Thread 24570219

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.

>>24577023
I feel like most languages have a word for "how many-th". Also for ereyesterday and overmorrow (which are technically still part of English but not much used anymore).

I'm trying to learn Old Norse and I'm a bit confused about stress vs length.
Stress is only the emphasis I pronounce a syllable with correct? And it always falls on the first syllable of a word. Unstressed long vowels should be long and stressed short vowels should be short?

>>24578060
Just pronounce it like the Icelanders do, that way you have audio to listen to for a model.

>>24578064
Isn't it very hard?

>>24578104
I don't see why it would be harder than another language.

>>24578104
>is one of the closest languages to English on Earth very hard?
I think Classical Chinese is more your speed bud.

>>24578120
Not him
Just to be clear, you speak neither Old Norse nor Icelandic, correct? Why are you chiming in at all?

>>24578464
Because I know that phonologies you can hear fluent/native speech in are easier to acquire as a general principle?

>>24570289
it was raining as opposed to it rained

>>24578487
Do you speak Old Norse or Icelandic?
Yes or No please

>>24577714
Meanwhile we're pretty much the only languages in the world to have do-support (alongside Welsh) and "one" as in "that one" (alongside some rando Abo language in Australia).

>>24578506
I do not, I am speaking in terms of general principles applicable to languages as a whole rather than specific languages here.

>>24575919
When the last sound of my mother's departing wheels had died away, the Headmaster invited me to hand over any money I had in my possession. I produced my three half-crowns, which were duly entered in a book, and I was told that from time to time there would be a 'shop' at the school with all sorts of things which one would like to have, and that I could choose what I liked up to the limit of the seven and sixpence. Then we quitted the Headmaster's parlour and the comfortable private side of the house, and entered the more bleak apartments reserved for the instruction and accommodation of the pupils. I was taken into a Form Room and told to sit at a desk. All the other boys were out of doors, and I was alone with the Form Master. He produced a thin greeny-brown, covered book filled with words in different types of print.

'You have never done any Latin before, have you?' he said.

'No, sir.'

'This is a Latin grammar.' He opened it at a well-thumbed page. 'You must learn this,' he said, pointing to a number of words in a frame of lines. 'I will come back in half an hour and see what you know.'

Behold me then on a gloomy evening, with an aching heart, seated in front of the First Declension.



What on earth did it mean? Where was the sense in it? It seemed absolute rigmarole to me. However, there was one thing I could always do: I could learn by heart. And I thereupon proceeded, as far as my private sorrows would allow, to memorise the acrostic-looking task which had been set me.

In due course the Master returned.

'Have you learnt it?' he asked.

'I think I can say it, sir,' I replied; and I gabbled it off.

He seemed so satisfied with this that I was emboldened to ask a question.

'What does it mean, sir?'

'It means what it says. Mensa, a table. Mensa is a noun of the First Declension. There are five declensions. You have learnt the singular of the First Declension.'

'But,' I repeated, 'what does it mean?'

'Mensa means a table,' he answered.

'Then why does mensa also mean O table,' I enquired, 'and what does O table mean?'

'Mensa, O table, is the vocative case,' he replied.

'But why O table?' I persisted in genuine curiosity.

'O table,—you would use that in addressing a table, in invoking a table.' And then seeing he was not carrying me with him, 'You would use it in speaking to a table.'

'But I never do,' I blurted out in honest amazement.

'If you are impertinent, you will be punished, and punished, let me tell you, very severely,' was his conclusive rejoinder.

Such was my first introduction to the classics from which, I have been told, many of our cleverest men have derived so much solace and profit.
https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20160543

>>24578555
>never learned Latin or Greek
>never learned French beyond a mishmash pidgin
>never learned any other language

>>24578555
I'm assuming you copied this from some older source since hardly any modern teachers teach the vocative as "O [noun]" anymore

>>24575925
>I sometimes suspect that teaching Latin through Latin, or Greek through Greek, is more of a gimmick

Even if it were a gimmick in some ways, there is one practical justification, which is simply that it means more class time is being spent giving students practice with the target language.

>>24577421
I thought the same thing about her accent, but her bio says she was born in San Diego and grew up in "rural Oklahoma."

https://www.westonclassical.org/wcs-faculty

Sometimes bookish types develop their own unique ways of speaking, and being educated in the country in a homeschool co-op means she would have less outside influences on her speech. It happens. I knew someone in college who spoke in a way that almost sounds like a kind of British accent despite the fact that his father had a strong southern accent.

>>24578573
...look at the post they're responding to, it's from Winston Churchill.

>>24575925
I learned my Latin through Ecce Romani. Is this like the ancient Greek version of that?

Also unlike Latin, Greek IS spoken as a modern language. IIRC ancient and medieval varieties of Greek is more intelligible to speakers of modern Greek, and are more analogous to Chaucer's Middle English and Shakespeare's Early Modern English respectively than Old English.

>>24578573
The source is Winston Churchhill's autobiography "My Early Life." There's a link at the bottom of the post in case you didn't see it. I was posting it in reply to another post that said they hadn't seen that story before.

Churchill's mention of Eton reminded me of a paper I read not too long ago that shows what the Latin curriculum was like back in the 1800s, which puts us to shame.

https://tcl.camws.org/sites/default/files/TCL%2012.1%20Keeline%20Final%20Draft.pdf

>>24578599
The way I've heard it is that the Koine Greek of the New Testament is about as difficult for modern Greek speakers as Chaucer is for English speakers. Of course, I'm sure exposure plays some role there since Koine Greek is the liturgical language of the Greek Orthodox Church, Katharevousa was standard until not very long ago, and even Demotic Greek contains a good few borrowings from Ancient/Koine.

>>24578608
Except Chaucer isn't really that difficult for speakers of today's English. At least less so than anything in Old English!

The people tripping over Middle English texts are probably the same kind of Karen mocha latte literati that would prefer the SparkNotes version of Shakespeare plays.

>>24578689
It's not completely impenetrable, but you do have to get used to unfamiliar spelling, some unfamiliar words and grammatical constructions, some familiar words that mean different things (this one's probably the most problematic, because you can think you understood when you actually misunderstood)

>>24578689
pretentious

>>24578577
>all faculty learned Latin by methods different than they teach

>>24575925
>>24578577

"Learn X through Y" is such an Indian-coded thing I think, especially considering how they've literally got like 23 languages. "Learn Tamil through Hindi!" "Learn Hindi through English!"

