/clg/ - Classical Languages General

[Anonymous No.20474886]

Legionarii edition
https://mega.nz/#F!9o4QEIIK!P3piz8Bfw-z7jgb7Q8NWDg
Previous thread >>20456417

[Anonymous No.20474946]

how much speaking latin will help me with greek?

[Anonymous No.20475021]

>>20474946
if you're anglo it will help a fair amount. otherwise, somewhat less.

[Anonymous No.20475230]

Threadly reminder that there is little to no difference between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin grammar.

[Anonymous No.20475248]

Don't learn Greek, you'll never reach fluency, so just kill yourself. Okay?

[Anonymous No.20475757]

>>20475248
i'm learning greek. shut the fuck up pussy

[Anonymous No.20475797]

>>20475230
that's not what that guy meant, he meant classical latin is generally harder and most extremely hard writers are classical

[Anonymous No.20475840]

>>20475797
He knows what that guy meant. Multiple people explained it to him.

He does this at the start of every thread. He picks a relatively uncontroversial statement and tries to make ak argument of it. In the case of this thread, he's so early that he has to pick something from 2 days to argue against. He loves fighting and derailing the thread. He's easy to pick out because he intentionally misconstrues positions he dislikes and he always types angrily. Just ignore him.

[Anonymous No.20475956]

>>20474946
It won't really help. If you're interest is in Greek, learn Greek. That's it. Latin will only be a waste of time. Latin is worth learning only for the sake of Latin literature, which may not be that important to you. In which case, don't learn Latin.

[Anonymous No.20475973]

>>20474886
can anyone give me magnet to this or tell me how i can down from mega that large file without getting a pro account or using vpn?

[Anonymous No.20476033]

Anyone learning sanskrit?
How is it going?

[Anonymous No.20476292]

Saw this when out for a walk last week. Thought you bros might enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.20476531]

>>20475797
>what the guy meant
Maybe he should have said that. What he said is this
>there are courses that are entirely focused on Church Latin and never have you read a single line of Cicero or Caesar and don't teach you the kind of complex grammar that you would encounter in Horace or Tacitus
which is patently false
>classical Latin is generally harder and most extremely hard writers are classical
this is true

[Anonymous No.20476565]

>>20476531
>there are courses that are entirely focused on Church Latin and never have you read a single line of Cicero or Caesar
That is true. Stop being a butthurt Catholic and move on with your life.
> don't teach you the kind of complex grammar that you would encounter in Horace or Tacitus
This is the only part of that statement that was even debatable. And it was already debated in the last thread. Get over it already. You spoke you peace - in like 20 posts. Stop derailing this thread before it even gets started.

[Anonymous No.20476572]

>>20476565
>This is the only part of that statement that was even debatable
yes, debatable as in completely false.
Why not just admit it is false and move on? Maybe not make sweeping judgments on topics you know nothing about in the future?
There is no debate. It is simply not true.

[Anonymous No.20476589]

>>20476572
>yes, debatable as in completely false.
You already said this 100 times. Move on. Nobody has to agree with you. You're right there is no debate because no one wants to debate you.

[Anonymous No.20476613]

Saving the thread again. Here's some frequently asked questions (shit I wanna know):

1. If you had to recommend 5 easy Latin authors not named Caesar or Jerome, and not including any post-1800 student texts, who would you recommend?

2. Which are the most affordable and good quality physical copies of classical texts?

3. What is a good Biblical Aramaic textbook/grammar?

4. Is the Cambridge Sanskrit book a good place to start?

5. Are there any good Classical Chinese textbooks in English, or should one learn Mandarin first and use Chinese textbooks?

6. Which is the best Persian language to learn? - Avestan, Old Persian, Middle Persian, Parthian, Bactrian, Classical/Islamic Early Modern Persian etc...

7. If you learned or are intending on learning Coptic Egyptian, which dialect are you interested in - Sahidic, or Bohairic and why? What are you hoping to read?

8. What's the best Classical/MSA textbook written in English?

9. How is Classical Ethiopic/Ge'ez?

10. What is there to read in Classical Tibetan besides the Book of the Dead?

[Anonymous No.20476628]

>>20476589
>Move on. Nobody has to agree with you
funny coming from the guy who is seething over a statement of fact in >>20475230
It is true and nothing you do or say will change that.
I will be posting it every thread from now on, just for you. Ave atque vale, amice!

