[HN Gopher] Show HN: A Latin self study course, Khan Academy-style
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Show HN: A Latin self study course, Khan Academy-style
        
       Author : jthnews
       Score  : 237 points
       Date   : 2021-03-28 11:17 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (selfstudyclassics.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (selfstudyclassics.com)
        
       | jedberg wrote:
       | I took Latin in high school. I barely remember any of it, but
       | what it helped me with the most was understanding _English_
       | grammar. I learned more about English grammar in my Latin class
       | than I ever did in my English classes.
        
       | zetazzed wrote:
       | Has anyone found good interactive resources for learning (Attic
       | or Koine) Greek? I started self-studying (with Jones' book and
       | Great Courses online) and found that I liked the focus on real
       | classical texts (as opposed to Ecce Romani) style. But ultimately
       | it wanted to move too fast to grammatical completeness (banging
       | out one conjugation after another). I felt I didn't get enough
       | practice or vocab, and interactive lessons would've really
       | helped.
        
         | HDMI_Cable wrote:
         | There is John Williams' First Greek Book, but it only focuses
         | on one text though ( _The Anabasis_ ).
         | 
         | https://daedalus.umkc.edu/FirstGreekBook/
        
       | carabiner wrote:
       | > You don't need a user account to use the practice tool, but
       | _you 're_ progress may not be saved if you're not logged in.
       | 
       | Distressing to see errors like this in a language text.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Yeah but imagine how distressing it is to make them :) Fixed.
         | Thanks for the heads up.
        
       | jchin wrote:
       | I've recently come across Latin as I was reading "The Well-
       | Trained Mind" by Susan Wise Bauer. It's a book describing how to
       | provide a "classical education" to kids at home. (I'm
       | homeschooling my two young kids this year and reading everything
       | I can about how to homeschool.)
       | 
       | The author strongly recommends having the kids learn Latin. In
       | case anyone is interested, some resources/curricula for
       | homeschooling Latin she mentions in the book include Prima
       | Latina, Latina Christiana, Song School Latin, Latin for Children,
       | The Big Book of Lively Latin, The Latin Road to English Grammar,
       | and Latin Alive!.
       | 
       | Anyone have experience/thoughts/opinions on teaching their kids
       | Latin? Or even learning Latin as a kid?
        
         | spaced-out wrote:
         | I took a few years of Latin as a kid. I remember that I enjoyed
         | learning about Ancient Rome, but realized I didn't want to sink
         | hundreds of hours learning a language just to read some old
         | books.
         | 
         | I ended up spending a few years studying Spanish in college,
         | I'm reasonably conversational now and met my wife, who's from
         | Puerto Rico, in the process.
         | 
         | Even if my wife wasn't Puerto Rican, I would teach my kids
         | Spanish. Grammatically it's far easier than Latin and will
         | connect them with culture and millions of speakers that are
         | alive today.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | timthorn in a thread below suggested http://www.minimus.com/
         | for young kids and
         | https://classroom.thenational.academy/subjects-by-key-stage/...
         | for older ones
        
         | ghaff wrote:
         | Not really "as a kid" but I had Latin for a couple years in
         | high school.
         | 
         | Pro I guess is that it lets you read some classical literature
         | although in 2 years I never got remotely proficient. In some
         | ways it's easier than a modern language because you're mostly
         | learning to read.
         | 
         | Con is mostly the obvious. You could be spending the time
         | learning a modern language. (I also took 4 years of high school
         | French. Never got very proficient in that either. It helps a
         | bit when I visit France but I never spent enough time living it
         | to get good.)
        
       | exdsq wrote:
       | If someone is interested in learning a new language for the hell
       | of it, however your school days of learning that Caecilius was
       | sitting in the garden fills you with dread, a really cool
       | alternative is Lojban. It is a completely unambiguous language
       | created by the Logical Language Group and has some pretty
       | interesting elements that sit between software and non-
       | computational linguistics.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
        
         | bluGill wrote:
         | I won't stop anyone from learning anything they find
         | interesting, and Logban is probably easier to learn. However I
         | wouldn't recommend in general that anyone learn a constructed
         | language. Learn the languages that people actually speak, they
         | are much harder to learn, but in return you can actually talk
         | to people, which is the point of learning a language.
         | 
         | That is instead of two people learning some weird language why
         | doesn't one of you learn the others and gain the whole world of
         | people who speak that other language instead of a rare language
         | where everyone speaks something else.
        
