CLASSICAL? ECCLESIASTICAL? JEROME'S VULGATE?

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:40 pm

I was just wondering if anyone can help. I am about to take up Latin. I know Hebrew, Arabic, and Koine Greek. So, I wanted to take up Latin as well. I do want to learn Clasical Latin. However, my spiritual quest is palpable. I want to learn first how to read my Biblia Sacra Vulgata by Jerome. So which form of Latin would be best? I know Ecclesiastical is used for the Catholic Church litergy, etc. But is it the same as Jerome's Latin? And how do they differ with Classical? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks to all! Good day.
Truly,
Avraham

Deses · Post by **Deses** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:30 am

In my opinion, Latinists are fortunate in that they really deal with only one language, while Greek presents itself in several distinct dialects.

If you learn the grammar of Classical Latin you will likely be able to get through most of the later literature, as long as you pay attention to vocabulary differences and are not surprised by some grammatical irregularities. However, if you know the Bible well your familiarity with the text might prevent you from getting a good grasp of Latin per se. Not a good thing if you plan on reading something else. So, I would not rush into reading the Vulgate.

My suggestion would be to start with Latin: An Intensive Course by Rita Fleischer.

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:59 am

Great! Thanks Deses for the pointers. Much appreciated.

vir litterarum · Post by **vir litterarum** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:09 am

The Latin of the Vulgate is essentially a simpler form of Classical Latin i.e. everything is more explicit (much less indirect statement, more prepositions). If you study Latin using a classical curriculum, you will have no problem with the Vulgate save with some of the vocabulary. I will tell you, though, that the Gospels in the Vulgate are much easier to translate than some of the Pauline Epistles. I do not know if it is the content itself or just the translation, but the letters to the Corinthians were no walk in the park.

Chris Weimer · Post by **Chris Weimer** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:36 am

Hei Avraham, ma nishma? As one who embarked first for Latin, only later Greek, and afterwards Hebrew, I agree with the poster who said that learning Classical Latin first before moving onto medieval Latin is ideal. I really do recommend Wheelock's to work through, and given a Greek background, you should have no problem whatsoever.

Post by **thesaurus** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:58 pm

If I may post a complete aside, how does learning Hebrew compare with Greek and Latin? I know they are in completely different linguistic categories. How difficult is it to learn Biblical Hebrew after coming from the classical languages? I'd like to learn Hebrew after I've made substantial progress with my Latin and Greek.

Chris Weimer · Post by **Chris Weimer** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:18 pm

I'm not as far along on Hebrew as Avraham is, but since I started with Latin and Greek, I can say that it's definitely a different category than IE languages. It's not too difficult once you wrap your head around certain constructions, though.

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:16 am

Indeed, Greek and Latin are not related to Hebrew. However, Hebrew is certainly an easy language. For those of you who are linguists (I know many of you are from some fancy terms used anound here

), you will know what the term economic means. Hebrew is the most economic language I ever studied. It is simple, by nature. Though often vague in the definite Latin/Greek/English mind-set. The alphabet scares people at first. However, it is one of the two easiest alphabets I've learned (Latin doesn't count

). The second being Japanese Katagana. Once you get past the alphabet, (which theoretically, is possible to learn in a couple of days,) the rest is pretty simple. I am no expert in Greek, having just completed my Koine Grammar, but Hebrew is my specialty. And let me tell you, Greek was tough. You see, in Hebrew (and Arabic mind you), every word comes from a three letter root word. It is then possible for that 3 letter root to be conjugated into a verb, noun, adverb, adjective, future, past, present, plural, singular, masculine, feminine, et cetera. All from one simple root. Once you learn the series of verbal conjugating paradigms, you can figure out just about anything. You can, for instance, learn one root word, and instantly you know a hundred words. Can sound a little daunting, but in the end, it really comes out easier. Certainly go for it. I would suggest a Biblical Hebrew first, and then modern if desired. I started with "The First Hebrew Primer" By EKS. I've also used this as a teaching course in a couple of Hebrew classes of mine. It's designed for adults, but it is very simple and easy to use with an excelent large font. It's a Jewish publishing company. The course is not overtly religious;and I think they come from a authentic perpective for one pursuing biblical texts. Give it a try. And good luck!×ž×–×œ ×˜×•×‘â€Ž(mazel tov!)