[Anonymous No.20476633]

>>20476613
>2. Which are the most affordable and good quality physical copies of classical texts?
>>20467665

[Anonymous No.20476643]

>>>20475901
Okay, I think I'm having more problems with independent clauses, the left leg in picture related.

But to stay with subordinated clauses for the moment: that means that in Latin subjunctives, the aspect (i.e., whether the action is completed) doesn't play any role at all, in contrast to the indicative perfect and imperfect? Why are they even called subjunctive perfect and imperfect then? Maybe that's the part that confuses people.

[Anonymous No.20476700]

>>20476613
>6. Which is the best Persian language to learn? - Avestan, Old Persian, Middle Persian, Parthian, Bactrian, Classical/Islamic Early Modern Persian etc...
I feel modern Persian (without knowing any) is by far the best use of your time, unless you're super into Zoroastrianism or something. This general is about classical languages, so I'll just say that it's a remarkably conservative language. I heard you can read the Shahnameh without any problems. My suspicion is that classical works are even easier to read than modern ones, because of fewer Arab loans. It also seems quite easy (no grammatical genders, heavy reliance on auxiliary words for forming tenses).

[Anonymous No.20476758]

>>20474946
you'll go into it already knowing what a case is, the construction and parts that make up a verb, and in general the experience of learning a language

[Anonymous No.20476766]

>>20476613
>4. Is the Cambridge Sanskrit book a good place to start?
I heard the assimil book is a great place to start, but unfortunately it's only written in french. but I don't imagine it'd take too long to learn enough french to be able to understand the book. but then by that point you'd probably have made more progress in using another Sanskrit book.

[Anonymous No.20477149]

Hac nocte somniavi ut tandem aliquam scripturam in lingua Hebraea legerem.

Postea pulchra puella nigra apparuit in somnio, etsi antehac numquam somniaveram de feminis nigris. Infeliciter excitatus sum priusquam aliquid accidit.

[Anonymous No.20477350]

>>20477149
.

[Anonymous No.20477607]

>>20477149
Ego usus essem (at certus non sum):
>in lingua Hebraea legerem
legisse aut legere, sine "ut"
>Hac nocte somniavi tandem aliquam scripturam in lingua Hebraea legisse.

>priusquam aliquid accidit
Subiunctivum, velut accidisset
>Infeliciter excitatus sum priusquam aliquid accidisset.

[Anonymous No.20477665]

>>20477149
>de feminis nigris
Erat lepida?

[Anonymous No.20477827]

>>20477665
tragoedia vera sit si Anon de nigra foeda somniavit specialiter

[Anonymous No.20478104]

>>20477827
>tragoedia vera sit si Anon de nigra foeda somniavit specialiter
Censeo rectius esse (at, denuo, certus non sum; aliqui Anones corrigant):
>tragoedia vera fuerit si Anon de nigra foeda somniaverit specialiter
Excusate me autismum meum, sed hoc facere utile (pro me principaliter, sed fortasse pro aliquibus quoque) esse puto

[Anonymous No.20478271]

finished Athenaze pt2
thank u Balme, Lawall, thank u Miraglia, Borri
on to Morice's Stories

[Anonymous No.20478274]

>>20477665
>>20477827
Hahae. Nec in somnio quidem puella mea tam egregia erat, modo cottidiana, at cum amoenis cincinnis cuteque colore cafeae.

N- Nos omnes id faciemus, an non?

>>20477607
Gratias tibi ago.

> legisse aut legere, sine "ut"
Secundum "somnio" descriptionem in OLD, utrumque scribere licet, et infinitivus + accusativus, et "ut".

> Subiunctivum, velut accidisset
Legente https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/antequam-and-priusquam consentio de subiunctivo, sed minus de subiunctivo plusquamperfecto. Profecto recte sit secundum imaginem ad >>20476643
Tempus vero illae clausae est post clausam ubi excitatus sum. Nonne melius sit imperfectus, "accideret"?

[Anonymous No.20478294]

>>20478271
Congrats. What can you read?

