Georgic edition

>τὸ πρότερον νῆμα·
>>24540407

>Μέγα τὸ Ἑλληνιστί/Ῥωμαϊστί·
https://mega dot nz/folder/FHdXFZ4A#mWgaKv4SeG-2Rx7iMZ6EKw

>Mέγα τὸ ANE·
https://mega dot nz/folder/YfsmFRxA#pz58Q6aTDkwn9Ot6G68NRg

>Work in progress FAQ
https://rentry dot co/n8nrko

All Classical languages are welcome.

>>24570219 (OP)
>Work in progress FAQ
What is this?

si refert latine colloqui aliis cum latinitatis sodalibus, agite nunciam ite huc https://porticuspublica.org/

>>24570259
mostly a list of resources(books, links, etc....) and tips for classical languages

>imperfect is something that was habitual or was happening in the past
my angloid brain cannot comprehend verbs beyond the simple aspect

>>24570289
It exists in English... used to/would

>>24570219 (OP)
can someone explain what is meant with "don't translate"? if i am reading a text and don't know a word, how am i supposed to know what it means other than looking it up and seeing what it is?

>>24570219 (OP)
Are sanskrit, classic Chinese and classic Persian worth it? Or should I focus on Latin and Greek? I'm interested in philosophical poetry. What's the greatest classical work on the genre?

>>24570469
It's retarded immersion cultist advice. It comes from their RETARDED obsession with "learning Latin as a natural language like a baby learns its native language." They want you to avoid the "grammar translation method," where you supposedly decode a sentence by flaying it into pieces and running an algorithm to figure out the morphology for each term and then piecing it back together again, as if I gave you the sentence
>I went to the store but it was closed so I came back home
and like a computer you ripped the sentence apart into constituent elements, verbs, nouns, conjunctions, prepositions, etc., and then reconstructed it in some other language.

Of course, nobody actually does this. Reading a foreign language is always going to involve a spectrum with instinctively recognizable things on one side, extremely obscure unrecognizable forms requiring special glossing on the other (with untranslateable hapax legomena being the extreme case), and stuff requiring a bit of thought populating the middle of the spectrum. Reading a foreign classical language is always going to involve more "weighting" toward the difficult, non-instinctive side of the spectrum, especially early on in the learning process obviously.

The only validity in the critique is that you should gain a lot of comprehensible input / extensive reading practice and not stay in textbook morphology regurgitation training wheels forever. But that's obvious.

>σοφὸς ὁ πολλὰ εἰδὼς φυᾷ: μαθόντες δὲ λάβροι
>παγγλωσσίᾳ, κόρακες ὥς, ἄκραντα γαρύετον
>Διὸς πρὸς ὄρνιχα θεῖον.
sent those wordcel freaks flying

>>24570513
Probably Lucretius. I can't speak for Chinese, though the answer's probably the same, but no, it's not worth it, at least not until you have a solid command of both Latin and Greek and has genuine use for them. I took a few courses in Sanskrit when I was considering linguistics and it was incredibly hard. Don't burden yourself yet.

>>24570469
I think you can disregard that, it's mostly bollocks found here on 4chan and Reddit that have little currency in universities. It's important not to engage in rote memorization but to practice as much as possible, and as fast as possible on existing literature, but the idea you need to “bathe” aimlessly in it like a drunken teenager on an Erasmus trip to Barcelona is ridiculous.

>>24570513
Focus on Latin and Greek for now.

>>24570513
I can speak very well for Chinese, Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin.
With your focus, you will want to know your own cultural history before going out from your homeland, as it were. Start with Greek and Latin.

>>24570469
looking up a word isn't the same as translating.

>>24570613
> I can speak very well for Chinese, Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin.
Very impressive, if this is to mean you're reading all of them.
Also seconding your opinion.

>>24570513
> I'm interested in philosophical poetry. What's the greatest classical work on the genre?
De rerum natura is the one thing that immediately comes to mind, and De consolatione philosophiae, both in Latin.

>>24570289
4 years of Spanish in high school and middle school yet he still doesnt get it. based.

I'm in Istanbul right now, training myself in basic paleography with mosaic inscriptions
>ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ θεῷ αὐτοκράτωρ πιστὸς βασιλεὺς Ῥωμαίων

>>24570821
the τῷ symbol is pretty neat, much to learn from one pic, I guess they used ~ for words which ought to be clear from context knowing first and last letter?