I turned 20 yesterday;
Is it too late for me to learn:
>Latin
>Greek
>Hebrew and Aramaic
>Italian
>German
>French
>English
>Arabic
>Russian
>Danish

>>24578796
yes. But it"s never too late to learn Akkadian and Sumerian!

>>24578800
>>24578796
This man lies to you. But it's never too late to learn Old Persian!

>>24578796
no I learned Latin and Greek past 27

>>24578769
23 federally official languages! Hundreds more local ones.

>>24578821
>>24578805
>>24578800
I mean all of them

>>24578908
master some, dabble in most

>>24578796
No, you still have plenty of brain plasticity which is an advantage. If you are diligent then you could learn all of them, though 99% of people lack this kind of discipline.

>>24578796
I am also 20! Are you a spanish speaker?

>>24579082
Talysh and Azeri with some colloquial Farsi

how easy is it to learn the Romance languages after learning Latin?

>>24579205
Easier than if you didn't know them.

>>24578796
>10 languages , 5 of which are related, the other i don't know so much
>english
>latin
>french
>italian
>german
-
>hebrew and aramaic
>greek
>arabic
>russian
>danish

>>24579205
only for the lexicon tbqh, and even then lots of the elementary lexicon of Latin isn't necessarily super-duper clearly related to basic Romance lexicon

>>24578751
>never try novel methods or innovate whatsoever even if the methods are proven to consistently work in other languages

Also the two raising their kids in Latin both learned largely through immersion communities.

>>24579205
Marginally easier I'd say. Romance languages were first written around 1000 AD and they don't share all that much core vocabulary with Latin.

>>24580452
They, uh, do

Plus VERB grammar (not nouns)

Half adjectives

>>24581005
>verb grammar (not nouns)
>half adjectives
explain pls i retard

>>24581005
Maybe I shouldn't have used the term core vocabulary. Comparing Cicero to any text written in a Romance language should make it clear how hard it is to move from Latin to Romance.

cuneiform is so fucked up, what were they thinking?

>>24574841
hudreeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaahhh
hudreeeeeeaaaaaAAAAaaaaaAAAAaahhhh

>>24581543
annndra moi ennnnnepe muuuuuuuusa poluttttropon hoooos mala pollla
plannnngthe epeeeee troieeeeeeeees ieron ptoliettttthron epersen

https://atticgreek.wordpress.com/tag/hansen-and-quinn-intensive-greek/
http://www.denisowski.org/A_Greek/GAIC/GAIC.html
some useful links for Hansen and Quinn, if anyone wants to add them to that info site

>>24582478
nice, I'll add them to the FAQ tomorrow

why do Latin texts replace vowel v with u, but don't replace consonant i with j?

>>24582684
Because there’s more of a difference

>>24573549
As someone who went to the Academy, that is how it is marketed, but you are expected to know the languages themselves to an incredibly high degree. The students regularly make a game out of correcting the Latin and Greek of each other, and the idea that you would read a text and then not understand a word or two is just not what happens (at least for the good students, there were always some who just didn't learn). While yes there is no actual philological education (in the sense that we aren't doing textual criticism and the like), discussions of style and analysis were absolutely at the forefront of the Greek and Latin classes there (as in, the classes where the languages themselves were taught). Moreover, to be quite honest, I have no idea how one could claim any level of "comprehension and insight into the text" via translation.

>>24567699
>Even with vowel length, it's not so simple.
Well, it is, actually.

>>24579246
>5 of which are related
>proceeds to list 8 related ones
>and the other 3 (yes, there are 11 total) are also related

damn Χριστος looks cool

>>24582734
How so? Both represent the equivalent semivowel.

>>24583086
Idk faggot you tell me

>>24583164
You're the one who said there's more of a difference, I'm asking why you said that.

>>24583206
And I’m saying that I don’t know, and you should find the answer and tell me.

>>24583208
You don't know why you said it?

>>24583227
who's on first?

>>24581151
Good enough to keep track of my chickens and goats

I don't roll r's.

>>24583227
If you say so.

>>24583683
some of us Romance niggas don't really either, a tap goes a long way

>>24583683
I pronounce the final m's and n's

>>24585088
pero perro merger when

what version of cuneiform do I learn first? Huehnergard recommends learning Old Babylonian cursive, but most other resources I've looked at start with Neo-Assyrian.

>>24586286
The important thing is to start, worry about which later

Is Hávamál a good place to start for Eddic poetry in terms of difficulty?

>>24583683
i don't either, but i'd be lying if i said i didn't feel like a barbarian whenever i try to read some latin outloud or speak some spanish

>>24579064
>discipline
The biggest factor is time. It takes time to maintain each language. After like 5-7 languages it becomes hard to maintain existing languages, learn new ones, and still have time to actually read what you want, even if you're content with just being able to read them and not speak.

I was originally planning on learning 10 languages or so, but maintaining Chinese/Japanese/Arabic/Persian as well as other less exotic languages has been very time-consuming since languages isn't my job that I can do 24/7.

what jobs do you people work with your classics bullshit
my professor thinks I can get a great scholarship for a master's in classics

>>24583683
I use the ecclesiastical pronunciation. I also don't roll my rs.

>>24587358
do you use the anglo r or the kraut/frog r

>>24587389
You're leaving out the possibility of a tapped R.

>>24587396
secret tech

>like Anglo R
>like French breathy R
>do tapped/flapped Rs for Latin
>can't do the multiple rolled Rs in Latin/Spanish/Italian consistently
just have to lrlrlrlrlr lrlrlrlrlrl all fucking day I guess
Koreans get tongue surgery to pronounce shit I think it's genetic

Alright guys, im jumping back in with Latin. I did a year, using a school book that was entirely based on deconstructing + translating sentences. And while it worked relatively well, it became boring after a while. Gonna try a mix this time.
I have divided it into 5 Modules:
1. Vocabular
2. Grammat
3. Textbook translation
4. LLPSI
5. Free writing (creating little sentences by myself)
The first two i will do 5 times a week, 3rd and 4th 2 times a week, and free writing once.
My approach is probably stupid as hell, so please tell me what i could do better.

