Page 2 of 2

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 2:30 pm
by Episcopus
'what he means to say', ben was it wrong? just a quick spur of moment thing i didn't realise it would cause all this!<br /><br />copia = an abundance, or plenty...like here we say an abundance of ... that makes the noun genitive.<br /><br />ie. est in ludo inopia puellarum pulchrarum. <br /><br />there is = est <br />in ludo = in school (in +abl) -us = o <br />inopia = lack of (not an abundance of)<br />puellarum pulchrarum = of pretty(s) girls<br /><br />I think! hey i'm just practising too. I'm moving way slower than you mariek, on p61. I have so many other things to do!<br /><br /><br />whenever did a rant against wheelcock become an opportunity to express pleasure about an abundance of grain?

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:10 pm
by mariek
I noticed on the left side, you have written, "est in mea casa copia frumenti anna kournikovaeque". Let me try translating that :<br /> In my cottage, there is an abundance of Anna Kournikova-ish wheat.<br /><br />Methinks you're smoking too much of that frumenti... ;D<br />

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:30 pm
by Episcopus
[quote author=mariek link=board=3;threadid=53;start=30#1508 date=1058465401]<br />I noticed on the left side, you have written, "est in mea casa copia frumenti anna kournikovaeque". Let me try translating that :<br /> In my cottage, there is an abundance of Anna Kournikova-ish wheat.<br /><br />Methinks you're smoking too much of that frumenti... ;D<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br /> ::) I wonder, smoked the romans at all? <br /><br />Have you come across the -que thing yet (forgot special word for it). It goes on the end of another noun to mean 'and'. <br /><br />B.L.D "arma telaque" = arms and weapons.<br /><br />arma, arms .n. telum, offensive weapon .n.<br /><br />i made kournikova 1st declension because 1st declension is pretty ;D<br /><br />3rd declension looks nasty. at a glance.

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 7:27 pm
by mariek
Nope, haven't encountered the -que thing yet ... which is why I thought it meant "ish". Now that you've told me that it means "and", I reread your sentence (est in mea casa copia frumenti anna kournikovaeque) and think you meant to say :<br /><br /> In my cottage, there is an abundance of wheat and Anna Kournikova.<br /><br />It's odd how the "-que" goes at the end of the second noun it's linking.<br /><br /> A and B ==> A B-que<br />

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 7:33 pm
by Episcopus
It is, and I see not the difference between -que and et; there are so many words with que in that another option with -que meaning and only makes it worse!

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2003 10:36 pm
by benissimus
The words that already have "-que" on the end (i.e. quoque, ubique, quisque... but not like "eque") have it because it actually does mean "and" but it's been assimilated into a compound word. <br /><br />quoque means "also", but literally "and by what"<br />ubique means "everywhere", but literally "and where"<br />quisque means "to each", but literally "and who"<br /><br />Both et and -que, as well as atque (another compound word), all have different connotations of "and" which don't exist in English.<br /><br />et is close to meaning with "and" or "even" or "too"<br />-que means pretty much the same thing as et, but in certain phrases it's better to think of it as "all around"<br />atque/ac is a more intensive alternative, but it usually translated as "and" for lack of a better word.<br /><br />Try to keep in mind little nuances in meaning. Texts aren't always going to tell you about them, you have to figure them out!

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:27 pm
by Milito
I got nailed by that -que thing on an assignment last term.... there is no difference between et and -que, except that -que tends to link things that are closely related, and is only used (and this is where I got nailed, 'cause I didn't realize it mattered) after a short syllable. (Gonna have to check on that again...... since I had to look it up before deciding if it was long or short, and I start the next course in September!)<br /><br />Kilmeny

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:33 pm
by mariek
<br />Wow, so many shades of "and". How do you pick up on all these nuances?<br /><br />Interesting bit about how -que is only used after a short syllable. So that means it was OK for Epis to say "Kournakovaeque".<br /><br />

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:58 pm
by benissimus
Hmm... typically dipthongs are regarded as long, so that you mention it...<br /><br />Oh well, worry about the big rules, then throw in the exceptions. I certainly don't know all of those little details.

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:04 pm
by Episcopus
it sounds not totally right 'kournikovaeque but better than et kournikova' <br /><br />I would have thought it to sound better after a long...<br /><br />i.e cum gall:in:is Gale:a'que<br />

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 4:31 am
by benissimus
I too...