           | schoen wrote:
           | This view is a little strange in a thread where the
           | alternative is learning Latin. With Latin, too, you typically
           | have to go to conventions in order to encounter other
           | speakers...
           | 
           | I've participated in many spoken Latin events (and loved
           | them), but they were akin to conlang events in that every
           | single person was a non-native speaker, and the majority were
           | not fully fluent. Following the view which I think I took
           | from Ghil'ad Zuckermann (I don't know whether he would phrase
           | it this way) that revived languages like Modern Hebrew are
           | akin to conlangs, it seems that at least the way I speak
           | Latin is akin to the way I speak conlangs -- great reliance
           | on explicit knowledge, little influence from my own or
           | others' native speaker intuition.
           | 
           | Another difficulty is the "period speech" issue
           | 
           | https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/771:_Period_Speec.
           | ..
           | 
           | where most Latin speakers are happy to use vocabulary from
           | any period almost interchangeably, even though native
           | speakers wouldn't have.
           | 
           | On the other hand, even if you don't get access to spoken
           | communication with (almost) any new people (I have only once
           | in my life spoken Latin with another person who didn't also
           | speak English), you do get access to millennia of "Latinity"
           | and a perspective on the origins of modern European languages
           | (even the non-Romance ones because of pervasive borrowings).
           | 
           | I want to say that every language is a world and opens new
           | horizons of thought and culture. For conlangs, those horizons
           | may be kind of shockingly minuscule, but they're still there.
           | Even with the intentional extreme limitations of my favorite
           | conlang, toki pona, I've had the experience on rare occasion
           | of feeling like something was easier or clearer for me to
           | express in toki pona than in my native English. But yes,
           | learning modern languages has paid much huger dividends in
           | being able to communicate with hundreds of millions of new
           | people and participate to some limited extent in very vibrant
           | cultures...
           | 
           | Edit: in the specific case of Esperanto there's a widely-held
           | but controversial theory that it helps prepare people for the
           | experience of learning other languages, maybe by helping them
           | develop some grammatical concepts or practice certain
           | language-learning skills.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperant.
           | ..
           | 
           | I actually find this less plausible than I used to (it seems
           | like many of the grammatical concepts you get from Esperanto
           | won't map that well onto other languages), but some
           | experiments with this did show positive results.
        
             | bluGill wrote:
             | Latin opens up ancient worlds.
        
       | thaumasiotes wrote:
       | > Select the English phrase that correctly translates the Latin.
       | 
       | > _Filiae aquam agricolae dant._
       | 
       | > 1. The daughters give the farmer water.
       | 
       | > 2. The farmers give (their) daughters water.
       | 
       | > 3. The farmer gives (his) daughters water.
       | 
       | > 4. The farmer gives (his) daughter water.
       | 
       | This is answerable, but only because three of the answers are
       | impossible. You have to make the assumption that the correct
       | translation is given as one of the options. Unmentioned but
       | possible readings include "The farmers give water to the
       | daughter" and "The farmer's daughters give water [to something
       | determined by context]".
       | 
       | If I'm going to be asked to do translation exercises, I'd rather
       | have questions that I need to answer by understanding the text,
       | as opposed to questions that I need to answer by referring to the
       | construction of the question. Follow that sentence with something
       | like _Aqua bibita, puellis gratias agit_ and suddenly we can
       | determine what the first sentence meant regardless of which
       | options we 're given.
       | 
       | > Choose the word that matches the indicated use.
       | 
       | > Genitive of the possesor
       | 
       | > 1. coronam and Dianam in "Puella Dianae coronam dat quia Dianam
       | amat."
       | 
       | > 2. dominis in "Nautae fabulam dominis narrat quia dominae
       | fabulas amant."
       | 
       | > 3. Cui in "Cui puellae coronam dant?"
       | 
       | This is much worse; these three sentences between them do not
       | contain even one word in the genitive case. Also, there's a typo
       | in #2, which should presumably say either "Nautae... narrant" or
       | "Nauta... narrat". "Possesor" is a typo too.
       | 
       | I picked #2 and was told it was correct. That grayed the question
       | out, so I can't tell whether options 1 or 3 would also have been
       | "correct".
       | 
       | > Genitive of the possesor
       | 
       | > 3. pugnae in "Nuntiat Galba nautae causam pugnae."
       | 
       | This one is at least genitive, but I have trouble characterizing
       | this as "genitive of the possessor". Going by the taxonomy here (
       | https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program...
       | ), I'd call it an objective genitive.
        