>>24587758
wouldn't say stupid but maybe I would not break it down so much, you should maybe do LLPSI and if necessary a more traditional grammar-based textbook on the side, following the steps/chapters of the books
good idea to write something, even if little; I mean, if you follow most textbooks they are going to also give you little composition exercises as well

just found out about subjunctives

>>24586976
My job is completely unrelated
With a MA in Classics you can work at private schools teaching Latin most likely.
If you don't want to teach think long and hard about it.

>>24587758
Drop textbook translation entirely, and avoid free writing until you train in composition, lest you harden bad habits. Of the other 3, reading (LLPSI or whatever) should take up 75% of your time and should be done every day, use the rest of your time on vocab and dedicated grammar study

>>24587758
There's nothing stupid about your approach, I just fear that you might lose motivation doing all this.
The best method is the one that keeps you motivated and studying. As the other anon said, reading should be your priority, and doing grammar and vocab is also fine. Only use a textbook if you feel that the grammar bits in LLPSI are insufficient (which was my case), but keep in mind that any gaps in your grammar can be filled as you progress, even after you're done with LLPSI and have moved on to real Latin.

>>24588157
I'll give you a mnemonic for the present subjunctive vowels that I learned from Wikipedia.

"We beat a liar."

E - EA - A - IA

The present tense is the trickiest because you now realize you have to actually know what conjugations verbs are to avoid wondering whether a form is indicative, subjunctive, or maybe third conjugation future.

Thankfully the other forms are easier to deal with, especially the imperfect and pluperfect.

Another tricky thing is that the perfect subjunctive looks the same as the future perfect. Watch this video by esteemed polymath Luke Ranieri to learn why. If you want to tell them apart, the best medicine is to study your grammar and learn what sorts of constructions use each.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8O_KGDTwPQ

>>24589352
Thank you friend

>>24589352
>esteemed polymath Luke Ranieri
I'm so tired of this bait

>>24589445
I'm tired of pretending he's not. Does he need a degree from McMill University for you to take him seriously?

>>24589448
yes

>>24589540
his homebaked autistic research on sounds is miles better than the xir slop the academy shits out

>>24589550
>read Vox Latina
>muh esteemed polymath
Go gargle his balls on plebbit

>>24589558
you're like three levels down

>>24589448
he thinks he is more than he is
>Ranieri Method©
>rip off of Ørberg's LLPSI, but worse since he insists no grammar be taught
>Lucian™ pronunciation
>Garble of various Greek pronunciations to pander to the "Koine" Greek people
I would not say much if he acted humble but he very obviosuly is trying to make some brand out of himself while he has nothing to offer. Literally everything and anything he offers is a regurgitation of someone else's work and he has to audacity to slap his name on it.

>>24589595
magister Ranieri(pax Romana be upon him) can only be refuted in perfect Ciceronian Latin, sorry, better luck next time

>>24589550
i presume you follow classical scholarship very actively?

>>24589595
> while he has nothing to offer
He's a fluent speaker (which isn't that common) and his pronunciation is one of the nicest.
I just wish he'd record some complete ancient works instead of fucking around, I'd even pay for that.
And I agree that he needs to stop naming shit after himself.

let's have a /lang/ style challenge

Easy
We have enough wood.
The prince reaches the town.
Few have heard of it.

Medium
Having received the letter, he began reading it slowly.
If more people arrive, we might stand a chance.
After he began his siege, he didn't stop assaulting the gate until the fifth day.

Hard
Through his sheer determination, despite the adversities he managed to come out of the campaign mostly alright except for a broken finger.
"Why", she inquired, "should we be considered responsible for the outcome of the assault if, as we warned, the stars weren't favorable?"

>>24589595
>>24589448
pink skull good
pink skull talky smart
pink skull says Roma stuff ahehehahuh

>>24590699
satis lignum habemus
princeps villam tenderet
pauci audent illi

littera receptus, coeperat legere illam
Plures iarunt, occasionem stemus
postquam coepit oppugnationem ipsi, non relinquet pugnare portma usque quintum diem
obsidio - defense (of seige) needed a dictionary there
>"stop assaulting"? I know 'non recedit,' he didn't fall back, but the implication is that he is victorious
>until the fifth day? ouch
>up to the fifth day is "ad diem quintum"
that last one is rough

>>24589448
Every polyglot on Youtube is vying for professional recognition, but few are less deserving.

>>24589595
>>Lucian™ pronunciation
This alone obliterated his credibility. What's worse is a willingness to accept any trivial idea as long as it was different enough to be entertaining.

>>24590699
Medium. Trying Hard but I don’t think I can do it
>Litteras cum accepisset paulatim legere incepit.
>Si plures adveniant, spem habeamus.
>Postquam obsidionem coepit, portas oppugnare usque ad diem quintum non destitit.

>>24590699
"Cur," inquit, "nobis incumberet culpa oppugnationis eventus si, ut moneremus, sidera adversa essent?"

>>24590807
>satis + gen. for enough
>audiverunt for perfect

>>24581151
After doing some reading, I've come to the conclusion that hieroglyphs are even more fucked up. WTF egypt?
>>24583522
but an awkward fit for everything else.

>>24590699
ξύλ' ἡμῖν ὑπάρχει ἱκανά
ὁ πρόμος ἔρχεται εἰς ἄστυ
τοῦ ἀκήκοασιν ὀλίγοι

τὴν ἐδέξατο ἐπιστολὴν ἦρξεν βραδέως ἀναγιγνώσκειν
ἐὰν πλείονες ἥκωσιν, ἴσως εὐτυχήσομεν
πολιορκίας καθεστηκυίας ὑπ' αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔπαυσεν προσβάλλων τὰς πύλας πρὶν τὴν πεμπταίαν

ὑπὸ κακῶν τε πόνων πημανθεὶς οὐδὲν ἧττον αὐθάδης τὴν φύην ὤν περεγένετο τῆς στρατίας τὰ πόλλα εὖ ἔχων πλὴν τοῦ ῥαγέντος δακτύλου
«πῶς», εἴρετο, «ἡμῖν ἡ αἰτία προσβλητέα τῆς κακῶς κεχωρηκυίας εἰσβολῆς ἐπείπερ ἐδείξαμεν τὰ σήματα δυστυχῆ ὄντα;»

I THINK LUKE RANIERI FUCKING SUCKS!

