/lit/ - Literature

>>21553731
>t. person who does not know Latin.

>>21553731
Dilata, stulte pathice.

>>21553731
>Chinese
>It's own lingua per se illustrata
anon, i...

Daily reminder Orberg is a retard on every level

His book claims to teach the "natural method, it doesn't, yet his book fails to do this. First it aims to teach the new version of that but fails to do so since he doesn't seem to understand or innately believes its impossible to learn from so his book ends up like some monster made of different ways that doesn't know what its actually meant to do.

And he doesn't aim to teach using the actual natural method which looks like this. This book is by the one of the people that helped popularise the term in the 1800s and as you can see it is just an interlinear book.

>>21553762
Next is one from over 100 years before by John Locke and yes the famous philosopher is the author.
He made this specifically to teach Latin for those without a teacher.

>>21553763
Finally is this AngloSaxon edition of some hymns. Now I'm not fully sure whether this was used as Locke or the others intended their books but I assume it was.
Various editions of biblical literature like this in English comes from around 800-1000

>>21553731
I wish there was a proper one for Greek

>>21553763
This is interesting. It looks a lot like modern glossing in linguistics, but fails to capture the grammar and declinations.

I don't know latin but for instance we would gloss something like:

>Can-is natan-s
Dog-NOM.sg swim-3sg.gerund
A dog swimming

The extra line may be more cumbersome but it really gets into the patterns and nitty gritty of how the language actually works

>>21553731
>tfw can't find a copy of italian athenaze anywhere
I'm not all in on the natural method but I'd still like a good reader.

>>21553835
pretty sure there's both in the MEGA in the /clg/ thread
otherwise I have both books and I can upload them somewhere

Do you make these threads just to bait that one sperg?

YOU HAVE BEEN VISITED BY THE BALD MAN OF LATIN PROFICIENCY!
Flawless Latin pronunciation and Cicerionian fluency will come to you, but ONLY if you post "EUGEPAE MACTE, LUCI" in this thread!

>>21553921
EUGEPAE MACTE, LUCI

>>21553844
I was thinking of a physical copy. Still, I'll check the mega out.

>>21553757
It would work even better because chinese doesn't have any morphology. Just put a bunch of drawings of thing with their corresponding characters and start creating sentences from that.

>>21553762
>>21553763
>>21553763
you're a retarded monoglot who knows 0 Latin
stop making people lose their time with your shitty, useless "advice" and then kys

>>21553731
it's pretty much like a regular textbook
I don't see what the big fuss is t b h

>>21554020
one autist in particular is obsessed with convincing people not to use this book, this is the designated containment thread before he starts shitting /clg/

>>21554024
DELE.

>>21554020
It's just one guy

>>21554024
>this is the designated containment thread before he starts shitting /clg/
wrong, this is a serious thread, no one is being contained here

>>21554024
Nobody in any /clg/ ever said not to use it. People have said ad nauseam that it's not a lone resource and you should pair it with something else. They also reject the notion that using English while learning a language somehow corrupts the pure magic of the intuitive holy method. That's about it. Then someone misrepresents this point and the thread goes to shit.

>>21553763
>Next is one from over 100 years before by John Locke and yes the famous philosopher is the author.
I don't see it here so I think you've misattributed it:
https://openpublishing.psu.edu/locke/bib/ch0.html

>>21553731
Is it really? Because I’ve been meaning to learn Latin for a while now and I don’t want to waste money on a book that isn’t good to teach me.

>>21554807
>Is it really?
No. It's a reader. Everryone who claims to use it and nothing else is lying. They spend all day asking for help on Reddit and Discord or watching YouTube video playlists that explain the grammar in English for them. Pair it with a grammar primer course so you don't waste your time doing that nonsense. Also, it doesn't even have to be your reader of choice. There are other readers like Latin By The Natural Method or a new one called Via Latina.

>>21554969
>No. It's a reader. Everryone who claims to use it and nothing else is lying.
Wrong.

