Who knows Latin? What do you think about it? Do you think it's a waste of time? Give me your thought on it. I'm also thinking about learning Latin and was wondering what books would be good to check out.
>>8146168
Did Hercules even lift?
>>8146179
...And to answer your question, "Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata."
It's convertible into most Romance vocabulary if you know the sound changes, so it's indirectly useful.
>>8146186
Is that what you used? Not OP but I actually started that same text about 5 days ago and have been enjoying it. I've been reading each chapter 3 times before moving on. The vocabulary retention is surprisingly good, and even the grammar is coming along.
With that said I think the informal emphasis on conjugation and declension would make for a comparatively poor foundation for branching into modern Romance languages. Any thoughts on that?
>>8146186
Anyone know where I can get this for cheap? Also would anyone know if "Getting Starting with Latin" by William Linney is any good?
Literally never fucking use Lingua Latina per se illustrata
hoooly shit, it's a fucking meme.
>Should I learn math using this textbook that every single other person used to learn math.. and that has worked for billions of people.. or should I listen to a kooky internet website that tells me I can only *REALLY* learn math by entering a mystical numbertrance and dancing with the hyperdimensional graph-elves?
Lingua Latina is fucking retarded, a failed experiment, or half-baked at best
Just use Wheelock or Shelmerdine, first is easily pirated. Self-teaching is totally doable. Just keep at it and be okay with asking questions when you get stuck on conceptual stuff.
>>8146575
>billions of people
m8 how many people do you know who studied latin, let alone maintained their control of the language?
>>8146168
You're far better off learning Greek
>>8146684
Literally anyone looking to learn Latin sucks at learning languages and Latin is the most easiest language to learn so
>>8146684
Not him, but I'm debating with myself whether to begin either Latin or Greek. Why do you think Greek is self-evidently the better choice?
had Ancient Greek and Latin in highschool for 4 years, I'd say it has its uses, Latin definetely helped greatly with improving my french. besides that, studying these languages will give you a greater understanding of (western) languages in general because how fundamentally diffirent the grammar is.
honestly I always thought Ancient Greek was slightly harder, but a lot more fun.
>>8146791
Well more shit is written in Latin but the coolest shit is written in Greek. And its not tht hard to transfer what you learn to learning Modern Greek whereas Latin has only a thin relevance except for MAYBE Spanish and Latin
Everyone used to learn latin and greek, if you're gonna put the time into learning latin you learn greek too.
They might technically be less intimidating in a way cause no one knows them and it's a dead language so you learn at your own pace like learning an instrument
>>8146915
Why learn languages that are dead and buried? Shouldn't everyone be learning Spanish now?
>>8146938
not dead, just sleeping
>>8146938
If you can learn two dead languages you can learn any language, there's probably like 20-50 people on /lit/ who know one or both.
People spend most of their time doing nothing so it's pretty /lit/ to learn a language like latin or greek for those who want to put it to good use.
Also how many people actually leave their countries to stay for extended periods in foreign lands, it's expensive and even foreign interaction is rare.
I'm using these books (Oxford)
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxXHoICxOkScYW1zQ3dfTVVzanM&usp=sharing
>>8146168
I learned it at school, I liked it and enjoyed it. It was cool, gave my a deeper understanding of my mother language which was nice and comfy.
About the books, I don't know, I used the ones at school so and with a teacher, so...
People will say that if you're not gonna use it is a waste of time but that's stupid, if you want to learn it do it. Some people can't go beyond learning something if it doesn't have an economical benefit in return.
I am currently learning Latin. I coupled a very basic grammar course from college with Lingua Latina per se illustrata for reading practice. Now I am reading a bilingual edition of Plautus's comedies while searching for and listing every new word.
Keep in mind Latin is a hard language; despite being native French and having managed to become fluent in Spanish in six months, after around a year learning Latin, I still read very slowly.
>>8146168
I learned latin in highschool, I found it quite fun, and the language itself can be very satisfying to read. I feel like the fact that latin is so analytical to learn really helps you appreciate the literary techniques authors employ.