>>24591882
To be fair, there really aren't that many figures in the classics community at all so it was first come first serve.

>>24591793
>ἦ
Does anyone stop to wonder where the two tonal marks in conjunction come from? This is directly against the grammar provided by Dionysius Thrax.

>>24591940
using accents/breathing marks is for GSLs punctuation too

>>24591976
I have no idea what GSL is.

>>24592010
Greek as second language

>>24590699
sat nobis materiae
princeps in oppidum pervenit
pauci id novere

quam accepit litteram coepit lente legere
si plures adveniant, fortasse impetrandi copia erit
post coeptam obsessionem portas continuo adoriebatur usque ad quinctam diem

magna cum pertinacia quamquam asperis obsessus rebus superfuit militiae fere incolumis praeter fractum digitum
"quam ob rem", rogavit, "nos reos videri impetus male gesti cum ipsi adversa esse monuerimus sidera?"

>>24570289
>I went to the gym today
Perfect - complete action
>I used to go to the gym everyday
Imperfect - habitual
>I was going to the gym but the road was closed so I went home
Imperfect - interrupted

I'm sure this has been asked a million times already but anons who have studied both Greek and Latin, which do you recommend studying first?

>>24592558
On a practical level, Latin because it will prepare you for the morphological soup of Greek
On a spiritual level, whichever makes your soul sing

>>24592558
ceteris paribus *wink* Latin
but if you really want to study Greek, go for it, don't think you necessarily need Latin if you don't care, even if it helps

I’ll always be convinced the Ranieri hate is born from resentment. Anyone can pour their time into learning, but few have the gumption to create and to give back to the community and to put their name and face out there every day. Seeing someone do what they wish they could triggers the inferiority complex of a particularly nasty type of person and causes them to lash out under the guise of purity standards.
>His pronunciation is shit!
>This information he put out is wrong!
>H-he’s just copying others!
So get a camera and make something better, pussy.

>>24592603
calvus slappin roman cheeks in his villa while we seethe :(

>>24592603
Sine scribere nugas, Luci, incipe tandem capere te alta voce perlegendum opera antiqua ut scripsi in >>24590395

>>24570219 (OP)
omnus una manet nox.
dum spiro, spero
per angustra ad augusta
per aspera ad astra

>>24588157
>yfw optatives

good channel for listening to slow Latin
https://www.youtube.com/@SaturaLanx

>>24592558
Latin's much easier.

>>24593862
>>24592558
I tried Latin first, then dropped it for Greek. After getting a good bit of Greek, I took Latin again, which was now so much easier. Imo one should, if they intend to do both, take Greek first. Latin is so easy you'll easily catch up with Greek later.

>>24592558
Whichever one just keeps you fucking doing it day by day. Latin is theoretically better because it's a simpler version of the same basic stuff you'll be doing again with Greek, but I'm going to admit, after all these years, I fucking hate Latin and have never enjoyed reading it even for one second. It was a chore all the way through. Meanwhile, god knows why, every line of Greek I read makes my soul feel like it's sucking on a great big pair of tits.

mother of god

>>24594533
You're not ready for Greek.

>>24594552
That's Latin
You're not ready for condescending snide remarks
>>24594533
Keep at it, once you notice the patterns a good 80-90% become trivial, the rest you will learn sooner than you think. Present tense is often the outlier, don't compare the others to it.

>>24594552
Greek is easier because things phonetically make sense. The language rhymes with itself. Latin is all over the fucking place.

>>24594629
I disagree. See Palmer's Latin Language and Woodcock's New Latin Syntax for detailed explanations of how Latin formed and how it makes sense.

>>24593269
desu that's a whole nother level fr fr

>>24594650
I'm not going to see those but you could explain them if you want and I'll read your words instead.

>>24594596
>You're not ready for condescending snide remarks
i think you misunderstood what he meant

>>24594533
If you carefully study the chart, the actual amount of "irregularity" that has to be learned is relatively small, and much of the individual forms can be grouped under broader rules. The bigger difficulty with Latin verbs is not irregularity, but ambiguity (IMHO of course).

>>24594739
I just think it's the words. They're difficult to remember. Some languages just have words that stick. Latin doesn't stick in my noodle but I can regurgitate words from German classes I took ten years ago or Demotic I learned on Duolingo. Vocabulary is a tougher battle than grammar I think because it's just so huge compared to grammar.

>>24594650
>>24594650
>read these two textbooks to see why it actually makes perfect sense
the point is that you don’t need to read textbooks about syntax for Greek to “make sense” phonetically. It just does, intuitively

>>24594629
>>24594946
If you refer to a transformation such as κόραξ/κόρακες or νικάω/ἐνίκησα, these are indeed regular and mere script phenomena that vanish when read in Latin script. Yet the Greek verbal system is much more irregular than the Latin one, with a profusion of suppletive cases (in contrast to fero, one would find εἰμί, φέρω, ἔρχομαι, ὁράω, λέγω, ἐσθίω, and many others in Greek), a multitude of inconsistent suffixes in conjugation (‑νω, ‑(ι)σκω, ‑άνω, ‑εύω, ‑νύω, ‑νέω, not to mention the infamous yod alternant which generate a ton of present suffixes), considerable dialect variation and numerous parallel and diachronically evolving avenues of conjugation. Consider aorist alone, with full-grade root aorist, thematic with or without reduplication, suffixes in ‑η and ‑θη, and sigma ones, no less than six different means.

I agree that Latin is not as easy as it looks, especially when it comes to linguistics. A lot is still obscure or doesn't have any definitive explanation (such as the imperfect ‑ba suffix) but it still is much more practical for a student. Supine and perfect bases can be guessed without too much trouble and then the whole paradigm is regular and much smaller than the Greek one.