>>21554807
LLPSI is mostly a meme, I'm sure people have used it successfully but it's buried in meme shit so it's hard to say. Basically any Latin book that isn't total trash will work, especially in the age of the Internet when you can just google whatever problem you're having and ask people for help in real time anyway. I'd recommend Wheelock, Cambridge, or Jones/Sidwell over LLPSI but again ultimately it barely matters. Just get any book and start learning. Ideally don't watch any Youtube videos unless you absolutely have to, so you avoid getting stuck in Pseud Gulch for eternity.

>>21554807
I’m doing it right now and it’s fine, but I’m also doing the workbook and multiple supplementary readers that are part of the same series. The main complaint is that it doesn’t hammer the grammar is a very methodical, translated way, since it’s the “natural method.” But I’m simply going to address this by completing another elementary textbook afterwards (probably Wheelock’s) to make sure I have a solid grasp of the fundamentals. There’s this assumption of those in the anti-LLPSI camp which I find odd, namely that those learning Latin couldn’t possibly complete other Latin textbooks in addition to LLPSI. As if, finding LLPSI to be deficient, someone can’t simply pick up another textbook instead or use another one after finishing LLPSI. It’s a pretty broad assumption to make.

>>21555012
>completing another elementary textbook afterwards (probably Wheelock’s)
I've done most of both and I can tell you right now that Wheelock's is going to be a slog if you've already done at least half of LLPSI. You might want to do something more concise and dense like Moreland & Fleischer. Wheelock is very slow and the exercises are pretty bad.

>>21555061
Thanks for the heads-up. Would the pace of going through Wheelock’s not be improved a bit by having some experience already working with elementary Latin?

>>21555081
>Would the pace of going through Wheelock’s not be improved a bit by having some experience already working with elementary Latin?
The problem is that it's mostly filler. You end up reading 3 or 4 pages of English just to get one paragraph of information. And the exercises are still a slog because there are to many per chapter imo and they use vocab that you haven't learned yet. As for the number it's because the chapters were meant to be done over the course of an entire week and the book over 2-3 semesters. It stretches things out way too much.

>>21555081
>>21555090
I would just also add that Wheelock is designed for students to use over an extended period of time, while the other book I mentioned is for someone who wants to start reading real literature in a few weeks. It also attempts to reuse vocab for the exercises instead of inserting an excessive amount of new words that appear only once like WL.

>>21554607
I haven't you are just mentally ill.
https://www.victorianweb.org/genre/childlit/aesop.html
https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/locbib.htm

>>21554607
Also you're a total fucking retard it is in your own webpage.

>>21554807
yes. ask any of those retard to type their answers in latin, see how they recoil

>Not having learned Latin and Greek in school
It's over for new world chuds

>>21555434
>ask any of those retard to type their answers in latin, see how they recoil
The people who demand that everyone else type in Latin, tend to type this demand in English. Maybe you should stop projecting your own insecurities about your lack of composition skills.

>>21555206
>>21555214
You made it sound like it was a textbook, a monogram, not a translation of fiction.

>>21555583
> The people who demand that everyone else type in Latin, tend to type this demand in English.
Quia si hi Latine scribant, illi non intellegant quod postulatur.

>>21555608
Quia si hi Latine scribant, illi non intellegant quod postuletur.

>>21555651
Pro >>21555583
> The people who demand that everyone else type in Latin, tend to type this demand in English.

>>21555583
euge euscheme anglice mussitasti, ac rusum latine dic quaeso sis tuapte facundia ut omnes praemineas

>>21555624
Nescio id quod vis monstrare, sed nemo curat.

>>21554579
>Nobody in any /clg/ ever said not to use it
Why would you go on the internet and post such a blatant lie like this?

>>21555669
>Why would you go on the internet and post such a blatant lie like this?
Somebody said "don't ever use Familia Romana no matter what, not even in conjunction with a secondary textbook to supplement the grammar. Avoid it at all costs because the book has absolutely no use, not even with a teacher or combined with another text."?

Sorry, but people don't say that. They say not to use it as a lone resource.

>>21555679
The Scots schizo in particular posted every other week that it's impossible to learn Latin with LLPSI until he was admitted, or whatever else happened to him.

>>21555694
>Scots schizo
Notice how grammar fags always use Esperanto tranny as a scapegoat strawman and the input fags always use the Scottish shizoid, but neither of those nutjobs have been in this thread for at least 4 months. This is the problem with this conversation. It's just a bunch of disingenuous people talking past each other and responding to arguments from underage shitposters who aren't even in the thread and haven't been since summer vacation ended and they had to go back to high school.

