Hello folks - lurking for a while, brand new as a poster to this wonderful forum.
I have tried to find some fairly consistent experience points, but as I haven't actually seen too much on this, here goes.
I really desire to read both Homeric Greek and Latin, as I tire of reading some much-beloved authors in translation. My "Greek" plan, using Pharr, is to gain some fluency with Homer, then Hesiod, then Lyric poets (Beginning with Alcman and Sappho), then onto Euripides, Plato and Herodotus.
I also have, and have begun, working through Wheelock's Latin. I find the Latin just takes root much more easily than my early work on Pharr; I suppose some of that must be my fluency in modern French, and perhaps the notion of inflection itself isn't all that foreign to me, having had some exposure to inflected languages previously (some Anglo-Saxon, and German).
My question is this - and I'm sorry if this has been asked, and I just missed it: As an auto-didact, does anyone have any specific experience trying both Pharr and Wheelock simultaneously? I should add that as a child, language acquisition was fairly easy, and some of that facility has been retained - though I definitely have slowed, some, as I near middle age.
I have seen various opinions from "never - acquire Latin first, then Homeric Greek," to "no issue," to "no issue - but get a bit of Latin started (say, 6 months), before doing both simultaneously.
I am torn, as there is so much of both I eagerly and badly wish to read. On the other hand, if there is an obvious pedagogical downside, I'd appreciate the experiences of others more advanced than myself.
(also posting this in the Wheelock forum....sorry for the double-post, but as it applies to both texts, I was hopeful someone from either world will have tried this, and had some thoughts.)