I think it depends on the Language. Latin, yes. Greek, no.
Just wondering–why?
Also, it might be helpful to make a distinction between receptive and productive vocabularies. Most people can understand many more words which they hear or read than they can accurately produce in speech or writing. Another interesting point is that some linguists make a distinction between language that is “learned” and language that is “acquired”. I can learn a paradigm, meaning I’ve memorized it and understand it, but acquiring it means completely internalizing it so that I can communicate with it as effectively as a native speaker would have. So using those terms, I would try to “acquire” the most common paradigms (which probably comes from reading and writing them a lot) and “learn” all the rest.
The ultimate aim of course is to internalise everything and allow the language to live within our minds. You can do it by learning paradigms by rote. But some people may prefer to do it differently.
Because Greek features so many dialectical variations, and a high frequency of irregular verbs. You could spend a year memorising all your paradigms for Attic Greek, only to be at a loss when you start reading Homer. This isn’t the case in Latin, which has uniform inflections.
I think yes, but then the way I learnt forms for latin and greek wasnt quite like that… I more just learnt little codes involving numbers and endings so that (with Greek in particular) some of the codes could have alternate endings easily, so that it included lots of exceptions… that sounds so nonsensical - basically I learnt them through numerical tables - but then, Im a freak, so dont listen to me.