Exactly as rkday said. The terms are technical linguistic terms bases on the ‘literal’ meanings of the words analytic/synthetic, which are opposites meaning “break up/bring together”. To ‘analyze’ is to break something into pieces to understand it; a ‘synthesis’ is a combination of pieces. The term “isolating” is also used for “analytic” languages, but I prefer “analytic” because it corresponds nicely with “synthetic”.
Agreed. Reading units of discourse of a size and difficulty that suit the level of the learner, always at least a paragraph in length, preferably longer. Using the grammar and the vocabulary that the student has already learned. The focus must be on developing the reading skill, not on learning grammar or vocabulary.
No, no, no, no, no. NO composition in Greek. If our goal is to READ, that is. If we had the choice of spending an hour on composition in Greek or an hour of developing our reading skill by READING, which would we logically choose? Are we studying non-modern Greek in order to read it or to translate from English to Greek, which is what most Greek prose composition boils down to. Let’s be logical and efficient about choosing how to spend our time. Do we follow the dictates of traditional pedagogy, now long outdated by the discoveries of modern linguistics, or do we incorporate the modern linguistically sound methods of developing reading skills in a foreign language, as exemplified so expansively in the field of ESL/EFL (English as a Second/Foreign Language) and with such paucity in the field of non-modern Greek? Take at look at the many materials used to help non-English speakers develop the skills needed to read well in English, and you’ll begin to understand what is sorely needed in the field of classical Greek pedagogy.
Learning a “dead” language (and Homeric/Attic/Koine Greek is “dead”; no one communicates using only those grammatical patterns anymore) differs from learning a modern language in that the goal is to develop one set of skills, not four – reading, not listening comprehension and speaking and writing as well. Translation from Greek to English is a fifth set of skills, and translation from English to Greek is a sixth set of skills. Learning to translate is most efficiently done after we have learned to read both languages. Again, how efficient do we want to be in our study of the language? The answer is obvious to me: if our goal is to read Greek, we must of necessity focus only on the methods needed to develop the skill of reading. Everything else is a misdirection of energy. Of course, we humans are notorious for choosing to misdirect our energy, aren’t we? But, as they say, whatever turns you on. (grin)
Interesting rant, I would agree totally with you if one’s only goal was to be able to read texts as literature. However as a Classical Philologist, yes composition is immensely helpful with a vast range of things I shan’t waste my time listing.
I think that many learn Latin and Greek with the goal of being able to write in the language as well as read it. Or is that unacceptable? Also, modern linguistics doesn’t support the idea that active and passive knowledge of a language are entirely separate spheres. Improving one’s active knowledge of a language (writing) also improves one’s passive knowledge (reading). The relationship is complex, but they do influence one another. I agree that translation from English to Greek is a different “skill” from a “pure” active knowledge of Greek, just as reading Greek is different from translating into English. However, it is a very effective tool for acquiring an active knowledge of an ancient, dead language since we do not have living populations to converse with.
Also, learning to write in Greek greatly enhances your acquisition of the language. I don’t think it’s a waste of time at all, in fact I believe that it is one of the most valuable skills a student of Greek (or any ‘dead’ language) can engage in. I’m interesting in reading, yes, but reading with understanding. Forcing yourself to make decisions about vocabulary, word order, idioms to employ, etc. allows a much more complete understanding of those words and grammatical formulas. Besides, if I can’t communicate even basic units of thought myself how can I suppose that I am adequately understanding what I read?
gfross wrote
Take at look at the many materials used to help non-English speakers develop the skills needed to read well in English, and you’ll begin to understand what is sorely needed in the field of classical Greek pedagogy.
Hi,
Could you describe what these resources might look like?
[ χαιρε. διηγου, παρακαλω, τοιαυτα. ]
(I’m writing in Greek because I hope it will improve my reading fluency.)