We learnt it with using the cambridge course - you can find it all online, Im pretty sure.
>>8146168
I taught myself basic latin and am now a classics minor at university. Definitely use Wheelock if you want to learn, it's the standard for almost all Latin courses in academia. If you're interested in Greek I would recommend using Hanson and Quinn, Shelmerdine is the book we use at my uni and it is unbearable. The grammar explanations use too much jargon that you won't understand without basic understanding of linguistics and the reading passages have no abcrit to explain words that aren't taught in the vocab so you have to constantly look them up in the glossary. Not to mention the fact that by chapter 10 most of the reading passages are taken from Herodotus et al Greek writers and is edited down as little as possible. While some might find this a plus, I do not because it is hard enough to apply the grammar and vocab retention required to learn a language, it is a whole other ball park to do that while interpreting complex syntax in a language where word order largely does not matter.
Anyway do this:
>Wheelock's Latin
>Caesar's Commentarii de bello gaulico (caesar is probably the easiest Latin author to read) + Wheelock's intermediate Latin Reader
>annotaded copies of latin literature for the intermediate reader,
i recommend Livy, he can be dense at first but his style is enjoyable and easy when you get comfortable with it. Don't start with Cicero though, shit is wayyyyy too dense
>>8146575
>hoooly shit
Opinion discarded, you brunch eating dork.
>>8146488
I virtually taught myself Latin with that book, moving weeks/months ahead of my classes.
>>8146575
Nah, people who learn Latin with Wheelock's never learn to read with anything approaching fluency. It's a flawed, meme method. You can't memorize a list of 900 words, read a few dozen practice sentences, and pick up Livy or Horace, but that's pretty much exactly what Wheelock's leads to. You learn to decipher Latin like a code or puzzle, never to read it with real enjoyment and profit.
>>8146684
I'd second this, I wish I'd learned Greek first, as much as I love Latin.
>>8146791
Greek is easier if you're not a downie who gets tripped up by the simple alphabet. Some of the coolest shit is Greek and you need to read Greek just to understand Latin lit properly since it's all playing off of Greek ideas in one way or another.
>>8147163
I'd say it takes at least 3 years of fairly steady practice to start getting anywhere close to good, just the way it goes. Plautus is an excellent choice, auctor plenus salis, leporis, merissimaeque latinitatis. Your method of proceeding is exactly what one should do. With someone like Plautus, though, where some of his vocabulary is neologistic or archaic or just unusual, I used to mark the words I looked up in a dictionary and only memorize words I'd looked up two or three times.
Anybody who thinks they read Latin, if you can't read this sentence you have yet to ascend:
Cum inter deos fierent sacra coniugia, procreationes undique numerosae, liberique praeclues ac nepotum dulcium aetheria multitudo caelicolarum complexu ac foedere potirentur praesertimque potissimos conubialis bearet adiectio, idque deditum mundo loquax triviatim dissultaret humanitas poetaeque praecipue Oeagrium citharistam secuti caecutientisque Maeonii suaviloquam senectutem epica vulgo lyricaque pagina consonarent, nec aliquid dulcius Iovi inter aetherias voluptates una coniuge loquerentur, hisque accederet promptior fides, quae suadente haruspicio grandaevos pontifices in testimonium convocat, cum quid Iuppiter hominum votis trepida curarum ambage suspensis multa implacabilis hostia denegaret exorata eius matrona provenire, et quicquid ille ex prompta sententia Parcarum pugillo asservante dictaverit, delenitum suadae coniugis amplexibus iussuque removere - nec solum superum regem attestabantur uxorium, idque etiam Diti propositum idque Portuno certumque esse Gradivum Nerienis Nerinae coniugis amore torreri, Aesculapio quoque non dispar affectio, similique persuasione transduci Ope coniuga Cybeleque permulsa maestissimum seniorem deorum, Ianusque Argionam utraque miratur effigie, iam reginam tantum marito dependisse Memphiticam, ut obsita luctu perpetuo numquam eum contenta sit invenire.
