/lit/ - Literature

sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura
quae legis hic: aliter non fit, Anone, OP.

rana lacte fruitur, matris quam mammis suxit. rana ridet; namque laeta est rana.

>>17281821
god damn this brings back memories of highschool

>>17281964
I took latin in highschool as well. I kind of want to relearn it. Anybody have recommended latin resources?

>>17281821
this made me laugh out loud, thank you OP. Finally some quality post

>>17282584
llpsi

Latin is the perfect language. Reading it is so satisfying and stimulating that I wish I'd discovered it sooner. Why did we stop teaching it in schools?

>>17281821
There truly is no higher art than Latin shitposting

>>17281882
bona rana :)

>>17281821
Hehe

>>17281821
>The abolition of Latin as the universal language of learned men, together with the rise of that provincialism which attaches to national literatures, has been a real misfortune for the cause of knowledge in Europe. For it was chiefly through the medium of the Latin language that a learned public existed in Europe at all -- a public to which every book as it came out directly appealed. The number of minds in the whole of Europe that are capable of thinking and judging is small, as it is; but when the audience is broken up and severed by differences of language, the good these minds can do is very much weakened. This is a great disadvantage; but a second and worse one will follow, namely, that the ancient languages will cease to be taught at all. The neglect of them is rapidly gaining ground in France and Germany.

>If it should really come to this, then farewell, humanity! Farewell, noble taste and high thinking! The age of barbarism will return, in spite of railways, telegraphs and balloons. We shall thus in the end lose one more advantage possessed by all our ancestors. For Latin is not only a key to the knowledge of Roman antiquity; it also directly opens up to us the Middle Age in every country in Europe, and modern times as well, down to about the year 1750. Erigena, for example, in the ninth century, Raimond Lully in the thirteenth, with a hundred others, speak straight to us in the very language that they naturally adopted in thinking of learned matters. They thus come quite close to us even at this distance of time: we are in direct contact with them, and really come to know them. How would it have been if every one of them spoke in the language that was peculiar to his time and country? We should not understand even the half of what they said. A real intellectual contact with them would be impossible. We should see them like shadows on the farthest horizon, or, may be, through the translator's telescope.

>In learning a language, the chief difficulty consists in making acquaintance with every idea which it expresses, even though it should use words for which there in no exact equivalent in the mother tongue; and this often happens. In learning a new language a man has, as it were, to mark out in his mind the boundaries of quite new spheres of ideas, with the result that spheres of ideas arise where none were before. Thus he not only learns words, he gains ideas too.

>>17281821
this shitposting won't die on my watch

Consto et catapotium rubrum