I’m going through Nutting’s Primer, doing the English into Latin exercises as well, my first try at composition.
I find word order difficult. I’ve looked at a few grammar books. It’s still difficult. Anyone out there who knows a particularly good source for word order?
It would be more useful for you to read good Latin texts until word order becomes natural.
I’m looking for some basic rules which work say 80% of the time, that when I write I can take an educated guess at the correct order.
Regarding the English to Latin exercises, since I am the one who composed the Latin sentences in the key that you are most likely using, I can tell you that the word order is usually the standard subject-object-verb. Any variation from that order is arbitrary.
Thanks Bedwere for the good reference. The author writes clearly and doesn’t assume too much. I’m considering printing the entire PDF, even if the Greek part will be wasted on me.
Yes Nesrad I’m gratefully using what is probably your key. Having done both Wheelock’s and Lingua Latina, I find Nutting has some advantages over both of them. Dividing the grammar into 72 chapters (rather than 40 or 36), just one grammatical point per chapter, then pounding it in with plenty of exercises, works well.
Also, limiting the vocabulary that it shouldn’t get in the way of learning basic syntax is a good idea.
Welcome! I made an edition on Lulu, should you want a paperback:
Prof. Harrington of Tufts posted his “Syntax of Ancient Latin Grammar” on Github. It’s great. You can find it by going to Github and searching for “Harrington.” Once I’m off noob probation, I will post a link.
I checked Github, searched for Harrington, but didn’t find the title you suggested among the many Harrington possibilities.
Any way to narrow the search?
I’m sure that you mean any variation from the word order in your answer key is arbitrary, since the word order elected by ancient authors would be far from arbitrary.
Pin130,
Good afternoon. I sent you a PM with a link to Prof. Harrington’s syntax guide on Github. I’ll post the link here later.
V/R,
HumilisAuditor
Also, Prof. Dexter Hoyos has a very good book, How to Read Latin Fluently. The book contains his 10 Basic Rules for Reading Latin, which addresses word order. The rules themselves were posted with Prof. Hoyos’s permission at LatinTeach dot SeeOhEm. You could probably find his used book online or there’s also a pdf of his book floating around the internet.
Thanks for the links. I’ve printed out both pdf’s. They both look of interest. I’m presently working through M&F’s Latin Intensive
which is taking up all my language-spare-moments. The grammar therein is concise but clear.
Do you have much experience reading (and are just now coming to composition) or are you just new to Latin in general, self-teaching and think composition is a good way to start?
If the latter - I don’t disagree but I think (as bedwere maybe implied?) you should banish any consideration for word-order from your head. Just reading that answer key should make some of the principles its author used implicitly clear (including SVO, but not just that - I haven’t seen it but no doubt if the author read some Latin he was instinctively influenced to produce Latin in accordance with it to at least an extent - you’ll be able to absorb some basics for sure); and for the time being just trust you don’t need any more accuracy. In general reading Latin is the way for a beginner to get that 80% grasp on word-order. In fact, it’s for the remaining 20% that it’s worth turning to material written on Latin word-order.
You will find until you start reading that you cannot supply the 80% from rules in books. If you have any experience learning any other language reflect on that and this will rapidly become apparent.
On the other hand, if you are an experienced reader and just starting composition, and would like some codification of word-order, let me know and I’ll try to suggest some material. That is how I feel a lot - the idea that everything you need to know comes from just reading is a beggar’s game; a comfortable reader who is interested in philology (or composition etc) should be deconstructing and reconstructing everything as thoroughly as they can.
Thanks Callisper for your advice. I have strayed from composition, for the time being, because I’m going through M&F’s Latin Intensive. I’ll be happy if I can just translate the Latin into English as the book rapidly advances and with many exercises.
The volume though is an advantage in that one sees the whole of the paradigms in one shot, with fairly clear grammatical explanations. As a kind of beginning intermediate review it might be the best thing out there
Well, I just replied to your “Is this reading Caesar” post, and now I see this!
Just as in that reply I heartily seconded Aetos’ recommendation of Hale, here I heartily second HumilisAuditor’s recommendation of Dexter Hoyos. In fact, it was the combination of Hale and Hoyos that I blogged about.
I was corresponding with Hoyos when I wrote that blog, and at the time it seemed, to his chagrin, that the pamphlet had gone out of print. I’m delighted to see it again on Amazon, and I strongly suggest you read the entire pamphlet and not just the rules, which are rather sterile just taken by themselves.
Thanks Randy for your two posts. I saw the second before the first. I’ll make another post when I have time to digest them.
OK, now I’ve read both posts from you, Randy, in the order they were written. Seven months of water has passed under the bridge since I was trying to read Caesar. I gave up in the chapter 13-14 area of book one, if I remember correctly, when the indirect discourse gets really heavy. I decided that you were correct, if indeed “harsh”, when you clobbered me for trying Caesar without mastering the paradigms. So I went through Nutting’s grammar and now M&F’s Latin Intensive, where the going is slow, in an attempt to get down those paradigms. M&F is pretty good at hammering away what needs to be hammered, so who knows, maybe it will finally stick to the slippery surface of my mind. But as you said, mastery of the paradigms is a prerequisite for Hale and Hoyos’ method. I’m a little confused though, that Hoyos’ pamphlet is under 30 pages in a copy I found on Scribd, and over 70 pages in the copy you referred to on Amazon. I wonder if it is actually more complete, or have the typesetters used a larger font and big margins to created a book from a pamphlet?
I don’t know about the version on Scribd, but my copy of the original (Hoyle) pamphlet is 70 pages (69 to be exact), and that seems to be what’s there on Amazon.
By the way, just for clarification, when you say “paradigms”, are you talking just about noun declensions and verb conjugations, or are you including syntax patterns also?