Chris: Hakol beseder. V'atah? Oomah horicha? I'm excited about Latin. I've perused some grammars here. After Greek, Latin indeed looks easy to me.

Thanks for the pointers everyone. And good day to all!

Truly,
Avraham

vir litterarum · Post by **vir litterarum** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:14 am

Approximately how many words are contained in the lexicon of Biblical Hebrew?

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:39 am

How many words? Or shoreshim? Thant is, the root words? Hmmm...... Good question. I never counted. Let me see. One, two, three......

sorry. I am not sure. But from what I can find, it appears the ammount of root words number 2,050. Also it is important to point out that many words in Hebrew are used very infrequently, sometimes only once. Such as ROOR, the root for spitting or emitting a bodily fluid. It is used only once in the Hebrew Scriptures(no wonders

). It seems to be a concensus that despite the root numbers being at 2,050 , a knowledge of about 500 Hebrew words will allow for a standard in fluency in reading. Pretty amazing considering that once conjugated, the words in the Hebrew Old testament are supposed to number about 600,000. Good luck and good day!

Truly,
Avraham

ARCANUS IMMOTUS · Post by **ARCANUS IMMOTUS** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:25 pm

Why did I read this post, now I want to learn hebrew.

EgoIoYoEu · Post by **EgoIoYoEu** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:56 pm

ברך הו ה?דן העל?, ברך שמך ועד׃

!!!תוד ?ברה?

Erich · Post by **Erich** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:54 pm

Hi all
Greetings from Spain.

The Vulgata is written in Vulgar Latin, but if you study Classical Latin it will be easier to understand Vulgar Latin , also called Later Latin.

But if you begin with Vulgar Latin it will be more difficult for reading classical texts.

Deses · Post by **Deses** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:45 pm

Erich wrote: The Vulgata is written in Vulgar Latin, but if you study Classical Latin it will be easier to understand Vulgar Latin , also called Later Latin.

I must disagree with such a use of the term Vulgar Latin.

Chris Weimer · Post by **Chris Weimer** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:57 pm

Deses wrote:
Erich wrote: The Vulgata is written in Vulgar Latin, but if you study Classical Latin it will be easier to understand Vulgar Latin , also called Later Latin.
I must disagree with such a use of the term Vulgar Latin.

Why?

Deses · Post by **Deses** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:16 pm

Chris Weimer wrote:
Deses wrote:
Erich wrote: The Vulgata is written in Vulgar Latin, but if you study Classical Latin it will be easier to understand Vulgar Latin , also called Later Latin.
I must disagree with such a use of the term Vulgar Latin.
Why?

The term Vulgar Latin often circumscribes the many varieties of spoken Latin (including the everyday language of classical times). Jerome's writings are influenced by the changing linguistic situation, but his Latin still tends to follow literary patterns. It is hardly the spoken language of his time.

Chris Weimer · Post by **Chris Weimer** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:47 pm

Deses wrote:The term Vulgar Latin often circumscribes the many varieties of spoken Latin (including the everyday language of classical times). Jerome's writings are influenced by the changing linguistic situation, but his Latin still tends to follow literary patterns. It is hardly the spoken language of his time.

Care to support this assertion?

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:34 pm

EgoIoYoEu:
"ב?מת ברוך ה

Sorry guys. I ended up going with Ecclesiastical Latin. One of the reasons was, is that it did not seem quite as extensive as Classical Latin. And with my work on Hebrew, Arabic, and Koine greek, I was scared of a new, hard language. However, fear not. I got a really cool Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar, first year, from this Franciscan Monk. It's really easy. I'm already 30% finished with it! It is coming along great! My latin is now the easiest grammar I'm doing. Of course, probably because there are a lot of words that english derived from, some similar to Greek, and just already working on grammars surely helps. The only thing is, every sentance in Ecclesiastical Latin talks about Mary (id est: Deus Mariae gratia magna dat? I I got tha right...). But I'm open-minded and enjoy all people's beliefs. But instead of taking the 2nd year, I think I will then just go into both Classical Latin and Greek. They should be a tad easier after Ecclesiastical Latin and Koine Greek. I should be done with this one in just a couple weeks. Thanks all!