I also don’t understand the common idea that newer methods and pedagogies are better. Newer is not always better. During the middle ages and early Renaissance Latin (and to a lesser extent Greek) were taught so effectively as to be the common languages of exchange in Western Europe. This was being done even before the printing press was invented. I believe that modern linguistics is very helpful and insightful in the area of language acquisition, but the collective knowledge of mankind isn’t a constant, steady forward progress. Sometimes we lose certain skills and knowledge only to be relearned hundreds of years later. Language pedagogy is no different. Some of the older pedagogical methods are very effective. Look up “ars memoriae” or “method of loci” for a perfect example of a set of skills that has been mostly forgotten and lost by the modern education system (actually it was lost hundreds of years ago because of accusations of sorcery and witchcraft). I stumbled upon this system accidentally and have used it very effectively for remembering lists of items. I’ve also made extensive use of the mnemonic major system for remembering numbers, another useful tool that I never heard mentioned in any formal school setting.
(blush) Yes, I was on my soapbox, wasn’t I. Sorry about that. As I continue to think about AG pedagogy, I have come more and more to realize that some (many?) students of AG are not really interested in focusing on developing their reading skills. My reason for studying AG is to be able to read it as easily as possible, so that is why I am focused on the development of reading skills. My irritation arose from the fact that I had not been able to find a beginning AG grammar that placed reading as primary; so many were traditional grammar-translation in orientation. However, I have now found a very good text for me: Anne Mahoney’s First Greek Course and accompanying reader, Rouse’s Greek Boy. It is evident that Mahoney has a good background in linguistics, as well as Greek, and she has put this knowledge to excellent pedagogical use in her texts.
Composition from English to Greek has always seemed to me the most unnecessary activity in a study of Greek – maybe an intriguing and delightful one, but still unnecessary --, unless one is a student in an educational system that will eventually require him or her to write a composition as part of their examination procedure. Heh, this is your “pragmatic American” talking now. (grin)
Would you name one activity that composition of this kind has helped you with as a Classical philologist? I’m just curious. I have always thought that philologists were more interested in studying the cultural aspects of a particular language or language family than in composing essays, plays, stories, or poems in one of the languages in which they specialize.
No argument with you there. All I wanted was a first-year AG course that would focus on helping me to develop my reading skills. I had found a Latin one (Hans H. Ørberg’s Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata), but not a Greek one. But now I am content. As I told Scribo, I am highly satisfied with Anne Mahoney’s First Greek Course and accompanying reader, Rouse’s Greek Boy. I’m not a particular fan of using the Direct Method in teaching a language that is no longer used primarily as a means of oral communication, but I’m not against it, either. However, Mahoney has revised Rouse’s texts so as to include very helpful reading exercises based on modern applied linguistic principles, and since I am studying AG at home, I don’t have to participate in the classroom activity of developing my oral communication skills in classical Greek – lots of fun socially, no doubt, but all that extra work! And ten years later, who from that classroom is going to remember how to communicate orally in a “dead” language? Fond memories, nothing more. But one will have much more incentive to keep reading; that activity need never die.
Interesting. Why would anyone want to spend time learning how to write in a language that is no longer used for written communication, except, of course, members of the Roman Catholic Church who produce official documents in Latin or members of the Greek Orthodox Church who have need to do so? Just for fun, I guess. To each his own. 
I certainly don’t find it unacceptable to learn how write in a “dead” language. I’m just saying that for those who wish to focus on learning to read, learning how to write is an added burden – by “write,” I mean compose. Written fill-in and Cloze, etc. exercises are very helpful in learning the grammar; I welcome written exercises of this kind. That’s why I love Ørberg’s Exercitia workbook so much – dozens and dozens of different kinds of written exercises to help one learn the grammar. No compositions to write, no translations to make. Everything in the workbook is designed to help one learn the grammar so as to be able to understand more easily the lengthy passages of delightful narrative discourse (including dialogs) in his main text and supplementary reader.