>>8147616
>annotaded copies of latin literature for the intermediate reader,
Where can I buy these in paperback format?
>>8147746
Amazon has a lot of Cambridge editions which are the main representative of that sort of thing in English afaik.
>>8147746
just look around online, various publishers sell them. Look up "annotated" or "parse". They can be expensive, however, so be warned.
>>8147741
And the spoiler for that passage. William Stahl said that if you ever have an uppity graduate student you should assign him Capella and he may well abandon philology forever. Also a good author to show anyone who thinks that late/medieval authors are easy. He makes Livy look like a Carolingian hagiographer as far as difficulty goes.When holy marriages were arising amongst the gods, blessed with numerous progeny, and their noble children and all the ethereal multitude of sweet descendants, too, enjoyed amongst themselves the pact of heavenly union, and the chief deities were especially blessed by this nuptial addition, and, the matter being divulged to the world, loquacious humanity was relating these marriages high and low, and particularly the poets, following the Oeagrian lyre and the sweet-speaking eld of the blind Maeonian, sung them oft in pages of epic and lyric, and they said nothing was sweeter to Jove among his ethereal pleasures than his only wife, and there was a more ready Faith in these things, the which Faith, urged by haruspicy, calls the aged priests to witness, that, when implacable Jupiter denies many sacrificial victims, and the vows of men hang in an ambiguity of foaming worries, they succeed when his wife is entreated, and whatever he has decreed by his disclosed opinion, guarded in the thread of the Parcae, he removes, softened by the embrace and command of his persuasive spouse — and not only did they relate the marriage of the king of the gods: they told of one for Dis, one for Portunus, and certainly Gradivus burned with love for a Nereid wife named Neria, and Aesculapius had an equal passion of his own, while under a like persuasion the most solemn and senior of the gods was portrayed with Ops, Cybele whom he charmed, and Janus marveled at Argiona with both his faces; the Queen of Memphis bestowed nothing on her husband, but that overcome by constant grief she was never able to find him.
>>8146748
>Literally anyone looking to learn Latin sucks at learning languages
I'm so confused by this post. Everyone who wants to learn Latin, whoever they are, is bad at languages? Every single classicist? A polyglot who just wants another to learn?
>>8147741
You're right about some things (e.g., people approaching Latin like a puzzle), but oh so wrong about others. Greek is objectively more difficult than Latin when it comes to its verbal system and all that entails (conjugations, mood, aspect), noun and adjective declension, grammar, not to mention the different dialects... I always found Latin piss easy. Greek is a big mess though, as much as I adore it.
>>8147846
Greek is more difficult to learn but Greek authors are far easier to read than Latin authors. Latin authors like to show off fancy syntax for the sake of fancy syntax and in general just create confusing sentences that can sometimes be ambiguous to even the most scholarly and experienced classicist. In my intermediate Latin course we would debate the possible meaning of a sentence for like half an hour just because the grammar could be interpreted in two different ways that would change the meaning profusely.
>>8147878
True, but we do the exact same with Greek so I really don't see your point.
>>8147890
latin authors do it more I find, making them harder to get through. Greek may be harder to learn, but it's literature is easier when you have a decent grip on the language. Some Latin literature can throw off even the most experienced learners, like Tacitus, Vergil, Cicero, and many others.
>>8147846
Certo de gustibus non est disputandum. Ego sum unus eorum qui diversitatem formarum facile percipiunt, et ambiguitas ac saepe nota brevitas Latinitatis, licet morphologiae multo angustioris quam Graeca, per multos annos me cruciavit. Ipsa formarum paucitas fecit mihi plurimas legendi difficultates quam est sudor in formis Graecis perdiscendendis, et, formis perceptis, Graeca multo mihi lectu facilior videbatur.
Sed omnes dissimiles etc.
>>8147911
You're right, it's all a matter of taste.