>>24570835
Yeah these are called nomina sacra. They are hugely common in Orthodox manuscripts and mosaics, including Greek but also Old Church Slavonic. They could even inflect.
>Θεός ΘΣ ΘΥ
>Κύριος ΚΣ ΚΥ
> Ἰησοῦς ΙΣ ΙΥ
>Χριστός ΧΣ ΧΥ
>Υἱός ΥΣ ΥΥ
>Πνεῦμα ΠΝΑ ΠΝΣ
>Δαυίδ ΔΑΔ
>Σταυρός ΣΤΣ
>Ἄνθρωπος ΑΝΟΣ
>Πατήρ ΠΗΡ

Pic related is
>Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
>ἡ χώρα τῶν ζώντων (metaphorically qualifying Jesus as the land of the living)

>>24570536
> you supposedly decode a sentence by flaying it into pieces and running an algorithm to figure out the morphology for each term and then piecing it back together again
you say that but I've seen diagramming in every lower level course I've taken.
you shouldn't be looking for the verb, the verb is where it's supposed to be and it'll be there when you get to it. if you can't comprehend a sentence as it comes in, read it and reread it and check translations and build a better sense of syntax. plenty of students are weak on that because of bad pedagogy.

is reading with just a lexicon for reference a good way of getting practice? I have solid grammar.

thinking of finding a good lexicon for Xenophon and powering through Anabasis, Cyropaedia

>>24571165
I mean if you have the stamina sure, meaning you don't get bored/discouraged by having to constantly check: there's online tools that show you the definition even of conjugated verbs with a click, maybe you'd like it

>>24570469
You'll have to give more context because "don't translate" could mean different things. Where did you read that? In the context of reading, it probably means that you should strive to understand the meaning of a Latin sentence by reading it from the beginning to end in the Latin word order without translating the parts of it into English. That doesn't have to mean that you can't ever analyze a Latin sentence using English, but it shouldn't be the first tool you reach for. If you read through a sentence that was unclear, you might have realized that you misstepped as you were reading it, and it might be sufficient simply to go back to the beginning and read it through again. If the syntax of the sentence is unclear, read it through again more slowly and try to pay more attention to what parts go together and the constructions used, how it might have been punctuated to make the right interpretation clearer. Generally speaking it's only after this manner of analysis that I would consider reaching for your Latin-English dictionary. The method of "first find the verb..." and using that to mindlessly produce a translation (alluded to in >>24570536) should be avoided altogether.

What you do want to avoid is a method of reading which equates understanding with translating. One method of teaching, which I know exists because I have seen it first-hand, and I suspect is very common, is to have the students take turns reading the Latin sentence aloud and then offering an English translation. It's obvious why classes are conducted this way. It's because the students are bad at Latin and are reading texts that are too hard, and it is really doubtful that the students can understand what they're reading, so the production of a correct English translation is necessary to prove that the students understand it, and it's necessary that there be an English translation communicated aloud to all the other students so the meaning of the Latin is made clear. And at the same time, the teachers of such classes will say that consulting an English translation of the text outside of class is "cheating." Judge for yourself whether this method of teaching Latin makes sense.

Along those lines, you don't need to translate everything into English to prove to yourself that you understand it.

>>24570536
You're naive if you think that "nobody actually does this" or that this isn't commonly taught in the classroom. ALso, consider that the advice "don't translate" could also be directed to beginners self-studying Latin who don't have any idea what they should be doing. They might go for instance through a book like Wheelock's, where the exercises are primarily translating sentences from Latin into English and English into Latin (at least as I recall), then they get dumped into reading material that is too difficult for them, and the only way to proceed is to translate into English one sentence at a time. If you actually stick to this method long enough and review the texts you've already worked through by translation, you'll hopefully pick up enough vocabulary and feel for syntax that you can eventually read without the crutches, but most students finish their Latin classes long before they get to that point.