Maybe instead of Vulgar Latin we can just call it Innapropriate Latin?

Chris Weimer · Post by **Chris Weimer** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:50 am

Aw, shucks, you really should have gone into regular Latin. Ecclesiastical Latin is Medieval, and I didn't think you were into Medieval studies.

cantator · Post by **cantator** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:31 pm

AVRAHAM wrote:Maybe instead of Vulgar Latin we can just call it Innapropriate Latin?

Oooh, them's fightin' words around here.

Suggested reading will most definitely include J. Herman's "Vulgar Latin", it's a very good introduction to the development of Latin at its popular roots.

I suspect that you already know that modern language studies classify archaic Latin, classical Latin, late Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, Medieval Latin, and vulgar Latin. Classical Latin is usually held to be the normative form of the language, even though it is obviously a highly artificed form.

Btw, certainly one of the main reasons to start with Classical Latin is the sheer bulk of available material (and not only from the Classical period: much Renaissance and later Latin directly models itself after the classical style and practice).

Deses · Post by **Deses** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:12 pm

Chris Weimer wrote:
Deses wrote:The term Vulgar Latin often circumscribes the many varieties of spoken Latin (including the everyday language of classical times). Jerome's writings are influenced by the changing linguistic situation, but his Latin still tends to follow literary patterns. It is hardly the spoken language of his time.
Care to support this assertion?

See Wikipedia (mostly based on Palmer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin

The name "vulgar" simply means "common"; it is derived from the Latin word vulgaris, meaning "common", or "of the people". "Vulgar Latin" has a variety of meanings to Latinists:

1. It means variation within Latin (socially, geographically, and chronologically) that differs from the perceived Classical literary standard. As such, it typically excludes the language of the more educated, upper-classes which, although it does include variation, comes closest to the perceived standard.
2. It means the spoken Latin of the Roman Empire. Classical Latin represents the literary register of Latin. It represented a selection from a variety of available spoken forms. The Latin brought by Roman soldiers to Gaul, Iberia or Dacia was not identical to the Latin of Cicero, and differed from it in vocabulary, syntax, and grammar.[1] By this definition, Vulgar Latin was a spoken language and "late" Latin was used for writing, its general style being slightly different from earlier "classic" standards.
3. It means the hypothetical ancestor of the Romance languages ("Proto-Romance"). This is a language which cannot be directly known apart from through a few graffiti inscriptions; it was Latin that had undergone a number of important sound shifts and changes, which can be reconstructed from the changes that are evident in its descendants, the Romance vernaculars.
4. In an even more restrictive sense, the name Vulgar Latin is sometimes given to the hypothetical proto-Romance of the Western Romance languages: the vernaculars found north and west of the La Spezia-Rimini Line, France, and the Iberian peninsula; and the poorly attested Romance speech of northwestern Africa. According to this hypothesis, southeastern Italian, Romanian, and Dalmatian developed separately.
5. "Vulgar Latin" is sometimes used to describe the grammatical innovations found in a number of late Latin texts, such as the fourth century Itinerarium Egeriae, Egeria's account of her journey to Palestine and Mt. Sinai; or the works of St Gregory of Tours. Since written documentation of Vulgar Latin forms is scarce; these works are valuable to philologists mainly because of the occasional presence of variations or errors in spelling that provide some evidence of spoken usage during the period in which they were written.[1]

Clearly, this is not a term one should just throw in without explanation. Item 2 is my personal preference, as you might notice. The statement "Jerome wrote in Vulgar Latin" does not fit well any of the definitions listed. Hence my objection. Frankly, it was meant as a commonplace remark.

strider · Post by **strider** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:07 am

I just started reading this thread on a whim, and found it most
edifying. Todah to you all.