[Anonymous No.20478343]

>>20478294
thanks, I could probably start grinding something real like Xenophon or maybe even the bible which I can already somewhat read or at least make my way around, but for now I'm going to get an extra boost to my lexicon before driving my teeth into real works, I'm not in a hurry

[Anonymous No.20478354]

>>20478343
You should get into real readings ASAP. What you posted looks nothing like actual Greek.
What is the deal with all the hyphens?

[Anonymous No.20478358]

>>20478343
>▶
Have you tried the Reading Greek books? They also have beginner readers.

>https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Greek-Association-Classical-Teachers/dp/0521698510/
>https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Anthology-Reading/dp/0521000262/
>https://www.amazon.com/World-Heroes-Selections-Herodotus-Sophocles/dp/0521736463/
>https://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Revolution-Selections-Euripides-Thucydides/dp/0521736471/
>https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Greek-Reader-Reading/dp/0521654475/

[Anonymous No.20478370]

>>20475230
>>20475797
>>20476531
>>20476572
>>20476589
>>20476628
There is no grammatical difference between Classical Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin but there is a syntax differerence

[Anonymous No.20478387]

>>20478274
Vere, ne anglicas partes quidem intellego kek
>Note 1— The pluperfect subjunctive is rare, except in indirect discourse by sequence of tenses for the future perfect indicative
>Antequam hominēs nefāriī dē meō adventū audīre potuissent, in Macedoniam perrēxī.
Fortasse imperfectum melius sit.

[Anonymous No.20478415]

From now all all bullshit Latin arguments about grammar vs 'inpoot', Orberg vs Wheelock, Ecclesiastical vs Classical, etc should all be in Latin. If you can't write it in Latin then fuck off.

At least the rest of us don't have to read this retarded crap in English.

[Anonymous No.20478427]

>>20474946
I m a classics major and I would suggest you learn Latin. Greek sources that have not been translated into greek are very rare and some like Montaigne prefered latin translation to greek originals. Latin opens up a lot of the world compared to greek

[Anonymous No.20478429]

imagine wanting to read anon's crippled latin

[Anonymous No.20478449]

>>20478429
I do wonder how anglos feel everyday having to read our broken ESL English.

[Anonymous No.20478459]

>>20478449
>broken ESL English
For years broken English has been the scientific language.

[Anonymous No.20478464]

>>20478429
Linguam Anglicam discebam per nuntios mancos, linguam Latinam discam per nuntios mancos.

[Anonymous No.20478513]

>>20478354
eh maybe you are right but it's not that long of a read, it's mostly to get more vocabulary down
hyphens are to help beginners to find entries in the dictionary I guess, I don't have trouble with it
>>20478358
thanks for the recs

[Anonymous No.20478525]

>>20478415
Utinam id scribatur in OP.

[Anonymous No.20478526]

>>20478464
>Linguam Anglicam discebam per nuntios mancos, linguam Latinam discam per nuntios mancos.
Certe, ista lepida sententia est.

[Anonymous No.20478587]

>>20478358
>posting amazon links like a sucker

[Anonymous No.20478721]

Quomodo nigros fulgentes, vel trium litterarum ministros, incurris cum ires per tenebras carro tuo?

[Anonymous No.20478761]

>>20478721
Praetereo supra

[Anonymous No.20478882]

>>20478525
Sed scribendum est latine...
Meum humile conatum
>Posthac omnis contentio de grammatica aut immissione, Orberg aut Wheelock, Ecclesiastico aut Classico, et cetera, scribenda est latine. Si latine scribere non potes, tace.

[Anonymous No.20478895]

Cras spectabor a magistram meam in universitatas et nihil discebam.
Victimam mei actionis pauperarum sum.

[Anonymous No.20478917]

>>20478882
>omnis contentio
omnis futilis contentio latinae linguae de...

[Anonymous No.20478974]

>>20478895
Conare futuere eam ad qualificationem miliorandam, at censeo esse eam qui futuet te (figurate)

[Anonymous No.20479044]

>>20478895
Conare futuere eam ad qualificationem miliorandam, at censeo esse eam quae futuet te (figurate)

[Anonymous No.20479056]

>>20478974
>Conare futuere eam
Hoc dices impossibile est.
Ea antiqua est. Cum magistri alteri discipulos esset, illa linguam latinam docebat.