         | wcarey wrote:
         | That particular sentence is a really tough knot pedagogically
         | too. As a teacher, you want a short simple sentence that
         | includes a nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and verb
         | to habituate students to thinking about cases.
         | 
         | Unfortunately, in the first declension, the nominative plural,
         | genitive singular, and and dative singular all look identical,
         | hence the confusion here. Filiae and agricolae could be any of
         | those three options, which means, as you rightly say, that we
         | need context to render the sentence. That introduced students
         | to another distinctive feature of Latin: like C++, Latin has a
         | context sensitive grammar.
         | 
         | If you wanted to separate the introduction of the case system
         | from the introduction of the context sensitivity of the
         | grammar, you could do this sentence:
         | 
         | > Filiabus aquam agricolae dant.
         | 
         | While that fixes most of the context sensitivity, it doesn't
         | fix all of it, and introduces an irregular declension, also
         | tough right out the gate.
         | 
         | Latin is a hard language to teach.
        
           | andrepd wrote:
           | > That introduced students to another distinctive feature of
           | Latin: like C++, Latin has a context sensitive grammar.
           | 
           | Surely this is a feature of all languages :)
        
             | Tomte wrote:
             | Certainly not.
             | 
             | The first example of context-sensitive constructions in
             | natural language was found in 1985.
             | 
             | http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/shieber8
             | 5...
        
           | hakuseki wrote:
           | Actually this is an example of ambiguity, not context
           | sensitivity (in the formal languages sense). Context
           | sensitivity means context is needed to _construct_ a
           | grammatical sentence, not merely to parse one. It 's actually
           | pretty hard to find examples of this in natural language.
        
             | thaumasiotes wrote:
             | Judging by the paper linked sidethread, it's enough that
             | some valid sentences cannot be constructed in a context-
             | free way. Even if they can be losslessly transformed into
             | alternative sentences which can be easily derived from a
             | context-free grammar, their existence demonstrates that the
             | language is not context-free.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Thanks for the feedback! As you noticed, the drills are more
         | about syntax than reading comprehension, and your understanding
         | of syntax is solid. It might be challenging to come up with
         | multiple correct translations of each Latin exercise, but I
         | will give some thought to how it might be done.
        
           | wcarey wrote:
           | One way I've done that in the past is asking explicit
           | questions about the syntax, like:
           | 
           | > "If filiae is nominative, how would you translate the
           | sentence?"
           | 
           | or
           | 
           | > What cases could agricolae be here?
           | 
           | if you want to introduce the context sensitivity of the
           | grammar.
        
             | jthnews wrote:
             | Those are two great ideas for question formats. I will
             | likely try to work those into future quizzes. Thanks for
             | checking out the site!
        
               | wcarey wrote:
               | Sure! It's good stuff.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | wcarey wrote:
         | #2 you could read, "[He] tells the sailor's story to the
         | mistresses, because mistresses love stories", which does have a
         | possessive genitive.
        
           | jthnews wrote:
           | Yes, I think that was the original intention. I changed the
           | option to - Nautae in "Nautae fabulam dominis narrat quia
           | dominae fabulas amant." - for the time being, so at least it
           | isnt't flat out wrong while I think of something better.
        
           | thaumasiotes wrote:
           | Fair enough. I might have thought more about that if _nautae_
           | had been one of the options for  "which word is genitive?"
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Looking at your second example...that's just a mistake, sorry.
         | I figured a couple of those were bound to slip in. I'll get it
         | fixed. And again, I really appreciate your taking a look at the
         | site.
        
       | billfruit wrote:
       | Also Duolingo has had a latin course since some time, worth
       | checking it out if you want to get a feel of latin.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Yes, the Duolingo course is great if you are interested in
         | conversational Latin. This tool is focused more on reading
         | ancient Roman authors. No reason you can't do both, though!
        