I've always found Latin infinitely easier, but many of my classmates feel that way about Greek. Oh well.
I was gonna be anal about your grammar and ask some shit but I'm probably wrong and don't want to make a fool of myself on a Chinese cartoon board. Latin's not as good as it was.
>>8147928
It's all grammatical I believe but I won't deny it has a barbaric/monkish sapor.
The Greek verb is so goddamn complete, it's a beautiful thing, and coming from Latin I found it very refreshing. Latin is a language with no active preterite participle, besides for deponents of course, no passive present participle, a gravely defective copulative, etc. etc. Also the Latin forms seem easier on the surface but, for me, when I started getting beyond the textbook phase, the ambiguity made it very hard. I feel like I can look at any Greek sentence and know how it fits together and its syntactic relationships even if I don't know a single word. In Latin, "manus" could be one of four forms, "tristis" one of three, or even four if you're reading Lucretius or Plautus, "puellae" one of three, and you pile up dozens of those nouns, and misunderstanding the significance of any one will spoil your entire interpretation, etc. The forms of the Greek noun don't really look alike and are harder to confuse, and the article just makes it that much easier (for me).
>>8147958
There are some coinciding forms, sure, but I still have a much easier time with it than in Greek. Guess being fluent in a Romance language also plays a big part in my finding Latin significantly easier. I mean, it's not like one couldn't say the same thing you said about Latin nouns with Greek verbs. With Latin I can sometimes come up with two or three different options for the morphology of a word, but I always know what it could be. For Greek I sometimes just don't have a clue as to what's going on, have to go to Perseus, and even then I'm not satisfied. It just seems to escape every rule at times (I'm aware that there's always rules behind it, but once a rule is too rooted in crazy historical linguistics and shit it obviously stops being something one can use to effortlessly predict variations). Contractions, dialectal fuckery, lengthenings and lack thereof, augment fuckery, I could go on... And this is only morphological stuff...
I'm really not trying to hate on Greek at all. The Greek verb is an absolutely fascinating topic. My one point all along was that Latin grammar and morphology seem a hell of a lot simpler to me.
>>8147907
I'm being pretty speculative here but I wonder if this perception is due to the authors most high school/even undergraduates are exposed to in those two languages.
For Greek, I think it's fair to say the big three are Homer, Plato, and the NT, or maybe some plays
For Latin it's probably Virgil, Cicero, and Ovid
IMHO Homer, Plato, the NT, and the plays I've read have been a lot more straightforward than Virgil and Cicero. But I've heard (never read him yet) that Demosthenes is harder than Cicero, and Pindar is certainly harder than Virgil, etc., but those aren't authors you're as likely to read.
>>8148020
I agree. I feel like people aren't as exposed to the really hard stuff in Greek (Pindar, Thucydides, Theocritus) whereas you get a lot of fucked up shit in Latin from the very beginning.
>>8148035
Man one thing I always wished was still a part of classical pedagogy was the reading of ancient glosses. You have to go to a uni library to get them unless you want to pay 120+++ bucks for one. The ancients had trouble understanding these works at times too and I wish I had more ready access to their interpretations and explanations. At least a selection of the scholia in the margins of a school text of Homer would be very cool.
One very cool website that does just that, albeit for a particularly weird work, the De Nuptiis, is here:
http://martianus.huygens.knaw.nl/path
I love their inept graspings after Greek, like this gloss on the word thalamus:
locus nuptiarum grece ΘΗΛΗΜΑ dicitur
Or this gloss on "Camena" (the god Hymenaeus is described as "quem matre Camoena perhibent"):
Hymeneus namque deus nuptiarum dicitur filius Iouis et Veneris, frater scilicet Cupidinis.
When the very goddamn line he's glossing says explicitly that Hymenaeus' mother is a Muse.
But they are sometimes very ingenuous with extracting a meaning out of places they didn't understand (which were many), or even places where the text was, in fact, hopelessly corrupt.
