There used to be a Catholic priest in Rome who taught Latin "on location" but he was fired from his university in Rome because he was allowing unpaid students to hang on. He has been ill the last couple of years but I think he would return to his old job given the chance. I would dearly love to got to Rome and learn latin "on location" but my family obligations won't permit it.
That would be famous Reginald Foster. I think he's still offering the class, perhaps from Wisconsin (where I think he is recovering from his illness). However, I think he requires that his students have completed a basic course in Latin (gotten to the point where they can read texts on their own with difficulty) before enrolling in his living Latin method.
spqr wrote:The golden question I would ask the forum members is this: Not everyone is going to translate a Latin text precisely the same but what considers whether a particular translation is in or out of correct context? Thanks, Paul.
A difficult question, for sure. There is no such thing as the perfect translation, because translation is an interpretive art that depends on the interpreter. I think a translation is valid so long as you have not actually misinterpreted the meaning of a word, grammatical construction, etc. It's possible to produce very loose translations (ones that attempt to recreate the work in a literary sense, rather than mimicking it's exact phrasing) that are in the spirit of a text rather than literal versions of it, so there's a lot of wiggle room. What's important is that you grasp exactly what the original language is trying to say, and then express that clearly in your native language.
Some people will argue that a certain translation is "too loose" or "too literal," so there's no exact cut off point. It's a matter of interpretation.
At the end of the day, if you're not sure whether your translation is legitimate, you can always ask others to see if you correctly understood the meaning of the original passage.