       | cambalache wrote:
       | Some feedback:
       | 
       | Have some link in your header clearly named "Course" or "Lessons"
       | as it is right now it is totally confusing.
       | 
       | Embed the videos in your site.
       | 
       | Include the text in your site if possible.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Thanks for the feedback! I'll put some thought into this.
        
       | kantord wrote:
       | Are you interested in helping with the LibreLingo project?
       | https://github.com/kantord/LibreLingo
       | 
       | Although the concept is a little bit different and the book
       | content cannot be so directly adapted, I think it could still be
       | used a nice starting point
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Great project! At first glance it looks like the differences in
         | approach are substantial, but I'll think about it some more and
         | see if there are ways I might be able to contribute.
        
         | tomcooks wrote:
         | OT: WOW, thank you for creating this platform. It's great that
         | free alternatives to corporate platforms exist
        
       | dominotw wrote:
       | I've been doing latin on duolingo. This would be a good
       | compliment.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Congrats on beginning your Latin studies! Duolingo is a great
         | place to start, and will get you off and running with
         | conversational Latin. Selfstudyclassics is geared more towards
         | vocabulary and constructions you might find in reading, say,
         | Caesar. I agree that they complement each other nicely.
        
       | tomcooks wrote:
       | It's a pity English speakers are often taught the wrong (English
       | based) pronunciation.
       | 
       | For self study I also suggest reading Lingua Latina Per Se
       | Illustrata, it's a book completely written in Latin that gets
       | progressively more complex and guides you through the language in
       | an utilitarian way.
        
         | teataster wrote:
         | I think Lingua Latina is an amazing book!
         | 
         | PSA: you only need the first book. The second is pretty much a
         | reader. It is still great, specially if you are interested in
         | Classics. If you are interested in reading the Vulgate Bible or
         | medieval works, you can go ahead with those after the first
         | book.
         | 
         | Medieval latin is significantly easier than classics, so it may
         | even be worth you while going through those even before going
         | further with classics.
        
           | jthnews wrote:
           | Agreed! That is unquestionably a great text for those who
           | have access to it. Selfstudyclassics is aimed at those who
           | might not have access to it, or who are looking for
           | additional practice in the form of interactive exercises with
           | explanations.
        
             | teataster wrote:
             | Oh, I was just riffing on the parent comment.
             | 
             | I've had a look at your tool and I think is great. It
             | greatly complements Lingua Latina and it is an essential
             | tool for someone going through the traditional path of
             | learning latin.
             | 
             | I wish I had something like this when I was learning latin
             | in highschool. Furthermore, anything that helps disseminate
             | classics is great in my view.
             | 
             | Thanks for your contribution!
        
           | throw0101a wrote:
           | > _PSA: you only need the first book._
           | 
           | If I go to Amazon, the "Frequently bought together" section
           | has:
           | 
           | * This item:Familia Romana by Hans H. Orberg Paperback
           | CDN$39.05
           | 
           | * Exercitia Latina I: Exercises for Familia Romana by Hans H.
           | Orberg Paperback CDN$25.33
           | 
           | * Latine Disco, Student's Manual: Familia Romana by Hans H.
           | Orberg Paperback CDN$10.28
           | 
           | Is this a good combo?
           | 
           | It appears that the second book is _Roma Aeterna_ : correct?
        
             | teataster wrote:
             | I do not own latine disco. I did work through exercitia
             | latina I, and it is great! And yes, Roma Aeterna is the
             | second book.
             | 
             | But you only need familia romana. Everything else is cherry
             | on top, extremely useful if you want to write latin and it
             | will help your learning a lot. However if you are strapped
             | for cash, are not interested in writing, don't have lots of
             | time, want to jump quickly into reading the Bible... Just
             | go with familia romana.
             | 
             | Furthermore op is giving lots of exercises, so that makes
             | exercitia less relevant.
             | 
             | But at the end of the day is your money and your choice. I
             | am happy I have Roma Aeterna, but I did not finish it, and
             | I read medieval works quite fluently. I just wanted to put
             | that info out so everyone can make their best buying
             | choice.
        