>>24571165
Check out the Geoffrey Steadman commentaries

>>24570536
>Of course, nobody actually does this.
Oh really? my high school Latin teacher championed the infamous trope of
>find the verb and translate
>find the subject and translate
>find modifiers and translate
The Latin sentence was a “puzzle to be decoded” i.e. by isolating its principal components and mentally rearranging them to be friendlier to an English speaker

Put yourself in a high school Latin teacher's shoes: you have to teach zoom zooms something, and you're no longer allowed to strike their hands with rulers until they understand.

"Don't translate" just means to actually read the Latin as Latin, regardless of whether you can neatly translate its meaning into English. The thing that the phrase suggests you avoid is to see a sentence in Latin and literally look at it like "That means X in English." Basically, it's very much possible to translate without understanding, and they're telling you to understand BEFORE you analytically translate (if we take it the best possible light). So for example, I may see a sentence in Latin, and I will understand and be able to say it's meaning in English if I want, but the understanding of it's meaning came without overtly breaking down the sentence.

I have seen people on these forums with 10+ years of Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorate, etc. in Latin who still can't really "read" because they literally analyze everything through English, when Latin simply is not alien enough of a language to justify that.

The somewhat infamous Dowling method is an example of what happens when a professor who can study Latin as a full time job for his entire life gets frustrated with not being able to read comfortably.

Also, yes, ALG/CI cultists do exist even for Latin, and yes, they should be ignored. The Natural Method is great.

Lastly, if you want to be a Latinist in an academic field like History, you do need to be capable of detailed translations.

>>24565399
Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library has some Augustine, just soliloquies as far as I know
Gibb & Montgomery's edition of the Confessions is pretty good. Not sure if there is a 'standard' edition.

>>24570469
For any language, it's generally advised to switch to monolingual definition dictionaries rather than bilingual dictionaries as soon as you're able anyway.

>>24571731
>Latin simply is not alien enough of a language to justify that.
Is there a language that is?

>>24570536
good post

I don't care about whether reading or sight translation is better, for me the best approach is to read or translate Latin from left to right
When you're confused you start again
Also I try to subvocalise everything in my head and also read aloud

>>24571987
sumerian

>>24572014
Why? Is it more alien to English than, say, Japanese or Georgian?

>>24572021
idk about it being alien, but there's a lot about it we just don't understand.

>>24571987
No, of course not. All languages are equal in all regards, real kumbaya shit. Any given language is just as capable of expression as another and all are acquired in the same manner. It is why you are just as fluent in Russian as you are in Ancient Greek, Uzbek, Inuit and Mayan.

>>24571731
>Also, yes, ALG/CI cultists do exist even for Latin, and yes, they should be ignored. The Natural Method is great.

You're conflating a few different things. And you very well may know all this, so I don't mean to talk down to you.

ALG is something I never heard of until this year, but is a pedagogical theory developed by some professor of the Thai language. His ideas are extreme because he said that any conscious formal study of a language harms our ability to natively acquire it. Even if that's true (as far as I know, this was all merely conjecture on his part, and supported at best by his limited anecdotal experiences), this isn't practical for Latin because we just don't have the resources to CI our way to fluency. That said, I do find the teaching style he developed interesting, which consists of two (ideally native) speakers of the target language teaching via dialogue with each other. Some examples can be found on the "algworld" channel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marvin_Brown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-8mzEM82-M

CI (comprehensible input) can mean different things, but in it's most basic sense, it literally just means input that is comprehensible (i.e., that can be understood). I'm not sure what's so objectionable about that, or about Stephen Krashen's ideas. "CI" can also refer to certain pedagogical methods, which can be implemented badly or not. The "natural method" (which I understand most properly to refer to a particular movement, beginning somewhere around the latter part of the 19th century) could very much be considered "CI cultism," because (1) it prescribed teaching classes in the target language from the beginning using easily understood messages (checking the box for "CI"), and (2) it was a reactionary ideological movement against the grammar-translation type of pedagogy that was dominant of the time (checking the box for "cultism"). I've posted about Sauveur before, and Rouse is another notable figure in that movement.

Orberg (and Arthur Jensen) use the term "nature method" (note the subtle difference). I'm not sure if that subtle difference was intentional, or how much they saw their books as part of the original "natural method" movement or not. These ("by the nature method") books are a step away from a "CI classroom." I believe Rouse gave the specific example that a "natural method" teacher would Teaching a Greek word for "walking" by having the teacher say the word and walk around the classroom. It seems that the original "natural method" movement was primarily focused on the classroom, while the "nature method" books were designed primarily for self-study.