[Anonymous No.20479079]

>>20478895
Ignosce mihi.
> Cras spectabor a magistram meam in universitatas et nihil discebam.
Cras spectabor a magistra mea in universitate et nihil discebam.
> Victimam mei actionis pauperarum sum.
Victima mearum actionum pauperum sum.

>>20478882
> Sed scribendum est latine
Censeo plerosque ex illis qui de his rebus disputant non satis Latine scire, ut istam sententiam intellegant, etsi ridicule est.

Melius sit eam et Latine et Anglice scribere.

[Anonymous No.20479095]

>>20479079
>Ignosce mihi.
Ignosco

[Anonymous No.20479100]

>>20479095
Imperativus est.

[Anonymous No.20479113]

>>20479056
Melius, magis perita.

[Anonymous No.20479277]

Mel, hora quarta est, tempus tibi carmina Priapeia recitandum.

[Anonymous No.20479368]

>>20474886
Supposing someone dedicates an hour a day to study Latin with a well structured study plan, and is also slightly above average in intelligence: how long would it realistically take learn the language and be able to read, say, Virgil?

[Anonymous No.20479374]

>>20475973
Just download the shit you find useful, you don’t need all of it.

[Anonymous No.20479377]

Vicimus. R*dd*t mortuum, d*sc*rd mortuum, omne aliud latinum forum, quoque motruum est. Hic, solus locus est ubi latinas nugas inveniri possunt.
/lat/ tabula quando?

[Anonymous No.20479402]

>>20479377
>latinas nugas
latinae nugae

[Anonymous No.20479479]

>>20479368
>a well structured study plan,
death sentence

[Anonymous No.20479480]

>>20479368
Does it have to be Virgil, or did you just mention him as an example of a Roman author you're interested in? Because poetry is brutal, but you'll be able to read prose like Caesar much sooner.

For the latter, I would say 1-2 years, depending on how enjoyable you want the experience to be. But you didn't mention what languages you speak, those certainly make a big difference as well.

>>20479377
Tertia pars nuntiorum Latinorum in hoc filo est scripta a me. Utinam iocer.

[Anonymous No.20479643]

>>20479480
Et aliud tertium a me (et reliqua a bots).
Duorum hominum exercitus. Non homo.

[Anonymous No.20479679]

>>20478104
puto fortasse rectus es, subjunctivus novus mihi est

[Anonymous No.20479689]

>>20479480
I'm interested more in Latin poetry (Virgil in particular) more than prose, but that's the end goal. I am fluent in English and Spanish, and can read French comfortably.

Do you have any recommendations for intensive Latin courses or what the best book is to learn Latin?

[Anonymous No.20479708]

>>20479689
>what the best book is to learn Latin?

[Anonymous No.20479728]

>>20479368
2 years on your own. 1 if you have some help from a tutor to correct mistakes/guide you along in your studies.

[Anonymous No.20479795]

>>20479689
>what the best book is to learn Latin?
Marcus Valerius Martialis's 12 or 14 books of filthy Epigrams was ea for centuries, well into beyond the 1600 and 1700s as adult fiction and intermediate grammar and concepts.

Most modern translations borrow from priest-types who censor a lot of the funnier things, but it's even more fun to reconstruct and decipher what's being said about who's sticking whose cock into which catamites mouth etc.

You'll come to know the many foibles of Zoilus the Freedman and every freedman by this manner and none else.

Indeed, whilst Iuvenalis is more martial-like, paradoxically Martial is more juvenile. I always thought this was odd.

um good luck anyway, reading and retranslating Martialis has been a side-hobby of mine for years.

[Anonymous No.20479813]

>>20479689
> I am fluent in English and Spanish, and can read French comfortably.
That's good, you'll have a big head start when it comes to vocabulary.

> Do you have any recommendations for intensive Latin courses or what the best book is to learn Latin?
This is one of those questions that usually sends the thread into shitflinging overdrive, as nicely put by >>20479708

But since you asked, I say that for me personally LLPSI and its supplements work well. Picture related is a suggested reading order. Don't be afraid to cram more readers (easy texts written for learners) in, or even grammar books, especially for some subtler points during later chapters of Familia Romana, where you'll also get your first taste of authentic poetry.

Again, everybody's different, but for me personally, I agree with >>20479479
The only commitment I'm following through is doing some Latin every day. When I don't feel like it, I just read a single page. When I'm in the mood, I spend hours.