         | twic wrote:
         | One of my Latin teachers (the one who was under 60) did try to
         | teach us a proper pronuncation once, but quickly gave up.
         | 
         | But i wonder, what is the point? I think the use cases for
         | Latin are, from most to least important:
         | 
         | 1. reading Latin texts
         | 
         | 2. casually dropping Latin phrases to impress your friends and
         | intimidate your enemies
         | 
         | 3. writing Latin mottoes, naming species, etc
         | 
         | 4. listening to that Finnish radio station that is in Latin
         | 
         | 5. work conversations at the Vatican
         | 
         | I think that none of these require historically correct Latin
         | pronunciation. I assume that at the Vatican they speak some
         | derivative of mediaeval Latin, and the signalling function of
         | using Latin tags actually requires that you use the incorrect
         | "classically educated Englishman" pronunciation.
        
           | jthnews wrote:
           | You might be surprised at the size of the community of Latin
           | speakers (outside the Vatican). It gets some attention from
           | time to time on HN. For this community a shared pronunciation
           | is crucial to being mutually intelligible. And I suppose it
           | makes sense to use the one with the most support from the
           | experts, even if it will always remain somewhat speculative.
           | I take your point - it is possible to study and ready Latin
           | without much regard for pronunciation. But I also feel that
           | if you approach it this way you miss out on the fun of trying
           | to recreate the speech of an ancient culture.
        
           | chrononaut wrote:
           | Not knowing Latin myself, I would imagine that learning Latin
           | could also be a stepping stone to more thoroughly understand
           | other related languages?
        
             | yorwba wrote:
             | But pronunciation is very variable, even living languages
             | have multiple different pronunciations in use at any given
             | time (a.k.a. accents) and for a language like Latin that
             | has been in use for thousands of years, the possibilities
             | are endless.
             | 
             | Being able to establish one-to-one correspondences between
             | Latin words and their descendants in modern languages can
             | be helpful, but it doesn't matter much whether you're using
             | the "correct" Latin pronunciation, so long as whatever
             | pronunciation you do use maintains those correspondences.
        
               | tomcooks wrote:
               | Give it a try, it's what people do on a daily basis when
               | trying to communicate with English speakers.
        
               | yorwba wrote:
               | If you want to use Latin to talk to people, you should
               | probably use whatever pronunciation they expect, even if
               | it's not "correct".
        
               | bmj wrote:
               | I attend an Anglican church (in the U.S.). Our rector and
               | deacon are both from England. They endlessly argue about
               | the pronunciation of venite.
        
             | wenc wrote:
             | The written form, maybe, but the spoken form not likely.
             | 
             | The Youtuber Ecolinguist ran an experiment where he had
             | Romance language speakers (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian)
             | try to guess at riddles in Latin. Turns out Classical Latin
             | is actually very different from most Romance languages,
             | which descended more from "Vulgar Latin".
             | 
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77anb2DJGk
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | teataster wrote:
           | Correct pronunciation is rather relevant for your first
           | point, if you are trying to read poetry.
           | 
           | Both latin and classical greek poetry has a "rhythm" based on
           | the pronunciation of each syllable. In latin you won't get
           | the rhythm unless you are very knowledgeable of the poetic
           | forms or the correct pronunciation of words, since vowel
           | spelling is overloaded: there are 10 latin vowels (excluding
           | diphthongs) and 5 ways to write them traditionally.
           | 
           | Same goes if you are interested in following a christian mass
           | in latin. Songs make little sense without medieval/vatican
           | pronunciation. I can read an ecclesiastic text, but I get
           | nothing of what they are singing, since I was educated in
           | classical latin.
        
