Search Results
6/9/2025, 8:34:13 PM
>>24453712
My complaint isn't so much that the grammar is in a separate section from the lessons, but that it isn't well designed for its purpose. For example, consider lesson 5, which introduces the present active indicative of the verb λύω. Pic related is the assigned reading for the chapter. Is all this information really necessary at this point? The student is advised to "read carefully," so it seems the author at least thinks so. So instead of dedicating his time to the important information pertaining to the lesson, the diligent student is led to study rules about grammatical terms when he has no idea what the grammatical terms mean. (Which is also why I find the earlier poster's claim that Pharr had no expectation that "beginners" had previously studied Latin is probably mistaken, and the editor, John Wright, agrees in his preface.)
Granted all the information is necessary, is it well explained?
>792. The characteristics of the finite forms are the personal endings, augment, reduplication, voice, mode, and tense signs, etc.
"Etc.?" And not all of these terms even touched on in the rest of the reading. So is the student supposed to learn all of these kinds of characteristics, or is the point to introduce the term "characteristic" and give the student an example of the kinds of things that "characteristic" refers to? You might say to just use common sense, but it's unnecessary to waste the student's time and mental resources in this way, especially if your argument is that the genius Clyde Pharr wrote a perfect textbook that is immune to criticism.
The author seems to have first vomited out all the rules of Homeric Greek that he thought students should learn into a separate grammar, and then carved out pieces of the grammar to fit his teaching syllabus as best as that separate grammar allowed. As a standalone grammar, I don't consider it very good. (I contrasted it with Allen & Greenough, which I do consider a good Latin grammar for students.) So just because it's inserted into an introductory textbook doesn't make it better than it is. A better textbook would have the lesson's grammatical reading hand tailored to that lesson.
My complaint isn't so much that the grammar is in a separate section from the lessons, but that it isn't well designed for its purpose. For example, consider lesson 5, which introduces the present active indicative of the verb λύω. Pic related is the assigned reading for the chapter. Is all this information really necessary at this point? The student is advised to "read carefully," so it seems the author at least thinks so. So instead of dedicating his time to the important information pertaining to the lesson, the diligent student is led to study rules about grammatical terms when he has no idea what the grammatical terms mean. (Which is also why I find the earlier poster's claim that Pharr had no expectation that "beginners" had previously studied Latin is probably mistaken, and the editor, John Wright, agrees in his preface.)
Granted all the information is necessary, is it well explained?
>792. The characteristics of the finite forms are the personal endings, augment, reduplication, voice, mode, and tense signs, etc.
"Etc.?" And not all of these terms even touched on in the rest of the reading. So is the student supposed to learn all of these kinds of characteristics, or is the point to introduce the term "characteristic" and give the student an example of the kinds of things that "characteristic" refers to? You might say to just use common sense, but it's unnecessary to waste the student's time and mental resources in this way, especially if your argument is that the genius Clyde Pharr wrote a perfect textbook that is immune to criticism.
The author seems to have first vomited out all the rules of Homeric Greek that he thought students should learn into a separate grammar, and then carved out pieces of the grammar to fit his teaching syllabus as best as that separate grammar allowed. As a standalone grammar, I don't consider it very good. (I contrasted it with Allen & Greenough, which I do consider a good Latin grammar for students.) So just because it's inserted into an introductory textbook doesn't make it better than it is. A better textbook would have the lesson's grammatical reading hand tailored to that lesson.
Page 1