[Anonymous No.20479817]

>>20475230
>Threadly reminder that there is little to no difference between Classical and Ecclesiastical Latin grammar.
reminder that this is nonsense, on pronunciations alone

pluuuuus with ecclesiastic latin you suffer from half the words being scrubbed to mean nonsense concepts, which they did not mean in the first place or would not anyway have been read by a proper republican roman.

that's just 101 common sense.

in this case the source is probably ancient etruscan prior to anything else; with the conceptual basis for latin beginning there, as did their actual pre-greek and pre-christian culture.

[Anonymous No.20479824]

>>20479689
Latin an Intensive Course by Moreland & Fleischer

[Anonymous No.20479837]

>>20479817
Don't interact with him. He is in the thread everyday arguing for the worst positions just because he likes arguing with multiple people at once. He enjoys the attention. He will pick the most anti-common sense position that he can, just so that people will reply to him.

[Anonymous No.20479861]

>>20479837
i assumed nobody believes this anyway but i couldn't resist kicking the catholic church in its eunuch jelly on the issue he mentioned.

mea culpa, i guess..

[Anonymous No.20479938]

>>20479837
>>20479861
I'm only aware of the use of quia/quod to introduce some subordinate clauses instead of the infinitive construction. What are some other grammatical differences?
Feel free to answer in latin if you want, I will manage to read it.

[Anonymous No.20479984]

What's the best non cucked/globohomo textbook to learn Latin i.e no LLPSI?

[Anonymous No.20479986]

>>20479938
Well off the top of my head, w/re: ecclesiastic differences, I'm pretty sure they messed up the vocative aspects;

saying e.g. "we have sent a papal legate" would read as "we have sent you, you being the papal legate, to you yourself"

point is that proper latin was much more complicated in these sort of ways, maybe not unlike traditional chinese and simplified chinese.

>Feel free to answer in latin if you want, I will manage to read it.
i won't even pretend to be able to write fluent latin lol grasping the concepts as the romans saw things in the world is far more important otherwise you can read something about .e.g a chair and not realize that the context of the conversation is about a boat, for instance.

I would like to get a better fluency one day but what would even be the point in any practical sense?

[Anonymous No.20480061]

>>20479368
If you don't mind grinding more than an hour for the first 2-6 weeks (depending on tolerance) you could be working on Virgil (not sight reading but working) within a couple months

The first few weeks are really just to grind the bare minimum so that the hour a day is reasonable practice. Or you could do 2-4 intense sessions a week on top of the 1hr/day. Just something to knock out that initial paradigm drilling + getting basically used to the language + acquiring enough vocab to be able to stand on your own two legs phase.

My Latin 101 class was 6-8 weeks or something, can't remember but I think it was 3 sessions a week, and I did it alongside Greek and some modern language without too much trouble too. Actually the modern language was the worst one because the teaching method was so stupid and the material was so boring.

There's nothing magical about it. It's roughly comparable to learning calculus 1 when you already have decent precalc math down. The answer is, you could take a first year or first semester class, or you could probably grind an entire calculus book within a month if you care enough, and I'm sure there are crazy people who could do it in a week too.

[Anonymous No.20480070]

>>20479986
>Well off the top of my head, w/re: ecclesiastic differences, I'm pretty sure they messed up the vocative aspects;
>
>saying e.g. "we have sent a papal legate" would read as "we have sent you, you being the papal legate, to you yourself"
I couldn't understand your explanation, sorry. What are "vocative aspects"? Do you mean the vocative case? Could you post some example?

[Anonymous No.20480114]

talk in latin or don't talk at all, latin "learners" faggots faggots gay gay gay gay gay fags (homosexuals)

[Anonymous No.20480142]

>>20480114
Fundatus

[Anonymous No.20480164]

>>20479986
>Hic, niger est; hunc tu, romane, caveto.

[Anonymous No.20480172]

>>20480070
>vocative
examples,

sure, John is called the Legate, because he is the Legatus of a Roman Legion, he is called Legate by each Legionarius who refer to him as the Legatus when they are speaking amongst themselves as Legionarii.

things like that, you get the idea.

>>20480114
I don't need to speak French to know that you're talking from your arse when you tell me that the most populous city in France is called Kalcutta, cacator.