And then there is William Most's "Latin by the Natural Method," for whom "natural method" mainly just seems to mean large quantities of simple Latin input, and incorporating some degree of oral Latin in the classroom. His books don't teach vocabulary or grammar didactically via the text in the same way that LLPSI does.

>>24571731
>>24572789
I ran into the character limit, but I was kind of rambling anyway. What exactly did you have in mind when you said the "Natural Method" is great, and when you said that "ALG/CI cultists... should be ignored?"

>>24572789
Are there any definitive evidence? I am a hardcore sceptic when it comes to the natural method applied to Latin. I've simply never seen this method used anywhere in higher education, and none of the classicists I have met has used it (even though they all complain about the grammar–translation approach, which is probably a generational phenomenon).

I'm honestly curious about it because it really does feel like a hype confined to 4chan/Reddit.

how it feels learning Sanskrit, Pali, and Avestan

>>24572803
nta but isn't it used in some schools in Europe who follow the Academia vivarium novum? they learn Latin with this method there IIRC, and with great results

>>24573105
I'm aware of that school—and greatly impressed with the Tyrtarion choir—but I'm not under the impression it's widespread elsewhere, nor that it had any renowned alumni in classics, to be honest.

>>24573105
What results are those?

>>24573366
how capable/fluent they are by the final year compared to normal high school curricula

>>24573496
I believe there's a misunderstanding regarding the ultimate aim in each case. A lot of people talking about natural method seem to think of Latin as any modern language to casually talk and write in, whereas more traditional approaches aim at a refined understanding of the authors, even at the cost of fluency. The Accademia Vivarium Novum itself is not an institution where Latin and Greek are taught per se, they state explicitly that the languages are mere instruments in the service of a broader humanist curriculum, designed to cultivate a wide-ranging culture akin in spirit to that of the polymaths of the sixteenth century. This presupposes a general, non-academic familiarity with the authors. Notions such as “reading and translating even without understanding a word or two” run counter to the objective of most traditional classics curricula in university, which are oriented towards in-depth textual analysis, detailed stylistic discussion, and highly structured translation exercises that prioritise comprehension and insight into the text. Think of learning French to go on vacation in France or work there, as opposed to learning French to study Baudelaire or Rimbaud.

>>24572793
All I meant was ALG and CI "cultists" as a lumped together group, even though I know they're technically distinct terms, as people who take CI too far. There's a guy on the /lang/ thread on /int/ right now who is probably trolling but who posts about how if you learn any grammar you have permanently "damaged" your ability to learn the language, for an extreme example.

By Natural Method, it just slipped my mind that Fr. Most called his method the Natural Method while Orberg published via the Nature Method Institute. I really was referring to both of these books, I think they're both great. They're a good example of a high volume of input with a light (but still highly important) amount of grammar study, with grammar introduced incrementally through the context of the input in the text, rather than systematically trying to memorize paradigms. IMO remembering paradigms is still really helpful, it's just not something you need a textbook to do, literally just typing out a declension paradigm and then chanting it to yourself until you remember it is plenty. But this still fits the general model of the Nature method and the Natural method, because it's like 5 minutes of grammar practice for every hour of input.

>>24572803
>>24573549
IMO the way Fr. Most puts it in his preface puts it best. He based his method off the traditional Late Medieval method of *elementary* Latin education, where students mainly learned words via engaging with easy texts designed for them until they had a solid basic grasp of the lexicon and could somewhat intuitively grasp the grammar. In the long term, students were still supposed to study the great Latin grammatical works and to deeply analyze these texts, but for the first few years it was just getting a general grasp of the language.

So for a modern learner, we look at the deep grammar knowledge and analytical ability of someone who has been learning and working with Latin since the age of 8, and assume we need to start analyzing his level of Latin and his advanced grammar, while forgetting that these great Latinists of yesteryear were themselves once beginners, and learned the language via beginner's texts and learning the lexicon. Basically, just because a 14th-15th century scholar could deeply analyze Cicero, doesn't mean he *started* with Cicero, nor does it mean you should either.