>>21555719
>>> Nobody in any /clg/ ever said not to use it.
>> The Scots schizo sure did.
> Scapegoat strawman! He hasn't been in the thread for at least 4 months
At least you're right about
> It's just a bunch of disingenuous people
if you include yourself.

>>21555751
>Scapegoat strawman! He hasn't been in the thread for at least 4 months
Yes, I would consider it a strawman to respond to someone who you haven't seen in 4 months when talking to somebody else who is actually right in front of you and is making a completely different argument.

But you insist on arguing against the most absurd and obviously unserious post that you can remember reading last year because it's easier than responding to a nuanced position that you are hearing today. Honestly I don't remember him even saying to "never use the book no matter what", but I'm sure if I've made a mistake and he actually did say that then you definitely screenshotted it, printed it out and taped it to your fridge. So I'll take your word for it bro. Make sure to continue keeping score. After all, this is just a big game.

>>21555651
>>21555657
>0 answers to these two posts
kek

>>21555928
You should answer it. But please do so in Latin, otherwise you can't have an opinion.

>>21555996
I'm just a tourist laughing at how retarded all of you are (except that one anon who wrote in Latin)
LMAO

>>21555928
>>21555661 respondit ad meum nuntium quem ob mendum deleveram, at quod scripsi belle confirmabat.
Ceterum dubito Latinitatem "sed nemo curat" dictae.

>>21556168
Now describe what a vagina feels like in Latin.

>>21555792
This. Its sad really trying to keep track of posters for months. Could people not do something useful like actual study?

>>21557266
Molles, umidi, calidi, nonnulli etiam angusti sunt cunni quos nosci, ac omnes amantur.

>>21557725
> nosci
novi

>>21557266
he answered, now kys

>>21553921
EUGEPAE MACTE, LUCI

>>21557266
unde gentium facultas nobis contuendi
famast ut nummorum sacculi

>>21558096
Ista fama de gustatu loquitur, non de tactu.
Si cunnus manibus percipitur ut sacculum nummorum, quaeso arcesse medicum.

>>21558195
>Si cunnus manibus percipitur ut sacculum nummorum, quaeso arcesse medicum.
Uter? Qui cunnum similem sacculo nummorum habet aut qui talem manibus sensit?

>>21558234
Iucundus tactus est et cunni et sacculi nummorum, sed male mihi videtur tangere unum ac sentire alterum.

Can't wait to learn Latin to have access to the esoteric secrets that people here must be exchanging in this conversation.

>>21558309
sorry but you will get filtered

>>21558309
Cur non Latinam scis? Grumo est in culina, vinum bibens. Grumio videt ancillam intrantem. Ancilla delectat Grumionem. Grumio rogat, "Femina, cur non sedes in vultu Grumionis?" Ebrius est Grumio. Ancilla clamat, sed nemo audit, nam dominus et domina hodie in forum sunt. Grumio ancillam capit manibus. "Nunc stupro te! Stupro! Stupro!" Grumio ridet. Sed Ancilla quoque ridet, quod Grumio ebrius est, et stupravit filium dominorum. Anus eius deletus est. Cum Grumio sobrius est, timet ne dominus se interficiat. Sed omnis bene est! Domino quoque placet stuprare filium eius. Videt anum filii. Deletus est. "Grumio! Fecisti?" Grumio tremit. "Bene, Grumio! Bene!" Dominus et Grumio rident. Ancilla ridet. Etiam domina ridet! Sed filius non ridet. ANUS DELETUS est filio.

>>21558309
It’s mostly just the same dumb shit anons post in English.

Are there any books that teach Dutch using a similar technique? I have an interest in learning the language for purely literary reasons that have nothing to do with slice of life youtube cartoons.

>>21558863
What’s she like?