[Anonymous No.20480186]

>>20480164
>>Hic, niger est; hunc tu, romane, caveto.
wheres i would say,
AYK NAYKEER EEEEESSHT ONK TOH, RU'MAH'NEEY, GABBY'TOH.
and you would tell me i was speaking gibberish to pronounce it properly like that, and then we go back and forth.

not worf it.

[Anonymous No.20480197]

I have an exam tomorrow on verb morphology, hopefully I don't forget my participles

[Anonymous No.20480199]

>20480172
Is this thing a bot? Also, why the r*dd*t spacing? It's annoying and retarded.
Are we being spammed with bots for some reason?

[Anonymous No.20480211]

>>20480199
lol you cant even reply properly, that's how powerful any person (that is, in this case, myself) becomes when they speak latin in the manner most pleasing to father mars.

[Anonymous No.20480241]

πόας ἅψασθε, ἀκοντάγαμοι

[Anonymous No.20480376]

>>20479679
eox?

[Anonymous No.20480710]

>>20479817
>pronunciation
>vocabulary
>grammar

[Anonymous No.20480713]

Legitne aliquis Vicipaediam ad incrementandam immissionem (vel "inpoot") facilem?

[Anonymous No.20480848]

>>20480114
Wait...I thought we were all learning classical languages to read flowerboy poetry and 2400 pg. dissertations on the philosophy of homosex and good wine.

[Anonymous No.20480880]

>>20479984
Read one of those free Latin grammar books written back in the 18th or 19th century available on Google Books. Many of them were written for young boys who weren't even particularly bright, so you'll almost certainly understand some of them even if you're near-retarded.

[Anonymous No.20480999]

>>20480713
libenter Vicipaediam lego, sed saepe difficile est verba decretu sine macronibus

[Anonymous No.20481210]

>>20479817
>ancient etruscan prior to anything else; with the conceptual basis for latin beginning there
Latin's 'conceptual basis' comes from long before the Etruscans. Proto-Latins settled in Italy and mixed with Osco-Umbrians and Etruscans. The basics of Latin were already developed stemming from Proto-Indo-European long long before.
Etruscan language had only a mild effect on Latin. They were more influential in terms of culture, particularly in introducing Greek culture and thought to the Latins.
There is a great book on the history of Latin called "The Latin Language' by Palmer that goes over this in some detail.

[Anonymous No.20481282]

I love reading medieval bestiaries
I know i'm into some good stuff when it starts with "physiologus dicit"
Post other fun reading materials

[Anonymous No.20481345]

>>20481282
Are those realistic or fantastic? Could you recommend some titles or link some books? I remember reading about this on a schizo thread on /pol/, someone talked about it as it was some sort of fictional genre.

[Anonymous No.20481375]

>>20481345
>Are those realistic or fantastic?
Fantastic
Most medieval bestiaries were based on physiologus who was a christian moral teacher. He came up with lots of nonsense about animals and the natural world which, they are meant to be treated as parables more than descriptions of the real world.
Some of the later writers tried to be more scientific about their writings so they dropped the moral part and simply were wrong about the natural world.
I dont mind dsciphering old handwriting so i usually go for digitalised stuff in the British library.
https://legacy.bestiary.ca/manuscripts/manubeast1010.htm

[Anonymous No.20481387]

>>20481375
Shite
Wrong link
https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/TourBestiaryEnglish.asp

[Anonymous No.20481389]

>>20481375
Thanks fren

[Anonymous No.20481401]

how do you add macron or apex to "v"?

[Anonymous No.20481431]

Another bestiary, good digital edition with transcription, translation and commentary.
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/

[Anonymous No.20481542]

anchor post for akkadian/sumerian/hittite, if you want materials or help, come to the /lang/ general on /int/ and ask for the cuneiform pole

[Anonymous No.20481654]

>>20479938
>Feel free to answer in latin if you want, I will manage to read it.
Very easy to ask a question in English and demand an answer in Latin.

[Anonymous No.20481668]

>>20480186
>/lit/ in charge of Latin

[Anonymous No.20481684]

>>20481654
He's the one who knows Latin (or at least he says so.)

[Anonymous No.20481697]

Corrumpunt sex morbi ius cum homo et sus corrumpantur.