Fr. Most's texts are intended to be worked through in a 3 year university course, if I'm not mistaken, but even that still teaches a wealth of grammar and syntax, it just teaches it incrementally. Similarly, LLPSI is not meant to be an end all be all, but merely an introductory text to create a basic and intuitive fluency in Latin, it still has explicit grammar explanations (in Latin, mind you) and exercises to test the grammar.

>>24572492
>Any given language is just as capable of expression as another and all are acquired in the same manner.
Yes, actually, ask any actual linguist.
>It is why you are just as fluent in Russian as you are in Ancient Greek, Uzbek, Inuit and Mayan.
Insofar as there's a discrepancy there, it's to do with availability of input, not any intrinsic trait of the languages themselves.

nice Anki decks for Wheelock's Latin and Athenaze Ancient Greek that include audio of the words
https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/2017253775
https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/1211657274

>>24573834
The great advantage that adults have over children is the ability to learn about grammar and use it to boost their understanding without guessing. My largest issue with the natural method used exclusively is that it takes a child 3 years to be able to start speaking in sentences, and far more to be truly capable in a language.

Akkadian revival when?

>>24574841
Could they have chosen a more irrelevant, uglier cover?

>chapter 2 of Wheelock's Latin
>first declension singular genitive, dative, and plural nominative have the same ending
this is already getting too hard bros...

>>24574874
Are you angry at the style or because they're blonde?

>>24574891
The style and the image itself. Two dudes dressed in 21st century clothes drinking blue and red drinks and laughing like gossiping teenage girls. What does this have to do with Akkadian? Why not a simple relic or clay tablet?

>>24574885
>capitvlvm xv familia romana
>verbs can be in the first and second person
I’m not feeling so good bros…

>>24574898
I think I've seen their Coptic book with the same cover.

>>24574891
VGH...

>>24574811
"Learn like a child" is a stupid marketing phrase that is not even used by Fr. Most in his explanation of his method. That quote would be more accurately described to ALG, which itself is a ridiculous method.

The Natural method of Fr. Most is literally just 1. read a page or two of glossed Latin 2. learn like 1 explicitly explained grammar point per page.

LLPSI is 1. Read 5-10 pages of non-glossed Latin that is made comprehensible by pictures, margin notes, and carryover from your NL->Latin 2. Learn several important grammar points in an explicit grammar section that itself is in Latin at the end of the chapter.

It trains a more intuitive grasp of grammar, but that isn't meant to imply that it does not explain grammar or that you aren't supposed to think about grammar or syntax while reading. I found Fr. Most's work personally more readable, and had an easier time just scanning and comprehending accurately, but LLPSI had a steeper learning curve, and I took it more seriously, so I really carefully thought about the syntax/grammar as I worked through it.

All the two methods really seem to posit is a return to 80% lexical comprehension and reading-based grammar practice, with 20% explicit grammar, as opposed to the whole practice of doing nothing but grammar memorization and short out-of-context translation exercises before jumping into Caesar. I read one textbook preface that told me when I finished the book, instead of reading Latin, I should literally set a translation quota and translate one page of text per day. It actually had a diagram in the introduction of the order in which student's were to break down every sentence by literally numbering the words based on english word order, then writing out the sentence, and only then actually reading the sentence (but in english). This was published in 2016 by a university press, so it is a style of Latin teaching alive and well. When I asked my professor in undergrad what she recommended (since she could translate latin) she told me to just work through Wheelock, and then start translating texts by hand.

>>24570219 (OP)
Teaching myself Greek has reminded me how retarded I am

>>24575194
Teaching myself Chinese has reminded me how intelligent I am

>>24572803
I don't think there is any definitive evidence, and the true success of a Latin program is hard to measure in an objective way (if the goals of a Latin program can be agreed upon in the first place). The "natural method" also is more of a movement than any single concrete method of teaching. At the minimum, I think we can say that there have been (and are) of examples of classrooms conducted in ways that are in line with "the natural method," that have been regarded as successful in teaching the languages that they set out to teach, even if we can't conclusively say that the natural method is necessarily superior to other ways of teaching. If there are examples where the natural method was tried and failed, we can point to examples of more conventional classrooms that have also failed.