>>21558897
Watch the cartoon and find out. In return, I really would like that Dutch natural method book recommendation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tt2ZmH-3uc&list=PLYXU4Ir4-8GPeP4lKT9aevhyhbSoHR04M

>>21558907
>fell for a cartoon
So 4chan

>>21559598
lmao

>>21553921
EUGEPAE MACTE, LUCI

>>21553790

The Anabasis of Xenophon : with an interlinear translation, for the use of schools and private learners, on the Hamiltonian system

https://archive.org/details/anabasisofxenoph00xenoiala/mode/2up

What is the actual method for reading it? Looks designed to be read kinda of fast without further thinking in actual structures or anything. I don't know if I should read until k don't understand,or to read over and over the same parts and not advancing that much.

t. romance language speaker

>>21561622
it would be easy enough to read without thinking much but I'm not sure you will learn anything that way
the fact that there are grammar and exercise sections also suggests that you should try to put some thought into it
which basically makes it a regular textbook

>>21553731
If you speak one or more Romance languages I imagine this book is quite good. Especially if you speak a language like Romanian, that still retains the case system from Latin so you literally do not need to learn any new grammar.

Otherwise I imagine you'd struggle.

>>21562116
Even if you only speak english, the case system explains itself well enough if you just read the book and the grammar explanations at the end of each chapter. It helps if you're not retarded, too

>>21553731
>learning a language no one speaks

>>21562127
I know, it's great, all the fun of feeling superior to EOPs and you don't even have to talk to any dumb foreigners

>>21562197
I can speak 2 languages fluently and 2 languages and a decent level. What I like about the languages is that I can use them to speak to people

>>21560673
Thank you!

How good is the method of learning Latin by simply picking up an interesting 17th century book and reading word by word?

>>21562769
Not bad, I did that with Swedenborg (18th c), who is noted for his formulaic and relatively easy Latin (with a few idiosyncrasies). I strongly believe that Latin should be taught with medieval and early modern texts that actually interest the student and not with classical texts which are much more difficult. Some 2nd millennium texts are just as difficult as classical ones, like Saxo Grammaticus or certain Renaissance authors trying to resurrect pristine Latinitas. But a lot of early modern Latin is rough and ready, utilitarian, repetitive, etc., which is perfect for reading. Furthermore, if the text actually interests you, like you feel a little frisson at the fact that you're reading one of your favorite authors in the original Latin and being a patrician, you gain a 1000% boost to motivation and retention.

That's why I don't really like graded readers. It's just more work. It creates a mindset that one "does X," where X is the textbook, or readers, until one is ready to "do real Latin." But it's always real Latin, you're just reading it more slowly at first. I'd rather slowly read Swedenborg than read a graded reader of Terrence I don't give a fuck about at medium speed because it's better laid out.

The only problem with this approach is that few people have the general historical/cultural knowledge to find 17th century early modern texts interesting or think of one to read off the top of their head. But if you have that knowledge then the world is your oyster. In the long run you will obviously want to read classical texts, since you don't want to be that medievalist or early modernist who can't read classical and get mogged. But your early reading can be basically anything you actually enjoy. Lots of people use the Vulgate. I've started learning multiple languages by reading the Bible in them (not always a good idea, not all are as perspicuous as the Vulgate).

But if you mean doing it without any grammar knowledge whatsoever, you won't have much luck because Latin is a highly inflected language. You can't really even infer the basic senses of the utterly ubiquitous (especially in some authors) ablative just by reading - for example, is this an ablative of comparison or respect? How do you know if you don't even know what an ablative is? It gets much worse when you realize that as with any language, real Latin is not just this "base" layer of core grammar/syntax items like ablative absolutes and ablatives of respect, but several more layers of idiomatic quasi-morphemes above that, things that have taken on grammatical load-bearing functions from centuries of use despite technically being idioms or turns of phrase, and which no textbook can really teach you. You just have to experience them in the wild, look them up/take them apart, have the "ohhh, that kind of makes sense" moment and slowly absorb a working repertoire of them. And you can only do that once you have the base layer of grammar down pat to a reasonable degree.

>>21563173
I say a reasonable degree because the whole point of contention in these threads is what a reasonable degree is. Can you start "reading real Latin" "without grammar" right away, using some kind of radical immersion method? No, not really. Do you need to memorize grammar and stick with your textbook and graded readers for two years before you're allowed to just pick up an early modern text and give it a shot? No, in fact, you should pick up an early modern text (or anything that interests you, the key word being YOU) on your first week or day of Latin, or right now before even beginning to study Latin just to see what it looks and feels like. Anything that gives you motivation is good. But you have to find the right balance, for you, between learning things schematically and applying them in the wild.