Yes, I agree that improving the ability to produce written discourse does help one, indirectly, improve the ability to comprehend written discourse, but there is no real need to do so. Which is more efficient in helping one to read: spending time on improving one’s recognition skills of written discourse or spending time on improving one’s production skills of written discourse? I’m talking about efficiency here, not pleasure, although I hope that learning to read is a pleasurable activity. I’m suggesting that one should go directly to one’s goal (by developing reading skills) instead of indirectly (by developing writing skills so as to improve one’s reading skills).
Yes, translation can be helpful in learning to read. It is even necessary at times – using an English-Greek dictionary or the glossary in one’s textbook. But translating long passages is not the most helpful way of learning to read. Notice I said “most” helpful. Therefore, why spend the time and effort doing it if one wishes solely to learn to read?
Hmm, “acquiring an active knowledge of an ancient, dead language” – I won’t argue with you there. I suppose by “active knowledge” you mean developing all four skills plus the two kinds of translation. That’s fine with me. Great! Go ahead! Have fun! But my goal is simply to read well, so I will try to learn how to do that as efficiently as possible – and have fun doing it, too.
Thanks for your comments!
By “reading,” I mean “reading with understanding.” That goes without saying. How much understanding is another question, of course. One can always improve one’s understanding of the discourse of an author, whether ancient or modern.
“Forcing yourself to make decisions” – But you make your decisions about what “vocabulary, word order, idioms to employ” based on your (or some authority’s) previously developed reading ability. By writing in Greek, you are improving your ability to produce language, which is very different from developing your ability to recognize language. If you want to write, I suggest that you copy the grammar and style of a particular Greek author. In order to do the copying, you will have to do “intensive” reading, which means paying close attention to every detail of what you are copying. That is, the reading precedes the copying. And it is the intensive reading that helps you understand better the nature of the language. The copying simply reinforces the intensity of the reading. I assume that you are talking about intensive reading, not extensive reading. The latter means the ability to read lengthy units of discourse quickly and with ease.
If, however, you are talking about composing from your own imagination, I believe that you will be able to do so well only if you have already mastered the “vocabulary, word order, idioms, etc. to employ”, and how do you achieve that mastery? By intensive reading of a particular author and by copying his sentences until you believe you have mastered his style. You can break this study down, of course. Read and copy all his uses of the subjunctive or indirect speech, or particular idioms, or whatever category you wish. And then try to imitate them. Then you set aside that author’s book and try to imitate that author’s style on a particular subject about which he was writing. And when you are satisfied that you can imitate that author’s style, you move on and do intensive reading and copying of another author, and then when you believe that you have mastered that author’s style, you try to imitate it. And so on and so on. And to make things easier for yourself, you will probably want to limit yourself to a particular period and genre. After doing this for a number of years, you should be able to write in the Greek of that period and genre pretty well.
All of this activity is based on intensive reading. So the ability to read must come first, before the ability to write or compose.
If you want “complete understanding of words,” go to Perseus or a large dictionary, and read the unit of discourse in which each author uses the particular word or phrase you are trying to understand. Then copy the words into a notebook and review them from time to time. I believe that doing that will help you achieve your goal of a “complete understanding” much more efficiently than composing. Once again, reading precedes writing.
If you cannot “communicate,” i.e., write down, “basic units of thought,” then you have not yet done enough intensive reading of the author whose “basic units of thought” you are trying to imitate. You are showing yourself that you need to do more intensive reading, not more writing, so as to familiarize yourself enough with those basic units of thought to be able to produce them in writing with ease. That means, reading, copying, and imitating, reading, copying, and imitating.
One way I use to see whether I “adequately understand[…] what I read” is to have a published translation or two or three or four or more nearby that I can consult. That tells me fast enough.
Of course, all this may sound very tedious, much less interesting perhaps than the delight of the intellectual activity you are now engaged in. I agree, having fun is essential. I’m just offering some suggestions based on my years of experience teaching students to read and write in EFL/ESL. No need to accept them, of course. So if you prefer your current method, stick to it. Whatever works best for you, and you know best what that is. I wish you lots of success and pleasure in your studies!