[Anonymous No.20481708]

Amici! Ego anon quis hodie spectatus sum.
Cogito bone pensum meum scripsissi.
etiam non debebam magistram futuisse.

[Anonymous No.20481778]

Has anyone used Cambridge's Latin Course instead of LLPSI? How does it compare?
They look extremely similar in format: https://www.clc.cambridgescp.com/Array/sample-pages

[Anonymous No.20481786]

>>20481778
Apparently it's more sheltered from what I heard and geared towards younger students. People have also said that it's like half Wheelock & Orberg.

[Anonymous No.20481791]

>>20481778
>Sections detailing cultural background
>Britain in the first century AD
They really have to make everything about themselves, huh?

[Anonymous No.20481797]

>>20481791
>Britain in the first century AD
>about themselves
The people who write these books are Anglos not Britons. Real Roman-Celts are mostly dead or in Wales shooting heroin.

[Anonymous No.20481802]

>>20481791
Well if it's for their students, they should.

[Anonymous No.20481806]

>>20481778
>How does it compare?
Probably more pozzed. Do they state their pronouns?

[Anonymous No.20481812]

Any suggestion for learning Persian?

[Anonymous No.20481815]

>>20481778
>Course divided into 5 books
>Assume the first 2 would roughly correspond to Wheelock, as it is meant for a 2 semester beginner course
>"Hmm, let's see what hardcore grammar the Cambridge masterrace does in book 5"
>"Indirect statement"
>"Present subjunctive"
Wtf Cambridge. I assume the books are like £300 each as well? What a scam.

[Anonymous No.20481841]

>>20481812
Which Persian language? Old Persian? Middle Persian? Avestan? Something else?

[Anonymous No.20481849]

>>20481806
>Cambridge Latin textbook rewritten because (((Roman))) banker had a slave
Oy vey

[Anonymous No.20481941]

>>20481708
>etiam non debebam magistram futuisse.
Estne bonum malumve?

[Anonymous No.20481957]

>>20476292
Ugh… so many mistakes.

[Anonymous No.20482389]

>>20481210
yeah this is a good point, I say 'etruscan' because that's how the romans considered the etruscan language and culture, and it's easier than saying 'etrsucan, ligurian, umbrian' - it's late-to-middle neolithic etruria to iron age, maybe that's a better way to say it.

[Anonymous No.20482394]

>>20481806
Interdum miror hanc tabulam. Certe censeo causam rescribendi stulte esse: Romani servi habuerunt, ut aliae gentes illo tempore, atque negare hoc nemini prodest.
Num tamen putatis honeste librum peior Latine docere ob sententiam "filius est in triclinio" pro "servus est in cubiculo"? Quid vobis si "pozzatus" sit?

>>20479984
Haec calamitas cerebri etiam peior est: quid, mehercle, fecit LLPSI ut "cucatus" esset? Estne quia redditores illum commendant? Masturba igitur ob fUNdAtaM puritatem tuam, dum lingua faciliter discitur ab illis quorum vitae non a foro sculpturarum Graecarum definiuntur.

[Anonymous No.20482454]

>>20481941
Bonum

[Anonymous No.20482523]

>>20482394
Certe, non intellego quod LLPSI tam merda esse videtur. Profecto Ranieris facies est ut stupratorum, sed culpa non habet Orberg.
Non frequentabam /clg/ usque hoc anno. Num erat olim LLPSI sic damnato?

[Anonymous No.20482587]

>>20481210
>Etruscan language had only a mild effect on Latin. They were more influential in terms of culture,


>Latin's 'conceptual basis' comes from long before the Etruscans. Proto-Latins settled in Italy and mixed with Osco-Umbrians and Etruscans.
Well given how the Romans themselves considered the Etruscan gods and people as their ancestors, and given as they 'were' their ancestors, it's more accurate to say that the Etruscans-Ligurian-Umbrians were proto-romans.

There's no great disconnection made anywhere else on this subject; Kanada and Marathi aren't considered mutually 'totally alien' to broader Hindustani Indus civ, or Han aren't considered mutually alien to Chinese civ, etc.

It's strange to me how this casual notion persists that the two were somehow not the same people... and, in turn, that first the Romans are aid to steal everything from Greeks,which they did not, and then you say that the Etruscans did that as well ..