>>8148081
>ingenuous
Meant ingenious.
Here's a clever one, when the author makes reference to the technicalities of haruspicy - the fissiculated prosicia of the bowels and all that"
prosicis tardis et longis responsis prosum enim longum
They didn't understand at all what it was about but they knew it was about prophecy and came up with an on-the-spot, false etymology to make it intelligible.
What's your thought's on new words?
Do you do as this poster said>>8147163, searching for every new word (which sometimes may take eons to read a single page) or rather read pages note understanding some words?
Or is there some different strategy?
I remember Dugin advice on learning languages: he suggested that you study the fuck out of a grammar book in a couple of days, than you read the first book, understanding nothing, but to get used to grammar and language, and then you read other books where you only allow yourself to learn 3 words a page.
>>8147958
Are there any guides about linguistic books for beginners?
>>8148110
I would make marks in a dictionary and memorize words you mark two or three times. Some words only show up a dozen times, or even one single time, in the entire corpus of the language, so it seems like wasted effort to memorize those words (after all there are words in your native language you don't know, too, and have to look up in a dictionary).
The vocabulary of Latin and Greek is, contrary to how it feels, very narrow compared to modern languages. I forget the exact statistic but something like 12,000 words is enough to know almost every word you see in any author you're likely to read, which is really not very many.
It's a necessary and painful process of a certain stage of learning these languages, when you pretty much know the grammar but have to learn all these words. With every author you pick up you'll a period where you have to look up tons of words because you don't know his vocabulary but after a few days or weeks you've learned the words he uses that you did not know and it goes smoother.
I don't see much sense in reading an author without knowing what he's saying/what his words mean but I'm no pedagogue so what do I know.
>>8148127
No idea man, I don't know anything
>>8148139
I am not poor, I am not rich; nihil est, nihil deest, I have little, I want nothing: all my treasure is in Minerva's tower. Greater preferment as I could never get, so am I not in debt for it, I have a competence (laus Deo) from my noble and munificent patrons, though I live still a collegiate student, as Democritus in his garden, and lead a monastic life, ipse mihi theatrum, sequestered from those tumults and troubles of the world, Et tanquam in specula positus, (as he said) in some high place above you all, like Stoicus Sapiens, Omnia saecula, praeterita praesentiaque videns, uno velut intuitu, I hear and see what is done abroad, how others run, ride, turmoil and macerate themselves in court and country, far from those wrangling lawsuits, aulia vanitatem, fori ambitionem, ridere mecum soleo: I laugh at all, only secure, lest my suit go amiss, my ships perish, corn and cattle miscarry, trade decay, I have no wife nor children good or bad to provide for. A mere spectator of other men's fortunes and adventures, and how they act their parts, which methinks are diversely presented unto me, as from a common theatre or scene.
>>8148163
Ngl if you wrote all that unironically, you should probably take it easy, bud. At least you seem to have the knowledge to go along with the autism, so that's something.
>>8148172
Yeah I should have googled beforehand. Glad you're not as autismal I guess.
>>8148172
It's from Burton bro, though it does broadly describe my personal circumstances. I could never write something like that, I have neither the knowledge nor the eloquence.
It's completely humiliating as a modern classicist to read these renaissance guys. They'll show more knowledge in one chapter than I'm likely to acquire in my entire life, more than any of the professors I've ever known have had, probably.
>>8148183
Classics undergrad here. I'm top of my class at a good uni in Europe but every once in a while I get a crippling feeling that my knowledge is just awful. I always thought about academia but I think it would make me feel too horrible. I do better than 99% of my fellow students and I know I'm not stupid, but I still feel like I know so little and it gets so depressing at times. Kill me pls
>>8148195
>I always thought about academia but I think it would make me feel too horrible.
iktfb, classicists are a very tough crowd. Not like those sissy English majors.
I can just imagine myself pouring my life and soul into some translation or some big production of some kind and having it get torn to bits by some bespectacled, teuton Doktor in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. They can be pretty nasty.