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am

Okay. I wrapped up Ecclesiastical Latin. After Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, Latin is pretty easy. Well, Ecclesiastical at least. So now I move on to Classical. I have some gret books from here downloaded. However, I want a physical book also, that I can take anywhere. But, sadly, right now I cannot even afford a little Classical Latin Grammar. But I got one donated to me. It is from the 1950's. Old I know. But Latin is a little older so it can't be too off. It's called "Latin for Americans". The term "American" scared me at first. But it just means it shows a lot of similarities in our gevernment as Rome. Okay, cool. It appears to be a High School book perhaps. I've heard bad things about them, but it seems cool. I can do tons of lessons a day out of it, so it's not bad. But today I read something shocking. I was wondering if anyone had any input on it. It is especially shocking, considering my languages I've already studied. It said that Latin was originally a Semitic language. That it started out very similar to Hebrew, then the Greeks took it and added written vowels, and ultimately, the Romans modified it to what we know today. Is this true? Forgive my ignorance on this topic. And as always, your input is most appreciated.
In Truth,
Avraham

cantator · Post by **cantator** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:25 pm

AVRAHAM wrote:Okay. I wrapped up Ecclesiastical Latin.

Mirabile dictu. Velox velociter discens.

... [an undefined reference] said that Latin was originally a Semitic language. That it started out very similar to Hebrew, then the Greeks took it and added written vowels, and ultimately, the Romans modified it to what we know today. Is this true?

Not to my knowledge. And your source is ... ?

Voxforascausa · Post by **Voxforascausa** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:03 pm

Latin originated in an area of Italy named Latium as far as every source I have read about the subject has said.

modus.irrealis · Post by **modus.irrealis** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:33 pm

AVRAHAM wrote:It said that Latin was originally a Semitic language. That it started out very similar to Hebrew, then the Greeks took it and added written vowels, and ultimately, the Romans modified it to what we know today.

That does sound, though, like some garbled version of the history of the Latin alphabet, and it's not uncommon for the language to be confused with the standard way it's written. Maybe that explains it, because otherwise, yeah, it makes no sense.

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:07 pm

I do remember learning as a kid, something about language or writing originating in Phoenicia. But, as you can see, it is a wild claim. That's why I brought it up. Thanks for your input!

ÓBuadhaigh · Post by **ÓBuadhaigh** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:31 pm

I agree with modus.irrealis; this sounds more like a potted history of the Roman alphabet, than an account of the development of the language. It's amazing how as children we latch on to things which stay with us even though they are only half-truths

SeÃ¡n

Chris Weimer · Post by **Chris Weimer** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:42 pm

AVRAHAM wrote:I do remember learning as a kid, something about language or writing originating in Phoenicia. But, as you can see, it is a wild claim. That's why I brought it up. Thanks for your input!

The Greeks got their alphabet from Phoenicia.

Chris Weimer · Post by **Chris Weimer** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:44 pm

Sed, Avraham, tecum Latine loqui possum? Intelligasne?

tee_eff_em · Post by **tee_eff_em** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:20 am

Chris Weimer wrote:
AVRAHAM wrote:I do remember learning as a kid, something about language or writing originating in Phoenicia. But, as you can see, it is a wild claim. That's why I brought it up. Thanks for your input!
The Greeks got their alphabet from Phoenicia.

cf. Cecil Adams's The Straight Dope on the question: Why is the alphabet in alphabetical order?

tee

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:52 am

Ah, so then it seems that Latin indeed does have a semitic origin. Very interesting. Thank you all. It is most fascinating. However, this is only the alphabet then? No relation with the language itself?

Chris: ahhh.... Ego possum lego Latine. Non bona. Sorry. I think I just angered the Roman gods. I can read better. And Ecclesiastical is of course, RC stuff. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus. Nunc et in ora mortis nostrae. Shoot. Think I just angered them even worse. I'll get there on my Latin. I'm doing classical now at least. Hopefully by the time I finish this, I can afford a real grammar

Chris Weimer · Post by **Chris Weimer** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:46 am

AVRAHAM wrote:Ah, so then it seems that Latin indeed does have a semitic origin. Very interesting. Thank you all. It is most fascinating. However, this is only the alphabet then? No relation with the language itself?

Yes, only the alphabet, not the language itself. There are a couple of words from Latin, but only from borrowings.