If you're interested in reading outside accounts, I can't recommend anything in particular (due to my own ignorance), but I would try looking first at Rouse, because I have read at least that there are external accounts of his program, even if I haven't read them myself. I would be especially interested in reading more detailed accounts of Sauveur's program at Amherst, but I haven't found any yet.

>(even though they all complain about the grammar–translation approach, which is probably a generational phenomenon)

That's the funny thing though. It's not just a generational phenomenon. The "natural method" movement was primarily a reaction against grammar-translation. The arguments that people are having today are not so different from the arguments that people were having 150 years ago. As long as grammar-translation exists, there will be people complaining about it. Think of Winston Churchill, and his "O mensa, O table" story.

>>24573105
Even if that's true, might that not be because "Classics" is an incestuous cabal run by the Jews and the feminazis?

>>24573834
>There's a guy on the /lang/ thread on /int/ right now who is probably trolling but who posts about how if you learn any grammar you have permanently "damaged" your ability to learn the language, for an extreme example.

That's in line with what the founder of ALG (J. Marvin Brown) said. I hope it's not true, but even it is, it's not a relevant concern for learning Latin (or other classical languages) because there are no native speakers of Latin. The big concern behind ALG is why language learners fail to attain true native-like proficiency. But if there are no native speakers of Latin, there is no native standard to judge us by. Everyone speaks Latin with their own quirks of pronunciation, and there is no definitive standard of idiomatic Latin besides what's preserved in the written Language.

Why are you dismissing ALG as a "ridiculous method?" Even if the theory behind it is mistaken, it looks like the classes would be fun, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt their effectiveness.

>>24574874
Agreed. There is something truly repulsive about those illustrations.

One of the most interesting examples of this sort of school that I've seen is this private Lutheran school in Paris, TN (almost the middle of nowhere), which offers a Latin-immersion K-12 program.

https://www.youtube.com/@WestonClassicalSchool
https://www.westonclassical.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm5vLsdwjVM

>>24575887
>Winston Churchill, and his "O mensa, O table" story.
I don't think I know this one.

>>24573851
I'm supportive of Rouse's method, I can't recommend enough “A Greek Boy at Home”. This was the golden age of grammar school classics, and it is probably no stranger to the roaring success of the British classics in the 1960s up to the 2000s. My scepticism goes more to the “hardline” method rejecting any grammar teaching, something that Rouse did not approve.

>it's not just a generational phenomenon
I think it is, in so far as the worst type of grammar-translation was very common in the past, but is much less so today. I'm in my thirties and endured the worst method in secondary school (endless repetition of paradigms, both oral and written), while already benefiting from a very different curriculum at university. Most teachers today no longer employ these but prefer at least a hybrid approach, involving far more reading of texts and practical exercises. I sometimes suspect that teaching Latin through Latin, or Greek through Greek, is more of a gimmick—Latin taught in Latin can be justified, but Greek has never been spoken conversationally in the West in the recent historical period, which was a major source of embarrassment in classics—and that what really matters is as much practical use as possible (for instance, learning cases by composing or reading sentences), while discarding all the errors of outdated pedagogies, such as the refusal to teach accentuation and vowel quantity (it took me more than a year to correct this).

>think of Winston Churchill, and his "O mensa, O table" story
Neat.

>I hope it's not true, but even it is, it's not a relevant concern for learning Latin (or other classical languages) because there are no native speakers of Latin
A lot of people attempt to recreate this and I read the worst verbiage here and on Reddit from people who dismissed grammar in favour of natural speaking (including one surreal user who got angry that we told him ἔλεξα was incorrect and should be εἶπον). I'm aware it's not what ALG was about though, but such morons are commonplace nowadays.

>>24570219 (OP)
Can I use ενεκα like this:
Ινδοι φαυλοι ανθρωποι εισιν, ψευστας και κλεπτας ενεκα τιμωσι.
The solution given is:
[...], ψευστας γαρ και κλεπτας τιμωσι.

>>24576591
ἕνεκα is causal, takes the genitive
you could say something with a similar meaning like Ἴνδοι φαῦλοι ἄνθρωποί εἰσιν τοῦ ψευστὰς καὶ κλέπτας τιμᾶν ἕνεκα

>>24576596
>ἕνεκα is causal, takes the genitive
>τοῦ ψευστὰς καὶ κλέπτας τιμᾶν ἕνεκα
What you meant to say was:
των ψευστων και κλεπτων τιμαν ενεκα

But why does the verb need to be in the infinitive?