>>24595025
>with a profusion of suppletive cases
That's not a problem of grammar, that's just using a broader vocabulary. Everyone knows that Greek vocab is richer than Latin.
>inconsistent suffixes in conjugation
But you're more likely to get them so you get more clues to what words mean than in Latin, which is like walking through a desert.
>considerable dialect variation
That's a bonus not a bug.
>diachronically evolving avenues of conjugation
This is already explained by dialects. No one debates Attic or Doric or Aeolic from the 3rd century against the 2nd.
>Consider aorist alone, with full-grade root aorist, thematic with or without reduplication, suffixes in ‑η and ‑θη, and sigma ones, no less than six different means.
But you're not confused when you see an aorist. This only hurts you if you're composing. No one is composing in either of these languages so it's not really an argument. Thematics usually just involve length too.
>I agree that Latin is not as easy as it looks,
Verbs are stupid easy and you can recognize a subjunctive by an emphasis on i/e sounds. The declensions are weird because they bounce around unlike Greek. It's refreshing when you hit a noun ending in -ων and you know you're dealing with a plural genitive every time. Every time you deal with the first declension (the first fucking one ffs) and you see an -ae ending it's like okay, singular or plural, dative vs genitive vs nominative, and that never wears off. You have to be dialed in to figure out the nouns and its exhausting.

Greek is superior because the nouns are easier and the words stick. The words in Latin just don't sound like real words. It's the same feeling when you look at Slavic and you see "Szcyinczky" or something. Latin feels like gibberish for the most part and Greek looks like an actual language.

>>24594533
I never found this hard
Now Greek...

>>24595058
>Greek is superior because the nouns are easier and the words stick
And to build off this idea: In Latin you have no real context clues if you can't recognize both vocabulary AND declension. In Greek, you get far more prepositions and prefixes. That means that if you know the prefixes or prepositions you can figure out the circumstances of the noun and its meaning and the cases are much more guessable and consistent across the board. If you know the case and the circumstances then you can already get a sense of what the clause is about. That's a dream for auto-didacts with limited resources. But if you hit a weird double or triple case ending (every single case in Latin has duplicates that require you to delineate meaning for EVERY SINGLE NOUN- ablative-genitive is the biggest culprit).

You can complain all you want about the Greek vocabulary being bigger or more nuanced, but when you hit a Greek sentence there's WAY more to latch onto for a beginner than there is in Latin. I'll be honest, I took Latin in high school and every few years I brush up on it and it took me a long time to realize that I don't actually enjoy it. I do it out of a sense of responsibility and because it's historically important. Of all the languages I've had contact with, it's among the less rewarding feats because it's so unruly until you break back into it. It's higher maintenance and less natural feeling for the amount of effort it requires. And then when you get into the Latin used in the 16th-19th centuries they use robust clauses that you see in Germanic languages but there aren't the same prepositions or prefixes or modal words used in Greek or German so it comes off as awkward and you have to have a very strong sense of case implications to get the full meaning of a series of clauses. Case implications aren't taught in any schools, it comes from using Latin as a living language. You just have to read tons of it to get the gist and it's why translations from that period differ so greatly.

>>24595095
>But if you hit a weird double or triple case ending (every single case in Latin has duplicates that require you to delineate meaning for EVERY SINGLE NOUN- ablative-genitive is the biggest culprit) *then it's problematic because it's like hitting a road bump or a stop sign at every noun

>>24595058
>>24595095
>that's not a problem of grammar, that's just using a broader vocabulary
Well then, if you go that way, speaking of complexity in grammar becomes meaningless, since every difficulty would ultimately be nothing more than an additional item of vocabulary. The point is that, unlike Latin, knowledge of a single form does not allow the reconstruction of the whole paradigm. Even in a regular verb, Greek requires five, six, seven, even up to eight principal parts for a complete conjugation.

>but you're more likely to get them so you get more clues to what words mean than in Latin, which is like walking through a desert
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. These suffixes don't carry meaning. They once did, but it was more a matter of quality than of signification, and that quality has often been lost. Verbs like κάμνω or μανθάνω are lexicalised now.

>that's a bonus not a bug
That still means more forms, and less recognisable ones, and dialectal variation is not just about script, it ranges from the absence of augment in Homer to a whole different formation stem.

>but you're not confused when you see an aorist
Aren't you? Does it really seem so obvious that στήομεν, ἀπέδραν, ἔγνων, βαίην, ἐβίων, ἔφυς, ἔχεα are all aorist examples? And what about ἔδωκα, ἔθηκα, and ἧκα?

>no one is composing in either of these languages so it's not really an argument
I won't disagree with you but a lot of people here would get mad.

>Greek is superior because the nouns are easier and the words stick
That's up to you, I'm sure a lot of people would strongly disagree. Latin vocabulary is much closer than Greek to English, let alone Italian, French or Spanish. I don't think piscis, flamma, fera or lumen would be a problem, at least not more than ἰχθύς, πῦρ, θηρίον or φῶς. It's pretty much about tastes, I'm glad you appreciate Greek but this is definitely a step above Latin when it comes to conjugation and declension.

>in Greek, you get far more prepositions and prefixes
This is mostly true for poetry, Latin uses a good deal of prepositions. Granted, there's no article, but the confusion you claim for the shared endings of ablative and dative (I surmised that's what you meant, not genitive) is mild, ad the context is usually very clear, there's not much room for dative outside what the verb requires, whereas Greek has much more nominal paradigms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH8E5RKq31I
is he right? I hope so, this is actually easier to pronounce without the different short vowels

>>24595430
I have a lot of respect for him and I like listening to him, the aversion really comes from spamming his videos and his hasty attempt to put out a Greek pronunciation with his name attached. That was pretty haphazard.
>>24595206

>speaking of complexity in grammar becomes meaningless, since every difficulty would ultimately be nothing more than an additional item of vocabulary
Yes.
>I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. These suffixes don't carry meaning
I mean that prefixes and prepositions make up for any difficulties in suffixing in Greek. Latin does not have that advantage in any period.
>it ranges from the absence of augment in Homer to a whole different formation stem
Anon if you're confused by a lack of augment I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you're just not cutout for Greek. It's like why would you learn Chinese if you hate the characters? You wouldn't. If you don't like Greek morphology because its taxing you can just admit it. No one's going to spite you for it.
>Does it really seem so obvious that
Yes because once you've perused the other forms then 1st+2nd aorists stick out.
>Latin vocabulary is much closer than Greek to English, let alone Italian, French or Spanish
Both a blessing and a curse. I took roots class in middle school, Latin in high school, and grew up in Italy. The downside to all of this is that there are "false friends" that could deviate meanings. Roots are good for context clues, not really direct translation, but in that sense Greek has just as many in English. It was actually a Greek stemmed word that helped me win the middle school spelling bee.
>there's no article
If this doesn't make you angry then there's something wrong. I'm judging you.
>but the confusion you claim for the shared endings of ablative and dative (I surmised that's what you meant, not genitive)
Yes that's right haha
>is mild
WRONG. It's like hitting a speed bump every time I come to it double checking for entendres. It's gay as hell. GAY GAY GAY.
>οι οις ους ων
Gorgeous. Look at that separation. And the relatives are deducible by the definite articles and those are both related to the case endings for the most common 1st and 2nd declensions. It's a work of art, really.