Chris: ahhh.... Ego possum lego Latine. Non bona. Sorry. I think I just angered the Roman gods. I can read better. And Ecclesiastical is of course, RC stuff. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus. Nunc et in ora mortis nostrae. Shoot. Think I just angered them even worse. I'll get there on my Latin. I'm doing classical now at least. Hopefully by the time I finish this, I can afford a real grammar

A real grammar is quite a nice thing. Have you looked into Wheelocks? (or hardcover)

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:46 am

Ah, looks very good. Thank you. The example texts all taken from Classical writings. Has to be the hard cover of course. To this bibliophile paperback is a sacrilege. Only $20. also. Even this poor monk could afford that. Well, soon hopefully. I almost bought it last night with my debit card. My usual reasoning is "who needs food anyhow, your just going to get rid of in a few hours, but knowledge, you can keep that forever". We all heard of starving artists, but when are they going to coin the phrase "starving scholar"

So, you have used this then? And how long ago was it? Also, how many grammars, etc. for Latin have you done since? To me, it seems like it would not take all too much to be able to read ancient texts. How much does it? Just curious. Hebrew for instance was only the equivalent of a semester. After that, it's just a matter of amassing additional vocabulary. Thanks again. I'll be coming at you with Latin in no time. You work on the Hebrew

Anyone else's input on their study ammount is appreciated also. Mind you, not because I don't have patience, that I have. But rather, because I want to know what resourses I'll be looking at. Grammars, Lexicons, et cetera. Latin is going to soon take the dominate role in my grammatical studies (as I'm finally finishing the rest).

Post by **thesaurus** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:30 am

Here are my thoughts on Wheelock if you're interested:

I worked through that copy of Wheelock's in an Accelerated Latin course at my University over the summer. Out of the 40 chapters, we covered 30 in 6 weeks. I quickly covered the last 10 on my own. I'm told that in the previous year they managed to get through all 40. This gave me a very good grounding in classical Latin. I'm still learning as I've move through the regularly paced second year courses, but I find that I definitely knew at least as much as the other second year students who took two semesters.

The course itself is very straight-forward and useful. Wheelock moves you systematically through the bulk of the grammar. His explanations are clear and useful, and he gives you plenty of interesting and fun opportunities to put what you've learned to use. The body and format of the hardcover book are excellent.

I'm quite surprised by the speed at which you progressed through the ecclesiastical grammar. You could probably do the same thing with Wheelock's, though there is quite a bit to take in... mostly memorizing declensions and conjugations. Work-wise, I'd estimate that for the six week class, in addition to the two hours of in-class time five days a week, I spent from 2-3 hours per night doing homework/studying. That would make about 20-25 hours of Latin a week... like a part-time job. Kept me busy that summer. Nota Bene: this was the first foreign language I've studied in earnest, so you'll surely need less time.

As for multiple grammars, I've really only used Wheelock's. The regularly paced classes used the Oxford Latin Course, and we used part of Book III at the beginning of the semester. I don't think it covered much beyond Wheelock's, though. So it's possible to jump straight from Wheelock's into authentic Latin. I'd advise this, as it will probably hone your skills faster than a grammar. I find it prepared me well for Caesar last semester, and while Vergil this semester has been a struggle, I've gotten the hang of him.

On a side note, it seems you're quite dedicated when it comes to your language studies. Are these all for Biblical research? As someone hoping to pursue similar goals, may I ask about your background?

edonnelly · Post by **edonnelly** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:28 pm

thesaurus wrote: but I find that I definitely knew at least as much as the other second year students who took two semesters.

I once looked around for university courses that had a syllabus online, to see how much of Wheelock's they would cover in a semester or a year. I don't think I came upon any that got through the whole book in a year. It seemed like most were set up to do about 15 chapters a semester, but if they had their actual progress they'd get through a little less than that.