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:27 pm
by Milito
[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=53;start=45#1611 date=1058616282]<br />it sounds not totally right 'kournikovaeque but better than et kournikova' <br /><br />I would have thought it to sound better after a long...<br /><br />i.e cum gall:in:is Gale:a'que<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />Well, as I say, I have to go dig up that assignment and re-check on which of the long/short option it was.................. And fairly quickly, as I discover that I'm going to be learning about Latin satirists in their original words (ie: Latin) to the tune of about 1580 lines worth over 4 months...... and I'm supposed to be sending in tapes of Latin I'm reading, so apparently I'm going to have to pay more attention to pronounciation, since I doubt that my prof will accept "I speak Latin with a weird Canadian accent"................<br /><br />Kilmeny

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:33 pm
by Episcopus
heh that 70s show 'canadians don't matter' ;D

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 4:11 pm
by Milito
[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=53;start=45#1716 date=1058801616]<br />heh that 70s show 'canadians don't matter' ;D<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Oh, you've stepped in it now! My last name is 'Jones', so you're picking on Welsh Canadians! ;D <br /><br />(Although I have to admit that we haven't yet managed to figure out where Wales comes into the background.......)<br /><br />Kilmeny

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:06 pm
by Episcopus
[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=53;start=45#1729 date=1058803874]<br />[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=53;start=45#1716 date=1058801616]<br />heh that 70s show 'canadians don't matter' ;D<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Oh, you've stepped in it now! My last name is 'Jones', so you're picking on Welsh Canadians! ;D <br /><br />(Although I have to admit that we haven't yet managed to figure out where Wales comes into the background.......)<br /><br />Kilmeny<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Jones, Davies, Williams and one's random pakistani name make up 95% of the names round here!<br /><br />It pleases me that you watch a stupidly funny show that constantly insults your people without justification! I find it funny myself but I know not wherefore! Know you why, in the 70s, americans mocked canadians? <br />

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:51 pm
by benissimus
Americans always mock Canadians, mostly due to Southpark.

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2003 6:56 am
by mariek
I don't understand why we (Americans) make fun of the Canadians. Why do we do that? I know someone who always refers to Canadians as "our b*tch up north".

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:08 pm
by Milito
Ah, Canadians tend to slam Americans a lot, too. I think it's a case of an inferiority complex of some sort...... Americans know EXACTLY who they are, and Canadians are still quibbling over what it is to be really Canadian............... Maybe we'll feel better once we figure out what we are........<br /><br />Kilmeny<br /><br />(A Canadian with a lot of American relatives......)

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:49 pm
by Episcopus
well i prefer canadians to trucking americans...but I suppose it's due to the general worldwide hatred of america (and no! it's not jealousy of your glorious 'fatherland'!)

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:35 pm
by benissimus
No need to be so provincialistic. Americans are the same as everybody else, with various opinions. It's a fallacy to judge the individual by the group behavior, especially if your judgment is only based on popularity.

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:42 pm
by Episcopus
I agree, but I am ignorant.<br /><br />

Re:Rant against Wheelock's Latin

Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2003 2:56 pm
by Milito
[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=53;start=45#1832 date=1058913315]<br />No need to be so provincialistic. Americans are the same as everybody else, with various opinions. It's a fallacy to judge the individual by the group behavior, especially if your judgment is only based on popularity.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />You're 100% correct. In fact, one of the reasons I get fairly choked at Canadians who slam Americans is that Canadians and Americans are virtually indistinguishable..... except in winter, when the Canadians (who stay home) wear warmer clothes........... I drove from Winnipeg down to the outskirts of Chicago earlier this year to visit my brother, and found that the drivers through North Dakota, Minnisota, Wisconsin and Illinois were probably the most polite I've ever encountered anywhere, and I've driven (though not all at once.....) all the way across Canada (less about 400 miles from the middle of British Columbia to the coast.....) I'd happily do that drive again - driving in/around Minneapolis/St Pauls, even with massive construction, was a breeze compared to Toronto, let alone Montreal!!<br /><br />Kilmeny (still pushing for a posting to Alaska........)