           | thaumasiotes wrote:
           | > I think that none of these require historically correct
           | Latin pronunciation.
           | 
           | That is true, but there are questions for which you want to
           | know what the historical pronunciation was. For example, it's
           | much easier to make sense of ancient misspellings if you can
           | recognize that the misspelling and the target word would have
           | sounded the same. Something similar holds for ancient jokes.
           | 
           | > I assume that at the Vatican they speak some derivative of
           | mediaeval Latin
           | 
           | This is vague; the syntax and pronunciation of Latin change
           | continuously into Italian. The rest of Italy has a better
           | claim to be speaking "some derivative of medieval Latin" than
           | the Vatican does; the Vatican's version presumably reflects
           | mostly-arrested development after a certain point, as far as
           | syntax goes.
           | 
           | As for pronunciation, I tend to assume (without any relevant
           | knowledge) that the Vatican's Latin pronunciation is just how
           | the same written words would be pronounced in standard
           | Italian. You can find similar conventions for other dead
           | languages -- it's the only option available for Chinese where
           | we just plain don't know what the pronunciation was in 600
           | BC, and it's "Reuchlinian pronunciation" in Greek. This
           | approach has quite a bit to recommend it, most prominently
           | that it's easy to find fluent models of the pronunciation of
           | a living language.
        
           | tomcooks wrote:
           | > One of my Latin teachers did try to teach us a proper
           | pronuncation once, but quickly gave up.
           | 
           | Basically what happens in Europe when students need to learn
           | English pronunciation, but no way to give up.
           | 
           | > But i wonder, what is the point?
           | 
           | By learning Latin you multiply the speed at which you learn
           | romance languages, which will allow you to understand and
           | communicate with a much larger share of the world.
           | 
           | Moreover, but this is a personal sidenote: why do people
           | outside of the Anglosphere need to learn how to speak perfect
           | English (and get the usual banter about pronunciation not
           | being spotless), while the Anglosphere generally doesn't
           | bother returning the favour (while at the same time
           | complaining about being treated as uneducated, rude gringos)
        
             | umanwizard wrote:
             | I don't think there's any evidence that learning Latin
             | helps you learn Romance languages any faster than learning
             | a Romance language does. Why should learning Latin and then
             | French be any faster than Spanish->French ?
        
               | bshimmin wrote:
               | I studied Latin and French from the age of 11. When I
               | spent a year in Bologna as a student on the Erasmus
               | scheme (studying Latin, in fact), I can _assure_ you that
               | my schoolboy French was the more useful of the two as a
               | starting point for learning Italian.
        
             | Grieving wrote:
             | > By learning Latin you multiply the speed at which you
             | learn romance languages, which will allow you to understand
             | and communicate with a much larger share of the world.
             | 
             | As someone else said, you can just as well learn a Romance
             | language and you'll have the same benefit when learning a
             | second. My grandfather's first language was an obscure
             | French dialect, and he's able to communicate with Mexican
             | Spanish speakers without much trouble.
             | 
             | > Moreover, but this is a personal sidenote: why do people
             | outside of the Anglosphere need to learn how to speak
             | perfect English (and get the usual banter about
             | pronunciation not being spotless), while the Anglosphere
             | generally doesn't bother returning the favour (while at the
             | same time complaining about being treated as uneducated,
             | rude gringos)
             | 
             | I don't know if this holds true elsewhere in the
             | Anglosphere, but in my experience Americans who are
             | interested in learning foreign languages are generally
             | eager to perfect their pronunciation (whether or not they
             | succeed is another question entirely, though to be fair the
             | same is true about most English learners). That
             | "uneducated, rude gringos" are a long-standing negative
             | trope in popular American media reflects this insecurity.
             | And with regard to classical languages in particular, the
             | Anglosphere has been mocked for reviving 'spotless'
             | classical pronunciations instead of simply using, for
             | example, modern Italian or Greek pronunciation.
        
           | mudita wrote:
           | When you're learning latin, it's usually not mainly about the
           | practical application, anyway, and aesthetically it feels
           | somehow so much more pleasing to use the "correct"
           | pronunciation - to me at least.
           | 
           | Furthermore it can help to understand historic and linguistic
           | relationships in unexpected ways:
           | 
           | For example the German word for emperor "Kaiser" looks very
           | different to the Latin "Caesar" and the relationship between
           | those words remains obscured by the way most Germans
           | pronounce Caesar. But it was a revelation to me, when I
           | learned that "c" and "ae"are actually pronounced the same way
           | as the "k" and "ai" in the German "Kaiser". We literally
           | still call emperors Caesar in German!
        
             | thaumasiotes wrote:
             | Aren't the "s" and the "s" different, though? And the "r"
             | and the "r"?
        
