Latin vs. Ancient Greek

Hey guys, I'm looking to study the classics in their original languages and I want to learn both Ancient Greek and Latin but I'm not sure which one to start with. Is there some order which is better? I thought I read somewhere that in the past Latin was taught first in school and then Ancient Greek was taught based on what one learned of Latin grammar. Can anyone verify that?

Other urls found in this thread:

wcdrutgers.net/Latin.htm
hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series
textkit.com/latin_grammar.php
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Have you ever studied the classics in translation?

No, my only linguistic knowledge is of Spanish, which I'm fairly fluent in and French, which I studied for five years. I've dabbled in other languages but my competence really lies in French and Spanish.

Then don't bother. Many people talk about how they want to learn these languages to study things that they don't even know that they will enjoy or value studying. You'll just quit because you don't have the actual interest to surmount the difficulty involved. Go read some books and come back to it if you still care.

Latin first, that’s how it’s always been done.

There are very few linguistic similarities between Greek and English, but there are many between Latin and English (although English is still undeniably a Germanic language). The Romans, while highly influenced by the Greeks, have a much larger amount of literature that has been preserved.

Oh, whoops. I apologize. I misread the question (long day of classes). Yes, I've read translations of Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Plato, Ovid, Virgil, etc.

In that case I recommend learning Latin first as its morphology is much less complicated than Greek. Latin -> Greek is the normal order which people follow. If I might make a further suggestion, these languages are often taught as grammatical puzzles that must be deciphered by hunting throughout a sentence and determining its constituent parts before reconfiguring them into a sensible whole; this is contrary to the natural method of reading which one would use for any living language (and that the Romans and Greeks would have used for their own languages), which is to simply read through a sentence, holding the various grammatical possibilities in one's mind until they are rendered fully sensible upon the sentence's completion. If you fall into the puzzle trap then you'll likely never develop any substantial reading ability. You may not have this problem since you are familiar with other languages, and it primarily derives from the relative morphological complexity of these languages compared with English, but it is common enough that I feel like giving you a warning.

I'll definitely take that advice. From my experience learning living languages, your advice is aptly given. I'll start with Latin then. Could you recommend me any texts? I've seen Wheelock everywhere and was considering getting his book. I don't know what supplementary material would be useful for Wheelock but it seems like there is a lot. I really appreciate your help. I'll screenshot the tip you gave me about learning it more naturally.

Same question for you, any recommended materials?

if youre in school, greek is much harder to teach yourself so that

Also, is cursive at all in thing in Latin? I write in cursive in all the languages I know and I was wondering if I'd get to continue that practice, or if print is more recommended.

Prior to the late 1800s students would essentially memorize a reference grammar, alongside directed reading and writing exercises (there are no modern resources for this; I just say it for context). Afterwards pedagogy shifted to the modern grammatical method, in which a student works through a textbook (Wheelock's is an example of this sort), gradually learning bits of grammar and vocabulary along the way. Neither of these teach you to read naturally, though the former had the benefit of relentless morphological memorization and seems to have contributed to a higher degree of facility with the language. A more modern methodology exists, what you might call a "reading method", which attempts to increase familiarity with the language primarily through reading texts and to communicate morphology and other grammar inductively rather than through rote memorization. This has the benefit of teaching you to read naturally, but Latin is a grammatically intense language, and learning the grammar inductively may not be sufficient to convey the knowledge one needs.

Fortunately you can compromise here. I would recommend following the Dowling Method, named after the Rutgers professor who proposed it. You begin by rote memorization of the primary morphology, then enter a reading course, in this case the Lingua Latina series. You'll gain all the benefits of the reading method, but you will have the distinct advantage of already knowing the morphology and can concentrate on building your reading ability, vocabulary, and grammatical intuition. I would recommend utilizing a reference grammar alongside this so that you can access formal grammatical explanations whenever needed. You can read more about this here:
wcdrutgers.net/Latin.htm

It is of course possible to learn with the other methods if you take some precautions (like I stated in my earlier post). Wheelock's is a fine book, though arguably bloated and slow. A faster, though more spartan, text would be Latin: An Intensive Course by Moreland & Fleischer. As for the reading method, Lingua Latina is unparalleled. Here is a link to the series. If you choose to follow this, only the two main volumes are necessary, though you may find the supplemental volumes helpful, which contain things such as grammatical explanations, exercises, extra reading material.
hackettpublishing.com/lingua-latina-per-se-illustrata-series

By the way, I probably made it sound like no one can read Latin naturally. That isn't the case. If you aren't taught in a manner which facilitates it, it will eventually come to you after years of working with the language. In the past, people would be taught Latin starting as children, so they had plenty of time for this process to take place. As modern adult learners, we aren't so lucky.

Awesome, man. I've bookmarked that site for the Dowling method and ordered the first book of the Lingua Latina series. Is there a reference grammar you would recommend? I'm looking at the Moreland/Fleischer book as well, although I already ordered Wheelock's, so I may stick with that and perhaps go over the other one later.

fuck off corporate shill
lingua latina is easily available online for free as a pdf

>I'm looking to study the classics in their original languages
Unless you plan to dedicate your life to this shit, it's probably a waste of time. I mean, I did brave Metamorphoses in latin, but I don't think it gave me any more insight or joy than Golding's translation

If you read through the Dowling Method page, he suggests learning the grammatical tables from a copy of Wheelock's, since they're all conveniently arranged in an appendix, so your copy should be useful.