Random excerpts from the latest issue:
> By contrast, there is very little relevant information with which to explore education in Achaemenid Anatolia. Her venture into questions about pedagogical matters in Chapter 8 (“Educating the Young and Old”) is brave, but some of her points are so general as to be banal (e.g. the old educate the young, hierarchies are strict for both student and apprentice). This By contrast, there is very little relevant information with which to explore education in Achaemenid Anatolia. Her venture into questions about pedagogical matters in Chapter 8 (“Educating the Young and Old”) is brave, but some of her points are so general as to be banal (e.g. the old educate the young, hierarchies are strict for both student and apprentice).
>An obvious solution to the problem of patchy evidence is to engage in further comparisons at many scales, which the author generally avoids.
I know I could've found a lot more if I'd dug a bit, those comments aren't too bad.
But at the end of the day the whole "impostor"/inferiority thing exists in all the higher disciplines. We spend a lot of time interacting with finished texts that took months or, more often, years to put together. Of course you're inferior next to those texts, the authors of the texts themselves are inferior, in any given moment, to these elaborate works that they edit and research for long periods of time.
Another part is that old Socratic chestnut, the more you know the more you know how little you know.
But I wouldn't let that discourage you from pursuing your studies.
>>8148237
Eh, that was nice of you, thanks. Just having a bad day. Still got time to figure out whether academia is right for me or if I wanna go into something comfier but still intellectually stimulating such as museums/archives/editing. Good luck with your studies!
>>8147822
Well anyone on the scope of 4chan
>>8147741
>It's a flawed, meme method. You can't memorize a list of 900 words, read a few dozen practice sentences, and pick up Livy or Horace, but that's pretty much exactly what Wheelock's leads to. You learn to decipher Latin like a code or puzzle, never to read it with real enjoyment and profit.
this is the actual meme, you got it from that one website recommending lingua latina
there's a reason nobody uses lingua latina
>nobody learns it properly using wheelock!
except me, my professors, my classics PhD TAs, my classics PhD friend, centuries of people using similar methods...
languages aren't mystical ceremonies where if you fuck up one step along the way you're screwed forever. you absolutely CAN memorise a lot. there is something to be said for diving in and getting a feel for the language, but that will happen no matter how strict and old-fashioned your method is. that's called "the thing you do after you get your water legs with a textbook wheelock," or "the thing you do in years 2+3 undergrad"
recommending lingua latina to someone is just cruel. i highly doubt you used it to begin.
>>8148195
>but every once in a while I get a crippling feeling that my knowledge is just awful.
food for thought: in my experience it is exactly this sentiment that indicates a brilliant student who will actually do well in postgrad.
the only brilliant dudes i've ever met in grad school were the ones who said
>you know, i feel like a dilettante. i've only read x, y, and z by this author, and i feel like i don't have enough historical context on abc to talk about it properly..
while all the mediocrities who treated grad school like an extended daycare centre were quick to self-aggrandize about their knowledge and academic status/prestige.
go talk to professors and tell them your spiel. tell them your earnest thoughts and doubts, your interests and inclinations, and ask them to be brutally honest in return. tell them you have a passion and love for what they do, and the vast majority will open up to you. if my hunch about people like you is right, they'll notice you have a knack, and may be interested in cultivating it.
if you go the academia route, you're going to want to be schmoozing with every professor you possibly can anyway.
also classicists are pussies. classicist PhDs are just as bad as every other field, full of rich dilettantes who want to find something socially acceptable to do (since they come from money, and languishing in academic mediocrity won't humiliate their family). hell, they're even worse than many other majors, because their "rite of passage" to prestige and clout isn't even some vague, diffuse "write a 300 page thesis on how gay dudes were oppressed under crapitalism in bengal or whatever," it's purely technical training: master this philological skillset, and burrow your way into a VERY fixed body of secondary literature. many classics majors are breathtakingly narrow in both their purview and intellectual breadth.
whatever you do, get to PhD-level ability in your languages. it will give you better perspective on whether you want to do this for life, but it will also get you into the best schools in the world - you instantly become top 5% applicant material if you are great at the program's requisite language(s).