               | QuercusMax wrote:
               | It's pretty dang close for 2100 years!
        
           | ferkad wrote:
           | ad 4. If you are referring to Nuntii Latini then it is no
           | longer broadcasted. The final news service was emitted in
           | 2019.
        
         | wrycoder wrote:
         | A review of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata on the excellent
         | polyMATHY channel:
         | 
         | https://youtu.be/5oJctKy_r6s
        
           | jthnews wrote:
           | Thanks! Excellent text and excellent channel.
        
         | coldcode wrote:
         | I learned Latin in a public high school in the 70's, took 3
         | years of it. The teacher taught us correct pronunciation as
         | best he could. It was actually the most popular class in the
         | whole school due to the quality of the teacher. Sadly I don't
         | remember much now.
        
         | dghf wrote:
         | > It's a pity English speakers are often taught the wrong
         | (English based) pronunciation.
         | 
         | Really? Still? I was taught Latin many years ago by a very
         | conservative teacher, who insisted on classical pronunciation
         | rather than the anglicised version (so "mah-ter" rather than
         | "may-ter" for _mater_ , etc.)
        
           | kwhitefoot wrote:
           | Same here, I don't think I have ever heard mater pronounced
           | may-ter except by public school boys referring to their
           | mother in English. I studied Latin from 1st form to 3rd form,
           | 1966 to 1969. Hated it then but in recent years I've been
           | making desultory attempts to learn it again.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Thanks for your interest! I agree about the pronunciation. The
         | first of the videos is on that very topic. Also I second your
         | suggestion of Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. That is a great
         | text. My goal is not to replace any of the existing tools, but
         | rather to supplement them. There is no such thing as too much
         | practice. Also, this presents a free alternative for those that
         | might need one.
        
           | tomcooks wrote:
           | Ah sorry I didn't mean to sound like that with the comment on
           | the pronunciation, it was praise: fortunately someone like
           | you is pushing for doing things the right way (and this
           | removes the perceived cultural imperialism)
           | 
           | Great job!
        
             | jthnews wrote:
             | No apology necessary. I sincerely appreciate any and all
             | feedback on the project.
        
       | tomcooks wrote:
       | in the homepage the videos link leads to a 404.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Thanks! Fixed...
        
       | jbarrs wrote:
       | As an aside, I'd like to recommend to people the Cambridge Latin
       | Course (https://www.cambridgescp.com/)
       | 
       | This was the course I followed learning Latin in school. Whilst
       | it may be tailored more towards a school audience, much of the
       | content of their books is available for free online, which
       | includes lots of translation and vocabulary practice. The books
       | and stories are all very light-hearted and fun and teach a lot
       | about Roman history as you learn the language. This could make
       | good supplementary learning material for anyone trying to teach
       | themselves Latin for free.
        
         | throw0101a wrote:
         | I believe the other popular suggestion is Orberg's _Lingua
         | Latina_ :
         | 
         | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg
        
           | billfruit wrote:
           | I thought the common suggestion for a modern Latin textbook
           | is Wheelock.
           | 
           | https://www.amazon.com/Wheelocks-Latin-7th/dp/0061997226#
        
             | HuShifang wrote:
             | From my own casual investigations, Wheelock is considered a
             | perfectly good textbook (particularly for people with lots
             | of experience learning languages, e.g. grad students in the
             | humanities), but also a bit "traditional," focusing more on
             | learning grammatical rules and less on developing an
             | intuition for the language. _Lingua Latina Per Se
             | Illustrata_ is at the other,  "immersion"-oriented end of
             | the spectrum.
        
               | voldacar wrote:
               | My latin teacher used both wheelock and lingua latina.
               | They complement each other really well.
        
           | jthnews wrote:
           | Yes, several other commenters have made that suggestion, and
           | I agree it is a good one. This tool is aimed at those
           | interested in a public domain text, or people who using other
           | tools who are looking for additional practice in the form of
           | interactive exercises with explanations.
        
           | SilasX wrote:
           | Yes! Orberg's is neat in that it's all in Latin, and you just
           | infer what everything means from the pictures as you read.
           | 
           | I got referred to it from this earlier HN thread:
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448974
        
           | cambalache wrote:
           | For me it is the best book for language learning I have ever
           | seen, irrespective of the target language.
        
