legit; secundum, vocabulariis difficultatibusque grammaticis scrutatis, iterum voce clare legit. Hoc in modo sententias in mente fixit ut latina non anglice intellexisset.

[adrianus]

Had a good day celebrating St Patrick's Day yesterday. Thanks, Interaxus, for your very kind words, which I know congratulate more the effort made than any success in expression. At least, when you have both languages side by side, the deficiencies in Latinity are more readily apparent.

Heri festum Santi Patricii (Hiberniae patroni sancti) celebrabam et bonus dies erat. Verba tua benignissima, Interaxe, me valdè adhortantur quia te conatum enuntiandi quem demonstro potiùs quam eventum plaudere scio. Ambabus linguis constratis, latere ad latus, defectiones latinitatis apertiùs saltem videantur.

[Stoic]

(Somehow an earlier version of this reply didn't get saved.)

This has been an interesting and useful discussion for me. I'd never heard of the Dowling Method, although I'd more or less following it working my way through Wheelock (twice), writing down just about everything, both in Latin and in English translation.

With LL I'd been a bit more casual, just reading the texts carefully, but skipping the Pensum sections and other exercises. According to Dowling, this isn't a good idea, so perhaps I need to be a bit more diligent. I know that writing out the Latin is a useful part of the learning process — just a bit slower.

[ioel]

Someone mentioned having used the Oxford Latin Course. I went through the Cambridge Latin Course. How similar are the two?

As for transcribing from the book... Is this different than copying? I mean, I can copy a text without really thinking about it (especially if I'm typing). And that doesn't seem very useful.

[Kyneto Valesio]

Hi

As for transcribing from the book... Is this different than copying?

Copying and transcribing are the same. I have no experience with Cambridge; I admire the Oxford method exceedingly. Nevertheless I get the impresssion the two might be similar. Ditto for Ecce Romani.

I think Oxford and LL are similar methods although this is not apparent to many.

[Amadeus]

I mean, I can copy a text without really thinking about it (especially if I'm typing). And that doesn't seem very useful.

You can do lots of things without thinking about them, but the key here is concentrating. Concentrate on transcribing/copying the LL texts and you'll do fine.

[Lucus Eques]

Yes, read a sentence, and memorize it sufficiently so you can type it without looking back at the book. It can be very challenging, and will ingrain that Latin quite well.

[adrianus]

Yes, read a sentence, and memorize it sufficiently so you can type it without looking back at the book. It can be very challenging, and will ingrain that Latin quite well.

Completely agree, Lucus. On the subject of copying, the sad thing about this technique is that some associate it with punishment at school and/or with lazy teaching practice. But as you and others say here, it is helpful and rewarding as an aid to memory, alongside keeping a notebook. I would be inclined to believe that writing on paper may be more reinforcing than typing to screen, but I don't know of any studies on this, which isn't surprising since the copying technique is regrettably not fashionable.
What Lucus is saying on copying as a learning technique is called "delayed copying", which is particularly useful for the self-learner (Hill, L.A., "Delayed Copying", ELT Journal, 23, 238-239, 1969, and mentioned in Nation, I.S.P., Learning Vocabulary in Another Language, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.341). Rather than just copy out a text word by word, it is better if you try to remember as large a chunk as possible and then transcribe it without looking at the text, other than to check back afterwards, of course, or if your memory fails.

Rectè dicis, Luce. De exscribendo dicens, res deplorandi est nonnullos illam consuetudinem habere vel castigationis in ludo vel docendi ignavi signum. Atenim sicut tu et alii hic dicitis, actus exscribendi memoriam adjuvat, nihilominùs et commentarios tenens. Eò magìs adducor ut credam in chartam scribere oportuniùs memoriae esse quàm dactylographare. Nescio autem de hac re aliquod studium, necnon mirum mihi videri debet quia consuetudo exscribendi in morem non est, quod me paenitet.
Cum scribendo, non inutile est, propriè in discendi independentis casu, exercito "exscribendi dilati" (sicut Lucus describit). Potiùs quam textum verbatim exscribere, meliùs est, apud auctores suprà citandos (et quos ego accordo), te locos quàm maximos memorare, et deinde solùm exscribere et dumtaxat sine verba initialia adspectanti, nisi tandem opus attestari aut quidem si memoria tibi deficiat.

[Koehnsen]

Hi all,

My year-long intensive Latin course starts in two weeks at NYU, and I was thinking of starting a new thread with a question. However, this thread is in the direction of what I wanted to ask. So let me start with this excellent recommendation by poster Ken:

...follow a three fold program:

1. Use LL or Oxford Latin Course as a progressive reader
2. Use Latin, An Intensive Course to cement grammar (study it every day)
3. Read a little bit of Cicero every day in a dual language edition.

Oh and read out loud.

1. Check. Have Lingua Latina and I like it.
2. We're working from Wheelock's Latin but I have access to Fleischer & Moreland's book.
3. Cicero. Here's where my question begins:

If I read Cicero (I assume from a Loeb or similar text) what might I reasonably expect to progress to after that? If this seems premature, it's not, because I would like to have something to look forward to. The proverbial carrot, if you will.

Would Ovid's Metamorphoses be too hard? Virgil's Aeneid? I adore them both in English translation.

I expect to make fast progress but want to make sure I don't pick up anything too tough for someone immersed in Latin for a year. I'm a good student, a hard worker, but no Michael Ventris.

Recommendations and remonstrations are welcome.

Best,
K

[Twpsyn]

I imagine the spirit of the original poster's suggestion was to be reading some connected and unaltered Latin text, even before one is able to understand it fully without the English help, so as to be exposed to the rhythm and cadence of the period and the 'feel' of Latin idiom, & c.: a suggestion I heartily second. There's nothing special about Cicero, for this purpose; you could use Suetonius, Seneca, or Sallust with just as much benefit (though it might be a good idea to wait on the poetry until you have a grasp of metre).

[Gonzalo]

From my own experience as a beginner, I would suggest Cicero's philosophical works -mainly his Academica. I am now with LLPSI II and have no troubles with vocabulary nor comprehension either.

[pinafore]

One of my students has come up with a translation that she must have found somewhere for Capitulum V; it has "thy" in it, and other words I know she doesn't know.
Where did she find it?