Hello everyone,
I am looking for Caesar’s Gallic War, an interlinear version that would work well on a Kindle. I looked at archive.org and google books, but they don’t seem to work well. I also went to Amazon and found two that would work: “Caesar: The Gallic War in Latin + English (SPQR)”; and “The Gallic War: Parallel English/Latin Version.”
I am looking for something to read as opposed to study. I am using Inductive Latin Primer, which I am enjoying quite a bit, for study.
But I would appreciate if anyone had any other recommendations.
I think you won’t find a genuine interlinear for Caesar on Kindle. The reviews of the first book you posted are poor and the second one is parallel text, not interlinear. You’re probably best off to by a hardcover copy of the McKay reprint of Caesar, these are pretty common and inexpensive on the used book market.
I’m not sure I agree. Used intelligently (e.g. alongside an original text in original word order, which is read after the interlinear), an interlinear is powerful tool to read large amounts of Latin quickly.
You mean to say an interlinear is a powerful tool to read English? I’m sure there are instances where Latin or Greek has been learnt despite using interlinears, but that will be only due to a coincidence. I’m sorry, but this cannot be stressed too much: many things can be done to support one’s language learning, but interlinear is not one of them. (The closest thing to interlinears which works is the LCL, but even that has to be used correctly.)
I must say I don’t see too much harm in interlinears myself, used as an elementary key to vocabulary. The important thing is to take the words in the order in which they come in the original, and I think interlinears do that don’t they?
This thread however shows how interlinears have the potential to mislead if not accompanied by a knowledge of Latin grammar and syntax: http://discourse.textkit.com/t/modifiers-and-other-things-embedded-in-a-latin-phrase/13933/1 They’re not much use without that. See for example the passages quoted in the Internal rhyme thread. They’re poetic, with poetic word order, but even in prose it’s important to distinguish nominative from accusative, for instance, and interlinears don’t do that do they? (Petrum/Peter amat/loves Paulus/Paul. Who loves who?)
Well sure, if your interlinear doesn’t include any Latin. I’m curious to hear some actual evidence (not just opinions) against interlinears as study tools.
No. The question should be posed exactly in the opposite way: “What do people think they’re going to obtain from interlinears—and why on earth do they think so?” If one is beginning with Latin (or Greek), then a textbook is used. After that one starts with real texts like a book from Caesar (snippets of real literature were already included in the textbook). Glossaries have been written for such use, if one is not yet ready to use a dictionary (which would be understandable, although a dictionary should already be used a little at least already at this point), and the text is often included. And thereafter one resorts to dictionaries reading texts, first smaller, then gradually larger and larger dictionaries. Generally one starts with more commonly read texts, the lexicon of which is largely included in smaller dictionaries.
What is the place of interlinears here? Latin does not work like English, nor does English like Latin. Word order differs, sometimes irreconcilably, and subjunctive is not clear from the English where Latin has it, to name two examples. If one wants to check translations, there is that LCL or other possibilities to choose from. Latin has to be understood as Latin.
There is no real controversy here. Interlinears are the spawn of Satan and the scion of the Dark Lord. Using them will cause hair to grow on your kneecaps and cause temporal and interdimensional paradoxes resulting in the destruction of all all real and potential universes (and did I mention hairy kneecaps?). And worst of all, they will cripple your ability to learn the target language.
Why? The whole idea of learning the language is to learn the language. In using an interlinear, you are robbing yourself of the exercise of contextualizing and seeing how that context limits the semantic range of individual lexical items. You short circuit the benefit of seeing how syntactical and grammatical constructions in the language actually work for the pottage of easy English equivalents.
Evidence? How about the collective experience of language teachers since the time of the Cro-Magnon?
“Snark-Hunter! You’ll never learn your classical Neanderthal that way…”
There is no upside to using interlinears. And grossly hairy kneecaps are a real embarrassment at the beach.
That’s an argument of methodology from the point of view of the grammar/translation method. Yes if that’s the chosen method, then an interlinear isn’t going to be of help.
Yes, if one were to only ever read interlinear translations that wouldn’t be good. But one can use an interlinear as a tool, similar to a dictionary, a set of notes, or a normal translation, to help understand the text. By using it alongside the original text (and always re-reading the text in the original after using the interlinear to grasp the meaning) it permits a much faster rate of reading. One internalizes patterns of sentence structure, word order, and different clauses and phrases. Eventually one can abandon the interlinear and read the original at sight.
I think it does learners a disservice to assert that only one method of approaching a text is effecting when it comes to reading Latin.
There are a number of valid approaches to a a text, and more than one method for learning a language. None of them should include an interlinear. All of them should include maximal interaction with target language and minimal interaction with first language. An interlinear can never be a part of that.
(hairy kneecaps)