AVRAHAM · Post by **AVRAHAM** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:25 pm

It sounds very good Thesaurus. Quite encouraging. From the sound of it, it may be easy enough, not too long, and not to many books. Of course, purchasing a lexicon will come. And some ancient texts..... But nothing to worry about for now. I have to always say, Hebrew was very easy to me. Greek, very hard. But getting over Greek (Koine), the Latin I have done so far, has been pretty simple. Though what I have done, I know is not as intense perhaps. So it seems I am just about sold on Wheelock's. As for studying for Biblical research?(for those who don't know about me)Well, it's hard to anwer that without religious cannotations. My personal main focus is on the Hebrew and now Greek Scriptures. However, I am not "religious". I am a spiritual person. but I am not a part of a church, mosque, or synagogue. Though I do associate with a few. I was raised Catholic in New York. 6 days a week of mass. Then as I grew I became a philosoper and secular humanist. Then I adopted the belief's of my mother's side of the family- Judaism. Of which I became Orthodox- Chasid. Ever since I was a child, I have had a deep love of other religions, cultures, and languages. To me, studying the ancient Latin and Greek texts, for example, is spiritual. Not that I may agree with everything, nor that everything in them is spiritual based. But it is where western society and thought comes from. Much is to be learned from them. So, I hold no base of dogmas. I am very spiritual. But I am still a philosopher. I make sure not to allow faith or philosophy to inhibit the other. But I harmonize them. So they both grow together.

(As far as formal academic education, I am not ashamed to admit, I have none. I admire those who can and do accomplish such. However, it has not been my lot in life. I've attempted to go to college twice now. I just simply cannot fit working to pay my bills in around my regular school schedule. Nor am I able to pay for the tuition. I'm in that income bracket, where I don't make enough money to survive AND attend college. Though I make too much money to receive financial aid. What I have learned, has either been self taught, or in religious institutions. I learned Hebrew at Shul in Synagogue [and taught it for several years there], and Arabic in the Madrasa, at the Masjid. I work on Koine Greek with Eastern Orthodox, and establishing such with the Catholic for Ecclesiastical Latin. I stay fairly academic in my research, though I admit, at times the spiritual overtones are palpable. )

ÓBuadhaigh · Post by **ÓBuadhaigh** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:25 pm

I did Wheelock's at Glasgow University, Scotland. The whole book was indeed covered in the three terms of first year, as was a portion of Ovid's Metamorphoses a few other things. The late Paul Jeffreys-Powell took no prisoners, but was also a wonderfully kind and competent lecturer.

By the end of second year (I didn't do second year Latin, more's the pity), a student was expected to be eligible to sit for the Blackstone Medal, if they so chose. This consisted in studying additional set texts and being examined on them *publicly* viva voce in Latin

Glasgow 1993: I wonder if standards have deteriorated there to the extent you describe. I do remember that of the twenty-five first year students, only one passed the entrance exam for Latin A, and all the rest whether or not they had Higher Latin from school were placed in the Latin B - Beginners group. The single A - Group student had been tutored privately in some South Pacific island and was not the product of the education system...

SeÃ¡n

Post by **thesaurus** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:47 pm

Sean, I'm currently studying abroad for the semester at the University of Glasgow. I'm in Latin 2B, which is the second year course. We are doing Aeneid IV and Ovid's Metaphorphoses III (?). I wouldn't say that modern education has "slipped". Perhaps some of us aren't as studious as we should be when it comes to memorizing our conjugations etc., but my has seemed very dedicated.

I'll have you know that the Blackstone chair has been revived. Granted, I just learned about it for the first time, since I'm new here. Apparently the chair is kept in the Hunterian Museum, but they are getting special permission to use it for the event. Someone from my class (of eight) will be sitting for it. I'll be witnessing the event, and maybe I can get some footage of it for Texkit. There will be jeering and heckling crowds and a panel of ruthless Latin professors harassing the poor man. It should be spectacular.

Devyn · Post by **Devyn** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:44 pm

One of the videos from Devyn 's collection
http://i-love-anal.info/videos/mediapla ... ile=185907

Textkit Greek and Latin Forums

CLASSICAL? ECCLESIASTICAL? JEROME'S VULGATE?

CLASSICAL? ECCLESIASTICAL? JEROME'S VULGATE?

Re: CLASSICAL? ECCLESIASTICAL? JEROME'S VULGATE?