>>24576618
>What you meant to say was:
>των ψευστων και κλεπτων τιμαν ενεκα
no, it's an infinitive phrase in the genitive, only the article goes in the genitive
e.g
>τοῦ ἑξῆς ἕνεκα περαίνεσθαι τὸν λόγον ἐρωτῶ(Plato, Gorgia)
τὸ ψεύστας καὶ κλέπτας τιμᾶν = respecting liars and thieves
ἕνεκα + gen = because of
ἕνεκα τοῦ .... = (lit.) because of respecting liars and thieves

more commonly though ἕνεκα will just have a noun or pronoun, the construction with the infinitive phrase is less common but appears also with other prepositions like διά

>>24576645
Ah, now I get it. Thanks a lot anon for the detailed answer.

>>24575887
>Why are you dismissing ALG as a "ridiculous method?"
Because it dogmatically tells brand new learning to pursue a method that wastes thousands of hours over mental illness about their own ethnic identity.

How the fuck did the Romans get away with not being able to say "having X-ed" apart from about a dozen or so verbs ("deponent verbs")?

>>24576834
using cum

>>24576834
Explain? Deponent verbs are simply verbs with active meaning that look like they're passive. I don't see how they can express anything that an active verb can't. If anything, they're less expressive, as deponent verbs can't even take on a passive meaning.
And what is the connection to "having X-ed" supposed to be?

> about a dozen or so
I wish.

>>24576859
I think he means how with deponent verbs the normally passive past participle has an active meaning, so you can say something like hostes consectati adoriuntur

>>24576884
Ah, that makes sense, thanks.
Yes, then it's >>24576854 or ablative absolute with non-deponent verbs.

>>24576901
Wouldn't the ablative absolute with the PPP of a non-deponent verb still have a passive meaning?

For instance, in Latin you can say:

>The slave, having been whipped, was working in the fields

(verb: flagellare; form: flagellatus)

In Latin, you can also say:

>The slave, having suffered, was working in the fields

(verb: pati; form: passus)

But in Latin, you can't say:

>The slave, having gotten up, was working in the fields

(verb: surgere; form: ???)

I'm aware Latin used to have such a form, -uus, but it became obsolete, and only survives fossilized in a few of what are now considered regular 1/2nd declension adjectives

>>24576948
well, can't have it all like Greek, either make it periphrastic or maybe find an alternative verb
>cum surrexisset servus agros colebat

>>24576948
> Wouldn't the ablative absolute with the PPP of a non-deponent verb still have a passive meaning?
Right, I didn't pay sufficient attention to the fact that "having X-ed" is active.

>>24577002
Fucking hate when that happens in any language

My favorite examples from English:

>"How many-th" / "what number" president was Ronald Reagan?
>The tree "thats" / "whose" leaves are red
>"y'all"
>some examples I remember translating from Latin to English but can't recall exactly, involving the relative pronoun "qui" that would've made sense in Latin more than English, which my Latin teacher translated as "...which man..." or something

>>24575914
cute, I seem to remember lucius noster visiting/speaking with them

>>24577002
cum+subjunctive is "time when" not circumstantial. I suppose you could argue that they have the same meaning but the sense of significance is clearly different. To answer the essential question that >>24576948 is asking, to the best of my ability, I think that it is fair to say that the tense of the participle is not as important in Latin as it is in Greek, and that surgens would be best. Both the PA and the PP are understood as happening right around the time of the finite verb whereas the Greek participle can have more nuance with time in relation to the finite verb. Also, an ablative absolute would not make sense in your example sentence bc the participle and the finite verb have the same subject. I'm not sure if you knew that or not but I think it's important to note.

>>24575914
I was looking through their vids and noticed it looks like 2 of the teachers are married and raise their kids in Latin at home, it sounds like the female teacher doesn't speak English natively. That would make their kids possibly the only "native" speakers of Latin in the way that Ben-Yehuda's kid was raised speaking Hebrew at home in the 1880s. The difference here to me is that compared to Ben-Yehuda, both parents are fully fluent, and their kids' school will be conducted entirely in Latin till they are 18. Very interesting.