>>24595478
If I may cut in here, I have a question. Of course Greek doesn't have the same confusion as Latin between dative and ablative because Greek doesn't have an ablative. Now, I don't know enough about Greek to say, but aren't a lot of functions of the Latin ablative taken by the Greek dative? And couldn't one argue that Greek is just as ambiguous and confusing for lacking an ablative in the first place?

>>24595952
nta but that's where heavier preposition usage balances things out(also the genitive takes part of the weight as well, in fact, the main original purpose of the ab-lative is mostly covered by the genitive)

>>24594533
This is actually a great cheat to learn grammar fast, Lol I was just studying that a few days ago, once I learned them all individually i feel like I mastered grammar as a whole because I neglected learning them that intimately before

>>24596182
yeah, I started with Wheelock's Latin and LLPSI, but didn't really like moving slowly with no idea of where it's going. I like looking at a reference grammar and getting a basic sense of the whole system

>>24596202
Thats wise and I appreciate especially since thats what I do, I just use chatgpt, I found stuff there I couldnt find anywhere else, like the spiritual characteristics of gender, declensions, and conjugations. Just look up anything that isnt crystal clear to me and save the slow agony of guided practice

>>24590699
木足矣。
君到城。
聞之者少。

受其書而始遲讀。
人增,勝方可得。
一始圍之,五日攻門而後已。

其志之堅也,雖經苦戰,幾乎無傷,惟折一指。
問曰:「既戒告兆之不吉,攻無成,何咎之有?」

>>24590699
lekhaṃ labdhvā mandametaṃ likhituṃ prācalat
yadyadhikā janā āgamiṣyan tarhyavasaro no varteta
paścād ārambhād upasado'muṣya paryantaṃ pañcamaṃ divasaṃ nāsthagayat samākrāmato dhvārasya

The syntax here is awful someone help me out

wheelocks or that blue latin an intensive course book? have both from school back in the day looking to get back into it

>>24596455
Intensive is very intensive
Wheelock's pace is more relaxed but is missing a few structures.
If you took Latin and still have some feel for it stick with Moreland and Fleischer and consult Wheelock for simpler explanations of confusing points. It wouldn't hurt to do exercises and readings in both.

>>24596455
neither

Here's an epigram I wrote about my bitch filipina wife. I should send her back.
Membro tantum porto caseum in exiguo iam
Flet vomitatque uxor nasum ipsa tenens

Here's an epigram about what happened last night. Every night, actually.

Magni nigri verpam magnam gaudet acoetis
Et plorante penem in manibus teneo

>>24596736
Epigrams have caesura
plorante makes no sense here
Not only do you have a poor grasp of prosody and grammar but you also waste time composing trifles in hope of internet yuks
grow up

>>24570219 (OP)
Do you know any daily latin publication

>>24597061
2000+ years of production
Why do you need daily

>>24596455
If you didn't already have both, a point in Wheelock's favor is that a new copy of the book can be had relatively inexpensively. But you already said you have a copy of both. In the grand scheme of things, either one is probably adequate for your purposes, so just ask yourself which one gives you more warm fuzzy feelings? Does Moreland & Fleischer feed your (merited) narcissistic feelings of grandeur, knowing that you're better than the plebs that use Wheelock and probably have never heard of "Latin: An Intensive Course?" That sort of judgment is a subjective one, so you can decide for yourself, knowing that either way you won't have decided wrongly.

Another thing to consider is do you have an answer key for either one? If you have (or can obtain) an answer key for one, but not the other, you should choose the one with the answer key.

>>24596598
That's another option. Even if you use a different textbook, LLPSI would make a good supplementary reader.

Yet another idea is that if you already took a few years of Latin in school, you could skip the introductory textbook and use a "composition book" like North & Hillard or Bradley's Arnold. If you remember the basics and don't need to repeat chapters like "what's a nominative" or "this is what the first declension looks like," I think that would be more level appropriate. Even if you do need a refresher on the basic grammar, LLPSI would give a fairly complete overview of the basics, and, depending on how much you learned and how much you've forgotten, you could make your way through it pretty quickly.

>>24597602
Wheelock's answer key is in the Mega
Intensive answer key can be easily found online

Why is it that modern reprints of old resources like Pharr’s Aeneid or Lewis’ Elementary Dictionary are often a shitty photocopy in microscopic print with blotchy letters? Is there some legal reason that publishers don’t take the time to retype and format it? I would gladly pay double

>>24597805
laziness and greed. you could OCR your own in google docs thobeit, if you heart is in it for the game

>>24597805
Print on Demand services are crap. Forgotten Books and the like are a pure scam. Buy directly from publishers, real publishers, or buy used. On Abebooks or wherever always check the publisher's info and drop any shady ones instantly.
As toy our question they do it because they can. They set the price cheap and try to lure in suckers. When you research the publisher info it is almost always jeets or arabs behind them.

>>24597816
I don’t doubt there are plenty of scammers out there, but even a supposedly reputable publisher like Bolchazy-Carducci sells an obnoxious printed photocopy of Pharr’s Aeneid for $60. Seems like the only way to go is to shell out hundreds of dollars for a decent used copy of the original

>>24595478
>yes
Then the only measure we have is vocabulary size and Latin is simpler.

>i mean that prefixes and prepositions make up for any difficulties in suffixing in Greek
What do you mean? Both languages have preverbs and prepositions and by no mean it's widespread to the extent declension's somehow an option.