         | timthorn wrote:
         | Also new this year for Lockdown, the Oak National Academy
         | produced an intro course:
         | https://classroom.thenational.academy/subjects-by-key-stage/...
        
           | jthnews wrote:
           | Wow, this is great. Thanks for the link. I hope to take
           | Selfstudyclassics a little farther than this one goes over
           | time, but this would be a great place for anyone to start.
        
             | timthorn wrote:
             | The other resource you might be interested in is Minimus,
             | designed to introduce Primary school children to Latin, and
             | to allow non-Latin speaking teachers to lead a course. None
             | of the interactive elements you offer, though there are CDs
             | :) http://www.minimus.com/
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Thanks for the link to a great resource. I don't mean to
         | detract in any way from any of the other terrific resources
         | available online - free or otherwise. I created
         | selfstudyclassics.com to scratch a very particular itch. When I
         | started to re-learn Latin after many years, I was looking for
         | something which was focused on examples and featured a lot of
         | practice with instant feedback - something like Khan Academy,
         | which I love. My hope is that it is helpful to others with a
         | similar itch.
        
           | jbarrs wrote:
           | Yes I totally understand, and I don't think you've detracted
           | from the others at all. The more resources are available, and
           | the more accessible they are for different learners and
           | different styles of learning, the better.
        
         | tragomaskhalos wrote:
         | It's really important that these texts have this lightness of
         | mood to engage kids - and the way that so many adults remember
         | Caecilius and family is a testament to how effective it is.
         | Timeless too - I was amazed and delighted when my daughter used
         | the exact same texts. In similar vein, for Greek we used
         | Thrasymachus, which follows a plucky kid on his adventures
         | encountering various characters from mythology.
        
         | abhisuri97 wrote:
         | Ecce Romani gets no love despite the exciting saga of the main
         | characters being stuck in a ditch for half a book.
        
           | oliverobscure wrote:
           | I have many fond memories of learning Latin with Ecce Romani.
           | Raeda in fossa est, whatever will they do?
        
         | gadders wrote:
         | Caecilius est in horto.
        
           | dbuder wrote:
           | Caecilius est in Matella.
        
             | wfreeborn wrote:
             | Grumio est in Metella.
        
           | _joel wrote:
           | I can almost feel and smell the textbook.
        
           | exdsq wrote:
           | Caecilius in horto sedet
        
       | billfruit wrote:
       | I have been interested in learning Latin by self study, but
       | memorizing conjugations and declinations seems like a chore.
       | 
       | There are some modern variants of Latin that seems to simplify
       | these aspects mainly Interlingua and Latine-sine-flexione(LSF).
       | Are these worth while to learn?. For example if one is up to
       | speed in LSF, can one still make sense of classical latin texts
       | and poetry etc?.
        
         | defterGoose wrote:
         | Declensions and conjugations are actually one of the easier
         | things to memorize though, because they sit in a nice table.
         | Ive never heard of LSF, but my experience with reading Latin
         | has taught me that a solid understanding of the grammar is
         | critical because of the irregular forms and things like
         | gerund/ives. Only having a good sense of vocabulary just isnt
         | quite good enough for good comprehension.
        
         | Sileni wrote:
         | I have no experience with modern variants of Latin, but
         | wouldn't that be akin to trying to read Portugese when you know
         | Spanish? You might get the general gist, but you wouldn't
         | really get the full underlying meaning. You'd certainly miss
         | more complex ideas like idioms.
         | 
         | I'd imagine it would depend on your goal. Do you want to be
         | able to work your way through a text, or do you want to be able
         | to appreciate poetry in the language? I'd say it might work for
         | the former, it almost certainly wouldn't for the latter.
        
         | jthnews wrote:
         | Unfortunately I have not been able to find a way to learn Latin
         | that doesn't involve some amount of memorization pain. I find
         | that focused exercises, as opposed to flashcards or other rote
         | approaches, mitigate the pain somewhat. But I'm not sure it can
         | be eliminated completely.
        
       | Tomte wrote:
       | I'd love to have an interlinear text Latin-German. There are such
       | texts in Latin-English, but if someone klnows about a German one,
       | please tell me.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-03-29 23:01 UTC)