LOL (at your “writing in Greek” comment)
Oh, gawd. I don’t know if I can. I had easy access to them because publishers’ sales representatives would hold book fairs at which we teachers could examine the newest materials, and reps would often try to call on me in my office to show me what new books had just been published. If you lived in London, you could go to Foyle’s and browse through their EFL/ESL section, which is the largest I have ever seen in any bookstore.
I’m not sure what you mean by “might look like.” How detailed a description do you want?
One kind of resource I would definitely like more of in AG is supplementary readers written for students at different reading skill levels. There are LOTS of these for ESL/EFL students. Longman publishes many of these. Some are in comic book format. Some are abridged versions of popular novels. I used to do contract work for the U.S. government, rewriting non-fiction works for overseas readers, adapting them to a particular reading level, simplifying the grammar and limiting the vocabulary (to 1,000 words or 1,500 words, etc.) depending on the level of the student. There is so much that could be done to move the reader of AG gradually from level to level. I really like Rouse’s idea of not caring about what period the vocabulary in his Rouse’s Greek Boy reader was from so that he had enough verbal freedom to compose a lengthy narrative (104 pages) in Attic Greek (grammar anyway) for beginning students, moving us gently from chapter to chapter, introducing new grammar in each successive chapter, eventually defining new words only in Greek (in a glossary in the back), in the Greek that the reader had already learned. The reader is designed to accompany Rouse’s prescriptive grammar, recently thoroughly revised by Anne Mahoney using her knowledge of applied linguistics: First Greek Course. I love these two books; they are so well designed!
The point is to become so familiar with the grammar and sentence patterns used by a particular author, or the authors of a particular period, that it is only unfamiliar vocabulary that causes problems. Having dozens, even hundreds, of simplified readers to choose from is a great aid in ESL/EFL. I don’t know how much of this kind of “authoring” activity can be done for AG. Not enough interest. Learning to read English is big these days; learning to read AG isn’t. So publishers go where the interest is – and the money to be made, of course.
Just some thoughts. Thanks for asking.
At the end of the day, the most effective method for learning anything is that method which best keeps the interest and motivation of the learner high. The sheer force of discipline is usually not enough to sustain one throughout the long hours required to learn a foreign language.
No need to blush, though I myself feel somewhat sheepish replying right now since you appear somewhat swamped by responses.
It’s interesting that you find the new “Greek Boy” so useful, I was flicking through the review of it a few days ago and it seemed interesting: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-02-54.html
In general most of the modern Greek books are pretty bad, so this seems like a step in the right direction at least. I’m suprised that you think that not many people are interested in developing reading skills :S from what I’ve came across most people, providing they can reasonably well enough to pass an exam are happy. The thing is, when one is presented with an exam paper which one half are gobbets of literary/stylistic, historical and linguistic accuracy and the other on widing ranging essay topics you pretty much need to be able to ready fast from the get go just to get through enough material for exam prep, no one is asked to translate, it’s a given that if you can’t read fairly fluently and if you’re not well read you’re going to fail. Clearly we’re looking at this from opposite ends in that we have different goals here.
As for Philology in general one finds his command of the language much heightened, in particular it helps with vocabularly retention, stylistic nuances and even sensitivity to register. I can’t completely explain it, but for example…with Greek, having been taught Attic and doing most of my reading in Homer (as well as speaking Modern) I often find that, since composition, I’m somewhat more sensitive to various subtelties…especially the way in which the language is changing.
I think that anyway, regardless of your goals, a tiny bit of composition shan’t hurt anyone.
Hi gfross.
Thanks for these thoughts. I agree that Mahoney’s reprint of Rouse is helpful. You are right that we need more readers like this, and that they have to be easier than the ones presently out there. A Greek comic book would be great! You should write one!