>Anon if you're confused by a lack of augment I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you're just not cutout for Greek. It's like why would you learn Chinese if you hate the characters? You wouldn't. If you don't like Greek morphology because its taxing you can just admit it. No one's going to spite you for it
That's an example of a grammatical variation within Greek, it's adding complexity and my personal tastes are irrelevant to the discussion. I am more a Hellenist than a Latinist, but I entertain no illusion when it comes to their complexity, no more than it would occur to me to consider Greek or Latin easier than Sanskrit. Greek is a pleasant language, more flexible than Latin, unburdened by alliteration and keen to the most daring compound, yet there's no question it is easier to learn Latin. It is a more regular language, with fewer forms, and forms that are less alien to one another. Amabo and monebo alongside agam, capiam, and audiam is arguably the most salient fact of the entire verbal paradigm, what can one say, by comparison, of ἤγαγον in the same tense, person, and mood as ἐρρύην, ἧκα, or ἐνίκησα? In Latin, the few homophones that do indeed exist are limited to a handful of nominal cases.

>yes because once you've perused the other forms then 1st+2nd aorists stick out
I don't get how they could stick out, especially with non-sigmatic aorist sharing the same ending as accusative.

>if this doesn't make you angry then there's something wrong
??

>οι οις ους ων
The irony is that you awe for small one-syllable words that are notoriously difficult for any student to grasp because of the avalanche of homophones. Is η an adverb, a possessive, a conjunction, an exclamation, any of the numerous forms of εἰμί?

>>24597966
I see you have employed the strategy of saying such stupid things that one becomes too exhausted to even bother responding.

>>24591940
>two tonal marks in conjunction
if you mean aspiration and circumflex together, I'm not sure that would be in contradiction, they are two different diacritics, one being only about breathing
not sure papyri necessarily had the strict standards of our "modern" system

>>24597962
Older B-C's are good. There is one from 1999 on abebooks right now for around $50. Little high but not astronomical

>>24599014
I bought that edition and returned it because it had the exact issues I mentioned in my first post. Obvious photocopy, and the print was uncomfortably small for reading, I presume because making it any larger would have highlighted the blotchiness of the original scan.

>>24599261
Pharr's Aeneid was published in 1930, so should be entering the public domain this year if it hasn't already. Archive.org wants you to "borrow" it, suggesting that it isn't public domain yet. Either way, maybe now would be a good time to work on a new edition. You could release it digitally for free, like Steadman's editions, and call it OpenPharr™ or LibrePharr™.

>Obvious photocopy, and the print was uncomfortably small for reading

It can't be as bad as the Homeric Greek book where you have those microscopic accent markings, and you have to put your nose in the book and squint to tell rough from smooth breathings.

>Mark long vowels? You know the Romans didn't do that, right?
>WTF did you just use the wrong accent on that greek word? You should be ashamed

>>24600008
Too tedious to mark things unless you have that autocorrecting keyboard.

>>24600008
never heard anyone lament that someone is marking long vowels

>>24600133
NTA, but I've certainly seen posters bewailing the practice of macronizing texts as transgressing the traditions of the elders.

>facio
hehe

>>24600156
What's so funny about "fah chee oh?"

>>24600133
That's me. I find it so fucking obnoxious. You might as well just start adding pinyin tones to your English.

What would you recommend to start rawdogging texts? Should I buy an OCT edition and get a good dictionary? Wanting to read the Theaetetus.

>>24600175
if you don't mind staring at the screen online tools like scaife and oxytone mog nowadays in terms of simplifying reading

>>24600180
>simplifying
>reading
Lord, how far we have fallen

>>24600175
Yes, assuming you are past the beginner stage. Reference grammar wouldn't hurt as well.
Separate reading from looking things up as much as possible

>>24600194
>Separate reading from looking things up as much as possible

I'm presuming you mean it's better to have to take time to look things up separately from the text itself, as opposed to reading text with vocab and grammar commentary on the page?

>>24600224
Yes

>>24600008
this unironically

>>24570219 (OP)
Is english grammar a strict subset of latin grammar?

>>24600008
The Romans did, in fact, sometimes do that, in the form of apices. But it is true that most of what's been written in Latin throughout most of its history was not written with vowel length marked, whereas much of what's been written in Ancient Greek for the past few centuries has had accent marks.

>>24600167
But English doesn't have phonemic contour tones, whereas Latin does have phonemic vowel length. (If it helps any, think of it as one of those optional reading aids for children and foreigners, like niqqud in Hebrew or stress markers in Russian.)

>>24600341
No? Why would it be? They're from different branches of the Indo-European family.

>>24597061
I dunno how good this is but there's a Latin newspaper here
https://ephemerisnuntii.eu/index.php

>>24600356
>English doesn't have phonemic contour tones
Yes it does. You would have to modify pinyin so the flat tone is mid and lower grades but otherwise you could. You're saying that English doesn't have long/short vowel dichotomies either, and it does.

>>24600541
...no it doesn't? Name a minimal tonal pair? And I didn't say English doesn't have vowel length distinctions, it does in some dialects.

I saw this paper mentioned on Luke Ranieri's channel, "The Singing of Homer and the Modes of Early Greek Music," by M. L. West, and saw that he had notated a realization of what singing the Iliad might have sounded like. I made some audio for this if anyone is curious. I've attached a picture of the score that I made to generate the audio.

https://vocaroo.com/1oxfiyyCHX6z

>>24600575
And here's a picture of the score in West's paper.

>>24600008
>You know the Romans didn't do that, right?
They quite frequently did, in fact.

>>24600645
Where?

>>24600546
>Name a minimal tonal pair
What do you mean pair? "You" could have a riser on the "u", "tonal" could have one on the "o" and a faller on the "a". It's not that hard to figure out.

>>24600575
that's some weird fucking rhythms unless i somehow forgot to read music

>>24600662
I mean can you name two distinct words, with different meanings, that are distinguished only by tone. For example, in Mandarin, mā means "mother", má means "hemp", mǎ means "horse", and mà means "scold".

>>24600160
*fay chee ow

>>24600676
He's written it as if in 5/8 (five eight notes per measure), and is for the most part giving an extra eighth to the second half of the foot. If it were easy to do, I would re-arrange it to a more even rhythm for comparison. I didn't read the paper through yet, so I can't say exactly the rationale behind it. Look up the paper if you're interested.