As for a reference grammar, these are generally old and in the public domain. Two popular grammars are Bennett, which is a simpler work and probably better for a beginner, and Allen & Greenough, which is more thorough. There are lightly revised modern versions you can buy in print but it isn't necessary. You can download both from Textkit, which is a forum for Latin and Greek learners. Just scroll down to the reference grammar section at this link. They're also on Google Books, etc.
textkit.com/latin_grammar.php

I don't care how he gets the books. But the page I linked has them all listed so he can figure out which ones he needs.

>Lingua Memetina Per Se Redditata

Well, I'm a student of philosophy and linguistics so I think it could be of use to me. I'm probably looking to go to grad. school for philology or philosophy of language. I've dedicated myself to language learning since my early teens but haven't touched the classical languages yet. This is my first go. haha

Do you actually have any complaints about the methodology? Or are you just mad that you tried to learn Latin for years and can't read at any sufficient speed?

Also I'll add that there are grammar volumes in the Lingua Latina series if you'd like to use those; e.g. the two "Companion" books.

Thanks for trying to save me some money but I honestly don't like reading online. It's not the same for me. But thanks for mentioning the PDF so I can easily study on the go if I have to.

Neither do you famperoni. Good luck trying to read actual latin literature only to find out a chasm of difference between it and easily digestable babby sentences from LLPSI. Say what you want about Wheelock, but at least it doesn't skimp on throwing complex texts at you as soon as possible.

I'll look into those grammars at my library then. You've been super helpful man. I really appreciate it.

You do realize that the series includes primary texts, don't you? There are supplementary volumes for Caesar, Petronius, Plautus, Sallust, Cicero, Ovid, Virgil,

>just like learning languages
>have yet to speak to anyone in any of them

Russian, Irish and Latin here, ask me anything (my latin is abysmal, I've only been learning for about a month)

I thought there was more Greek literature than Latin?

There is, user- at least classically. But when writings through the middle ages up to the Enlightenment are factored in it's not even close.

There is more written in Latin than any person could read in a lifetime

Dicere Latine mihi non est jucundissimum: sed discere per se. Aut ullae linguae.

Ancient Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Qur'anic Arabic, Mandarin, Japanese, Anglo-Saxon, Russian here. I did some Irish years ago, mostly forgotten now.

Did you study those in university or as a hobby?

Hobby. I studied Chemistry at college.

Same as that. I studied Genetics. Had always been terrible at languages until I discovered how much fun they were.

don't you have anything better to do like learning math and physics?

I was kinda the opposite. My teachers, and so I, thought I was pretty good at languages, but I ignored it for further education. Then only in later life did I discover my love for them.

They aren't mutually exclusive user. And why would math and physics be preferable to Latin and Greek?

because math and physics give you actual tools for a sophisticated understanding of the phyisical world while greek and latin do nothing but slightly increase your chance to score some easily impressionable chicks, they're for lazy pseuds

Not him, but this is the eternal refrain of the uneducated. Latin and Greek train the mind with access to over two millennia of learning and thought.

There is no reason not to learn all things. Or at least try.

And someone learning math and physics on their own will get up to what? Vector calculus and the special theory of relativity? And how well will they understand them? Will these improve their life at all or increase their understanding of the world in any real way? It's essentially putting equations to phenomena they already know exists.

Lmao there's so much wrong with this post

you can read them translated and it's perfectly fine. greek and latin are a waste of time.
OP is probably daydreaming that he'll be drowning in pussy once he'll be able to pronounce his pickup lines in ancient greek but i'm afraid he'll be quite disappointed

This might be a surprise to you but some people do things for other reasons than getting pussy.

One could say this about any kind of knowledge. I'm willing to bet that most language-learners learn languages simply because they enjoy doing just that: learning languages.

Any kind of 'end point' or 'usefulness' is secondary or even unnecessary.

Personally it goes even beyond that. Any "usefulness" would corrupt it for me. The enjoyment of learning, the pursuit of knowledge and the transcendence of absorption if what I'm in it for.
Once a material reward is introduced the knowledge becomes a means to an end instead of the end itself. The desire for money (or any material gain) is the root of all evil.

Like Archimedes who only recorded his work on abstract geometry and didn't write anything about the amazing war machines he engineered to defend Syracuse, judging that applied mathematics were ignoble, shameful and not worthy of pursuit.

>muh pussy

What are you, a nigger?

you're right, and people who care about real knowledge study math and physics and programming. people who only care about optics and pussy go for greek and latin

You conveniently forgot about

I like you and completely agree. I liked science as a kid. Now that I am a scientist I don't enjoy it, nay borderline hate it. Languages and literature are fun for me because they are an end unto themselves, and enjoyable useless hobby that I can throw many hours at without boredom.

...

Both?

Well, user, I'm studying philosophy and linguistics right now and am looking to continue my education in philology so it wouldn't exactly be a waste of time for me. But yeah, it'd be great if I could learn more mathematics as well in the future.

And I'm not a fan of translations. I've read translations and originals and know that translations rarely do the original justice, if ever. I don't think many women are impressed by Latin and that's not my motivation.

Exactly, you're right. Studying languages is one of the most joyful endeavors in the world.

That's really interesting that bit about Archimedes. I'm tempted to agree with Archimedes.

hey Veeky Forums, non english-speaker here. wondering if this sentence makes sense grammatically...

"Self-doubt, anxiety, and an awareness that there is an opportunity cost for every decision you make, are all cons of being human and having a human brain"

Yeah it's good

Cool thanks

With respect to the image, that is called a mondegreen in English. The best ones of course are better than the actual lyrics. FWIW.

Remove the comma before "are."