>>8148517
I agree with everything instead of the Classicist PhD sterotype. My professor (at a top uni) is a veteran, and used his G.I. Bill to get him through grad school. He's an unusual character because of his background, but the whole Roman military thing seemed to fit him perfectly.
>>8148492
Have you heard anything about Moreland/fleischer?
>Tfw you learned a shitload of Latin/Italian/German/French phrases from Schopenhauer/Nietzsche/etc to trump people in debates
>Tfw I only learned them by rote
I took Latin for two years in high school. We used Cambridge textbooks. I never really retained too much of it but I can remember some words and do recognize some others. I remember I really started to struggle when we were learning about grammar (there was a lot to be applied), eventually I just gave up and half-assed everything. However, I recently started to get interested in it again and I think I'll start over again and at my own pace this time too.
>>8148517
Thanks a lot, man. I was feeling particularly down about it all of a sudden but I'm alright now (though this feeling never leaves the back of my head). But yeah, thanks again for the encouragement and advice. This sort of thing is quite refreshing in 4chan.
>>8146168
Don' listen to people recommending Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata. Use a grammar heavy method, like Wheelock's Latin or Latin Via Ovid.
>>8146168
Classics major/currently wrapping up master's in Classical Studies. Can vouch for Latin via Ovid, very approachable text. My first two semesters of Latin used it, and I felt it was very helpful.
I studied from a lot of different books, Ecce, Lingua, Cambridge, Intensive, Wheelmeme's. Learn to Read Latin by Yale Press is by far the best
1-Very Comprehensive in Grammar and Vocabulary, you don't need to consult any other book and the vocab is not limited to English meaning but also gives you a context of how Romans use it. Sometimes it is overdone (I don't think anyone needs to know what rhotacism is) but still
2-Workbook is great, you have about 500 pages of exercises which basically forces you to memorize the shit
3-Reading is from latin and latin only. You don't read artificial latin created by teachers. But primary sources.
Its 15 units, each unit can be done in 1-3 days if you are a no life neet. But 1-2 units per week is also a decent pace. up to unit 8 you learn most of the grammar (90%) and basically finish %75 of the workbook. You do read some latin but most of the reading is in the units between 8-15 where you also learn advance concepts (80% of the reading is between 8-15)
I think if you finish this book comprehensively you can pass the beginning and intermediate classes in college. (Beginners class: using a text book like wheelmeme, intermediate class: using a book like Bryn Mawr commentaries / wheelmeme's reader where you read texts but also have vocab-grammar explanations on the sides)
>>8147616
Wheelock's is a meme book my man. LLPSI is the only correct textbook, or maybe CLC if you really care about meme methods of learning. Ultimately though, everyone memeing against LLPSI probably hasn't used it alongside Latine Disco, which is an English companion book Oerberg wrote that explains all the grammar and concepts. LLPSI+Latine Disco is objectively the best introduction. I say this having read/used LLPSI, CLC, Wheelock's and Latin for the New Millennium at various points.
By the way, what do you all think about active use of Latin? Is it an important skill? Why or why not?
>>8150209
Latin students have a huge advantage in learning other inflected languages, such as Russian or German. Conversely, speakers of Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Rumanian) have an edge in studying Latin, Latin is the source of 75-80% of all words in these languages. Although Latin doesn't really have any economical benefit, it really does open you up to such a huge body of literature from the Romans to the Renaissance. It's definitely not an important skill to have(unless your a classicist of course). I think it'd be nice to know Latin if your into theology though.
>>8148698
I am literally the exact same way. Good grades, loves the classical languages. Still can't decide if the next step is for me. You're absolutely right: the feeling that I'm making a mistake or that I don't belong never goes away.
>>8151940
What other career paths—if any—are you considering then, bruv?
>>8150102
Thanks bro