[ χαιρε gfross
ευχαριστω σοι υπερ των γνωμων σου. συμφημι οτι το Ελληνικος Παις Οικει του Ρουσε ωφελιμον εστιν. συ λεγεις ορθως λεγων οτι χρεαν εχομεν πλειων τοιουτων βιβλιων. δει ταυτα τα βιβλια ευκοπα ειναι. το Ελληνικον “comic book” καλον αν γενοιτο. ποίει, παρακαλω ]
Calvinist wrote
At the end of the day, the most effective method for learning anything is that method which best keeps the interest and motivation of the learner high.
I agree!
[ το αυτο εγω λεγω. ]
(I’m writing in Greek because I hope it will improve my reading fluency. I got the idea from Adrianus over on the Latin forum.)
For I agree, I think “συνφωνω” might be better
Scribo, your point gets into what I’ve said before: words don’t have meanings, rather meanings have words. Your suggestion of συνφωνω may be more “literal”, but Markos’ might be more idiomatic while expressing the same meaning.
Thanks, all, for your replies and comments! And thanks, Scribo, for the link to the review of Rouse’s Greek Boy! The more I read in Mahoney’s First Greek Course, the more enchanted I am. She has really produced a magnificent first-year textbook. Very high initial learning curve. Not a text to breeze through at all. But very clearly worded and designed.
by pster » Tue May 24, 2011 8:34 am
Gordon, I don’t know whether you are right or wrong, but I absolutely love your conviction. Hehe. We had a meaty discussion a few months back:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11778
It would be fascinating if you could peruse that thread and give us your take on it. Many methods are discussed. I, in particular, would like to know what you think about Schliemann’s method. If you do comment, please put your comments in that thread. Thanks.
Thanks for your reply, pster. Schliemann really had a Type A personality, didn’t he. (chuckle) I would never choose to learn a language using his method. I hate memorization. (I hate using flashcards.) I do like grammar, learning about the structure of a language, so I don’t mind studying that. I will usually get hold of a copy of the “essential” grammar of __________ (fill in name of language here) and go through it quickly in order to get an overview of its structure. Did that recently for modern Greek (Essential Modern Greek Grammar by Douglas Q. Adams) because I wanted to have a brief overview of the most important grammatical features that differed from those of classical Greek. I enjoy doing plenty of grammatical exercises. I do not enjoy writing translations from English into a foreign language, an activity I was required to do again and again in high school and college. Nor do I enjoy writing down a translation from a foreign language to English; I much prefer reading those translation passages in the foreign language, with English equivalents coming to mind whenever and however they come. When I have learned the basic grammar of a language and have a tolerably sized recognition vocabulary, I like to read an original work with a translation or two into English at hand to refer to whenever I come across a word whose meaning I don’t know. I LOVE Kindle and having both an iPhone and an iPad Touch: I download the original to one and a translation into English on the other. Then I don’t have to carry books around. I prefer reading imaginative prose (novels, short stories, and plays) to anything else.
Became interested in dramatic literature around 1970 when I went back to school to study for a Ph.D. in French and comparative literature (French and English). Was required to choose a 150-year period in both literatures to study, so I chose 1530 to 1680 and a particular genre (I chose drama). Was interested in learning classical Greek in order to read the plays of that period in the original, since they influenced French and English drama and criticism so greatly. Took a course in reading Xenophon, Ἀνάβασις, (was the only student) and one in reading a few of Plato’s dialogues. Then I ventured into drama on my own. Well, I have to say, I was shocked by the complexity of Aeschylus – almost as complex as Sanskrit, I thought. So after struggling through the opening lines of one of his plays – I forget which one – I stopped my self-study of Aeschylus (no professor at Catholic University of America was teaching drama at the time), vowing to take it up later when my reading ability in Greek was much, much improved. That never happened, though. Had to leave school before I finished the Ph.D., so there ended a tale. I did, however, eventually read all of the Greek plays in translation.
Have babbled on enough and varied from the topic, so I’ll stop here.
It is funny how there are so many people who like to talk about how much they love to write Greek and how great it is, but so few of whom have signed up for June Composition Month! 