>>24600681
That's not relevant at all. Homophones are not proof of tonal usage retard. You're definitely going to Ivy league lmao

>>24570289

I love, I eat, I know - present tense, simple aspect.
I loved, I ate, I knew - past tense, simple aspect
I will love, I will eat, I will know - future tense, simple aspect
I am loving, I am eating - present tense, progressive aspect
I was loving, I was eating - past tense, progressive aspect.
I will be loving, I will be eating - future tense, progressive aspect.
I have loved, I have eaten, I have known - present tense, perfective aspect
I had love, I had eaten, I had known - past tense, perfective aspect
I will have loved, I will have eaten, I will have known - future tense, perfective aspect.

In English we have the whole set of nine, but in some other languages, (such as German), there's no difference between 'simple', and 'progressive', only the 'perfective', and the 'imperfective'. In Ancient Greek, it *almost* works like German, except that in the past tense, they have all three aspects, for a total of seven conjugations. In Classical Latin, enfuriatingly, the simple past, and present-perfective merged, and so now we have six conjugations, which can't be easily described in such terms.

Simply put, the six latin tenses are as follows:

1. Present - Present Tense and Imperfective aspect. (Equivalent to either 'loves' or 'is loving')
2. Future - Future Tense and Imperfective aspect. (Equivalent to either 'will love', or 'will be loving')
3. Imperfect - Past tense, and Progressive aspect. (Equivalent to 'was loving', but *not* to 'loved')
4. Perfect - Pulls double duty as present-perfective, and past-simple. (Equivalent to either 'loved', or 'has loved')
5. Pluperfect - Past tense, and perfective aspect (Equivalent to 'had loved').
6. Future Perfect - Future Tense, and Perfective Aspect (Equivalent to 'will have loved').

>>24600353
>whereas much of what's been written in Ancient Greek for the past few centuries has had accent marks
Ancient Greek was dead as a spoken language when breathings and accents came into common use though.

>>24600658
On inscriptions with apices?
>>24601173
It is absolutely relevant, because it's evidence that tone is PHONEMIC (part of the set of sound distinctions that a language uses to distinguish meaning) in Mandarin, but not in English. Similarly, in Latin vowel length is phonemic- ānus means "ring", ănus means "old lady". (And Mandarin mā má etc are NOT homophones- they're distinguished by PHONEMIC tone.)
>>24601721
But /h/ and pitch accent were not completely gone from living speech, were they?

>>24594533
Why don't first and second person plural have a form for "fio" in present indicative?

>>24601912
>But /h/ and pitch accent were not completely gone from living speech, were they?
by the time scribes started consistently writing Greek with breathings and accents (the byzantine period), they were long gone.

>>24602771
poorly/not attested?

>>24601912
I wonder if there's some obvious reason the Roman system with apices fell off while Byzantines kept the system tight enough for us

is classical chinese actually helpful for learning japanese or mandarin chinese later on? the cc chart mentions it, but all else i've read points to them all being completely different from each other despite origin or shared characters.

>>24605210
Yes, but not in the way you expect.
First, if you know the writing system, you know it. Any means of acquiring it will help.
Second, CC is critical for sounding smart in Mandarin. Educated Chinese use classicisms and classical quotations constantly.

>>24605442
ty ty for the reply, anon. now all that's left is choosing to study cc or japanese next...

>Alexander Arguelles says flashcards/Anki are useless
it's over

>>24605517
>looking for the opinion of a popglot hack without any scholar achievement

>>24605517
>zoomer incapable of forming opinion unless parroting youtuber

>>24596439
>君到城。
*至, 到 is not classical.

受其書而始遲讀。
no need for 其 here
I would use 乃 instead of 而


其志之堅也,雖經苦戰,幾乎無傷,惟折一指。
因志之坚,虽经苦战,若无伤矣,唯折指一。
也 feels incorrect here, it's making a statement, can't really be used as a condition or reason clause
经 as a verb and furthermore abstracted to "experience" is not classical, but I can't think of an alternative. attested from 南北朝.
几乎 as "almost" is not classical, Tang dynasty 几 is attested as "almost" but not Qin-Han. I think it would be more natural to just use 如 or 若 here
inversion of number complements is personal preference but I see it more often in pre-Qin texts

問曰:「既戒告兆之不吉,攻無成,何咎之有?」
I'd use 焉 instead of 之有 but both seem ok

overall good translations and I find little to fault in them

>>24605517
it's crazy how popular he's gotten while contributing absolutely nothing to language learning.

>>24606055
People are so clueless about what it means to know a language that the first rando who can order a coffee in Italian can become a popglot on YT. Arguelles barely ever speaks the languages he claims to know, and when he does, he's miles off. I've heard him in French, German, and Spanish, and aside from the crap accent, he keeps messing up genders and makes a lot of syntax errors. The only language he seems to speak well is Korean. Since he claimed he studied foreign languages sixteen hours a day, I'm not sure how seriously we're supposed to take someone who clocked 100k+ hours of study just to clumsily mumble platitudes in a few European languages.

>>24606125
It's because he was doing it all wrong his whole life. If he had just spent all that time Anki, he might have actually achieved something.

>>24606125
he's more into reading than speaking I think. which is how he was able to spend so much time per day, jumping between dozens of languages and getting a basic knowledge in reading them. I doubt he really practises speaking/producing all those languages other than Korean

>>24606383
For the record I think it's commendable but this kind of person shouldn't be around telling people how to learn or what to do.

This is an interesting quiz game. It's for Japanese, so obviously the pitch patterns don't quite align with Greek, but the listening skills should still have some carry over.

https://kotu.io/tests/pitchAccent/perception/minimalPairs

>>24605517
wasn't that an older video?
He said something like flash cards are useless if you drill them by themselves. If you drill them then deploy them in grammar study it is good

>>24606612
perhaps. his point was learning vocabulary out of context is an inefficient use of time, but you could use flashcards in any number of ways, like with full sentences instead of single words

>>24604062
Such a common verb, in Latin? That can't be it.

>>24606662
>https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/irregular-verbs-f%C4%AB%C5%8D
Per A&G the second and third person plural indicatives of ‘fio’ are not considered good Latin i.e. poorly attested

>>24607199
>>24607199