Hi Textkit! I am sorry if this question was already asked here, of if it is not suited for this board at all (I tried some googling, but surely there was not lots of interesting stuff regarding this). Two or three months ago I started reading the first volume of (the Italian edition of) Ἀθήνᾱζε, coming from no previous knowledge of Greek. I think I would enjoy diving a bit more into the study of grammatical subtleties, and sooner or later I think I’m gonna buy a grammar.
I’m actually already skimming a copy of the CGCS, but I am wondering about the right methodology to cope with (reference?) works of this kind.
How does one read a grammar textbook? My approach is (not in order) 1) to follow the order of presentation of the material my reader indirectly offers (for example, say that I am reading or I’ve just finished the chapter where the second/first declension is taught: then I go to the grammar brick-looking book and read the related parts); 2) to pick something that takes my curiosity, and start to digressing in all kinds of things I will forgot two days later.
I was puzzled by this question when thinking that grammars were written well before readers like Ἀθήνᾱζε appeared. To me, it seems quite hard to read, say, the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek by following an ascending monotone order, starting from the phonology chapter up to syntax and semantics; but this is what the authors seem to suggest in the preface! (That book is lovingly well cross-referenced, though).
Don’t! At least that’s one answer - you’ll get many, I’m sure. In my opinion at least, at two or three months into Athenaze, “reading” a grammar (you said “grammar textbook”, but you obviously realize that Smyth, CGCG, etc. are not textbooks but works of reference) isn’t going to help you learn to read Greek, because you don’t have the experience yet to make any use of the “grammatical subtleties” you refer to. The notion really violates the learning theory behind Athenaze in the first place.
I would get yourself the CGCG (if that’s the grammar of your choice) and sure, familiarize yourself with its structure and style enough that you can consult it handily at the appropriate time, and sure, try your approach (1) if you can’t resist, and see what it does for you. But for now I wouldn’t let myself get distracted from a more or less singular focus on Athenaze.
But then again I don’t know what your goals are in studying Greek and where your particular interests lie. I’m curious, do you find the grammatical coverage in Athenaze insufficient for teaching you how to read Greek, or is the coverage just fine for that purpose but you just happen to like studying grammar in some depth for its own sake (as I do, sometimes)?
Regarding the grammar textbook, I think I misused this word. I’m not a native speaker, you’re right when you say that a textbook is more properly a pedagogically oriented work. This was in fact not what I had in mind. (A grammar book that would present names and verbs in the same chapter would be horrible, or at least difficult to pick as “reference”!).
Actually “both”, but I would say I’m more in the mood for the latter. I found, for example, the first three or four chapters of Ἀθήνᾱζε A, were the authors start introducing the a-declension, quite overwhelming before reading about the difference between the declension of feminine nouns ending in η/(long) α and (short) α. But this is just related about how my memory works (I need a bit of structuralism).
Other than that I just happen to like grammar, which I never studied officially and formally at a reasonable good level (Greek, obviously, but nor English nor my own).
Then certainly do what you already did with the η/α endings of feminine nouns: continue with Athenaze but consult the grammar book when you’d like a more thorough presentation of the grammatical point.
One point. As you know, when we talk about “grammar”, there’s a big difference between memorizing the forms (noun declensions and verb conjugations), which is relatively mechanical, and comprehending the syntax. When you talk about “grammatical subtleties”, I am thinking more of syntax, and in the early stages of learning Greek (or Latin), I think you could really drive yourself to distraction trying to master the subtleties of, say, the optative mood in Greek, or cum clauses in Latin, beyond what Miraglia/Bórri or Ørberg, in their wisdom, present.
But, hey, amico mio, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know! In a previous post you asked a question about a difficult passage in the Aeneid and received a very detailed discussion from some of our best experts on Textkit. That was very advanced “grammar”, if you will (the passage itself in Virgil and the discussion about it)! If you found the discussion interesting and helpful, as I did, fantastico!