In my opinion the best way to do that would be to steamroll the first 5-15 chapters of any standard Latin book, just so that you know what the present, passive, and ablative are, you at least know where to look up conjugations and declensions and you have some general sense of what you should ultimately be able to recognize and reproduce without looking it up (even if you don't at this point), etc. There's a point of diminishing returns that sets in after this initial knowledge. It's roughly the point where you go from intuitively understanding things, which makes them easy to learn, to the thought "fuck, I have to memorize all THIS?" At that point, you should take a breather and realize that yes there is going to be plenty of hard work ahead, but also you can take a break from the hard work and go read whatever you want, any time you want. The point is, find your personal diminishing returns moment, and then figure out what your personal ideal dialectic of "fun actual reading, doesn't feel like work" vs. "I probably should do a chapter of the textbook per day/week."

I've known people on both extremes of the spectrum between reading and drilling, and each extreme has its pros and cons. People who read too much can be bullshitting themselves that they're really learning anything, and waste years fiddling around in texts but never getting serious, thus never learning anything. But conversely people who do nothing but drill grammar and ace exams and classes often forget everything a few years later when they're no longer being forced to study it for exams. This goes for any language, I know many Sanskritists and classicists who have forgotten nearly everything because they never did really read it for fun.

>>21563178
I also know people who learned Latin extremely well by just immersing themselves in texts they barely understood because they loved it. They failed miserably to understand anything for a very long time, but simply didn't mind. 5% of the time they would go drag their balls through broken glass by consulting the grammar or textbook. Somehow this worked for them. Likewise I knew autistic Hebraists who couldn't fathom reading a single line of Hebrew until they had turned their brain into a universal Hebrew translator via perfect knowledge of grammar and thousands of hours of flashcards. Both of these methods would make me want to kill myself although personally I tend more toward the autistic Hebraist side of things, since Indo-European grammar becomes so reflexive after a while that it becomes like knowing pure mathematics and seeing everything else (economics, physics, engineering) as mere applied mathematics.

tldr, You can absolutely do that, but consider finding your 80/20 point or point of diminishing returns or however you want to conceive it, by doing at least some of a Latin textbook first.

Also, what you are proposing is perfectly possible PROVIDED you already know Indo-European grammar, which most people first achieve THROUGH learning Latin. Thus for example there are many stories of nineteenth and early twentieth century scholars simply taking a Persian or Sanskrit text off the shelf at the library, whatever was available to them, and having some barebones grammar (not a text for learners but a philologist's grammar) and a dictionary, and then painstakingly translating until they made headway. But again, the reason they could do this is because they didn't have to spend a thousand years wrestling with the grammar to understand what an ablative was. They could just look for the ablative analogues in Sanskrit, using Latin grammar as a skeleton key. Theoretically if you already had decent knowledge of another highly inflected classical language, say, Sanskrit or Greek, or grammar in general for some reason, you could do the same with Latin and just start reading with a textbook and a general grammar.

>>21563173
I think Augustine is a good option for this strategy. The way he writes seems to me somewhat more like the medieval style than the Roman style. Maybe just because of what hes talking about idk, but it's kind of repetitive and straightforward.

>>21563173
>I strongly believe that Latin should be taught with medieval and early modern texts that actually interest the student
Any recs for extensive reading?

I want to read early modern texts, but I'm not familiar with the Latin literature of this period. I need a lot of simple prose.

Maybe Caesar Baronius?

>>21563181
>if you already had decent knowledge of another highly inflected classical language, say, Sanskrit or Greek
If my native language is Russian, can this help?

>>21563441
Yeah that will definitely help

>>21562260
can't relate

si or something

>>21553921
EUGEPAE MACTE, LUCI

Bump

Bump

>>21565680
>>21566022
fuck you

Bump.

>>21567625
say it in latin
no?
didn't think so

>>21568029
futue te ipsum

>>21553921
EUGEPAE MACTE, LUCI