Thank you

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:03 pm
by Jefferson Cicero
Thank you, Elucubrator! You have answered many questions for me. I also bought Wheelock (4th ed.) as a first timer. It was the only Latin grammar I could find at the time. I haven't really noticed any political correctness in the fourth ed., but I supposed it has gotten worse with each newer edition since.

Your criticisms of Wheelock are something I can vouch for. Even though I found Wheelock to be well suited to my needs at the time, I was a little dumbfounded because, after completing the book, it just seemed that I didn't know enough latin yet, and I knew I wasn't ready for any very difficult reading at all. This was why I was looking around for other textbooks when I found textkit.

I suppose that some of the problems with Wheelock come from the way it originated, which is explained in the introduction (mimeographed lessons designed for people who only needed enough Latin to help them in their legal or medical studies). It wasn't originally intended as a systematic grammar.

I will check out the intensive courses, Latin and Greek both.

:?: Now, two questions: What do you think of Gildersleeve's Latin grammar?

and: What about Crosby and Shaeffer's 'Introduction to Greek'?

I dont know much about Gildersleeve, but Crosby and Schaeffer was recommended by a very well respected classics scholar whose review of the book I read. It seems well suited to my needs, though I don't have time for it now.

The same scholar who recommended Crosby and Schaeffer lamented that some colleges take !!!four years???!!! to get through Wheelock!!! What's going on here? I would rather not study Latin at all than sit through four years of Wheelock and not know any more than it teaches!

JfCc

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:57 pm
by klewlis
Alright, I'm 1.5 lessons away from finishing Wheelock...

Is it worth it to buy M&F at this point for review and more indepth instruction?

And how come everyone says the binding always falls apart? For $40 can't they make the binding better? Are there any editions without this problem? I don't want my book falling apart.

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:32 pm
by benissimus
My class is going through M&F right now, having finished Wheelock, but there is a lot of repetition. I would probably rather not be doing this, so I'm doing a lot of work on the side. You will probably only learn about 1-3 new things each chapter until you get to the last few, although the quantity of exercises will pretty much ensure that you understand whatever you were unclear of previously.

And yes... my Wheelock book is delapidated, and so is everyone else's in my class!

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 7:35 pm
by klewlis
benissimus wrote:My class is going through M&F right now, having finished Wheelock, but there is a lot of repetition. I would probably rather not be doing this, so I'm doing a lot of work on the side. You will probably only learn about 1-3 new things each chapter until you get to the last few, although the quantity of exercises will pretty much ensure that you understand whatever you were unclear of previously.

And yes... my Wheelock book is delapidated, and so is everyone else's in my class!


Oh, I meant that everyone says the M&F binding falls apart all the time, not wheelock. my wheelock has actually held up pretty well, even though I take it to work and coffee shops and everywhere else. :P

well maybe I don't bother with M&F then... I will finish up wheelock and then work on the extra readings and some of the resources here at textkit.

Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:08 am
by benissimus
If you want to become really knowledgeable about Latin you will probably have to pick up a more advanced book anyway, or else you're going to have to flip through a grammar every time you come to something Wheelock didn't cover. It might be good to quickly go through the chapters of M&F, unless you want to study A&G like me ;) There's always learning from literacy, but that can be frustrating and you might not know what you are overlooking.

Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:29 pm
by klewlis
benissimus wrote:If you want to become really knowledgeable about Latin you will probably have to pick up a more advanced book anyway, or else you're going to have to flip through a grammar every time you come to something Wheelock didn't cover. It might be good to quickly go through the chapters of M&F, unless you want to study A&G like me ;) There's always learning from literacy, but that can be frustrating and you might not know what you are overlooking.


Yes, and I will likely do that in the future... for now I just want to focus on reading, partly for the sake of my finances ;)

Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:01 pm
by elduce
Inquit Trevor, "me vides?". Iterum, "me vides?". "Tum quis vides? Sum solus hic."

De foro...
Pulso. Pulso.
1:"Quis est?"
2:"Caesar."
1:"Caesar qui?"
Pulso. Pulso.
1:"Quis est?"
2:"Caesar."
1:"Caesar qui?"
Pulso. Pulso.
1:"Quis est!"
2:"Horace."
1:"Horace qui!?"
1:"Gaudesne quod Caesarem non dixi?"