But you know that archaeological evidence for the Etruscan society is much older than it is for Mycenae, and the Etruscans do seem to have had the names for Apollo (Aplu), Hercules, Proserpine and Minerva (Mrnva) before 'Greece' really existed.

Not to mention the Roman Lares (ghosts, angels, ancestor spirits) seeming to stem directly from the Mars-Haides god Laran; Republic and early Imperial Era Legionaries sacrificing to Larans consort Neriene, as Bellona/Prosperine, etc., which I only even learned about a couple of weeks ago.

>There is a great book on the history of Latin called "The Latin Language' by Palmer that goes over this in some detail.
I've read parts of that

it's more interesting to me now to wonder how so many 1800's scholars who tried connecting etruscan to hebrew, georgian and persian missed the really obvious observation that the Etruscan resembles far more the later scandinavian runic-script than any of these other languages, which is more likely as mutual origin anyway given the etruscan wealth came from the amber road from the late neolithic baltic so they were in close contact along that entire trade line for some 2,000-4,000 (6,000?) years which would provide the most reasonable origin point for the etruscan-style script.

Latin as a script, then, could've come from a conclave isolationist society who formulated the latin alphabet themselves; as it ougt be pointed out that litral translations from etruscan script don't greatly differ phonetically from latin - the script itself is the difference, not the words or concepts being expressed.

[Anonymous No.20482658]

>>20482523
Puto multos in hoc filo LLPSI placere, nec video damnationem nisi illam cui responsi.

Non disputem si aliquis dicat librum sibi non delectare ob causas iustas, sed causa dicta erat valde stulta.

Exempli gratia, haec causa iusta est (de Cambridge) >>20481815

[Anonymous No.20482690]

>>20482394
The problem is not if those books are "pozzed" or "based", no one here takes shitpost seriously. The problem is that this is fucking ridiculous... it's like the world has lost his mind and nobody seems to care or to notice. I will use the best material available to me but I can't avoid to stare at these stuff with incredulity and wonder where common sense has gone.
I wonder how long until people demand to censor the classics and modify them in order to not hurt sensibilities. Maybe in a few years owning an uncensored copy of some Roman author will be illegal.

[Anonymous No.20482747]

wtf is "pozzed" about LLPSI
I never read it in full but I don't remember anything really particularly modernistic about it
Athenaze on the other hand is pretty based if you ask me, great story I enjoyed it thoroughly

[Anonymous No.20482753]

>>20481806
> videre "more pozzed"
> dubitare
> amplificare imaginem
> legere "learning aids"

[Anonymous No.20482843]

>>20482747
llpsi is even more based than Athenaze.

[Anonymous No.20482857]

>>20482747
> wtf is "pozzed" about LLPSI
Nihil nisi /pol/peregrinus es, alioqui omnia res gratiosa etiam pozzata globohomoque esse videtur.

[Anonymous No.20482893]

>>20481778
i've been looking at them. out of 200 pages per volume you would get maybe 25 pages of actual latin text to read if you condensed it, the rest of it is a bunch of multi-page essays in english about daily life in roman times, photo spreads of ruins plus these shitty little "comic books" where you get a sentence of latin under each illustration, and the illustrations are incidentally ugly as shit. it all seems extremely watered down.

the first 4 volumes are on libgen last i checked.

[Anonymous No.20482942]

>>20482893
I said earlier it's designed for kids.

[Anonymous No.20483305]

>>20482690
>I wonder how long until people demand to censor the classics and modify them in order to not hurt sensibilities
I don't which country was it but I read some woman was releasing a new translation of Dante's Divine Comedy and she removed the part that mentions Muhammed in Inferno.

[Anonymous No.20483519]

>>20483305
Recent translations of the Nag Hammadi texts replace "son of man" with "child of humanity" instead lmfao. Better learn Coptic bros.

[Anonymous No.20483637]

>>20482690
> it's like the world has lost his mind and nobody seems to care or to notice.
> wonder where common sense has gone.
Bowdlerisatio non est res nova, specialiter in libris ad usum discipulorum. Vide quomodo quaedam carmina Catulli interpretata erant.

> Maybe in a few years owning an uncensored copy of some Roman author will be illegal.
Sanctam hyperbolen! Monstra nobis unum tantum hominem notum (id est, nec Pipiatorem duorum secutorum, nec sacerdotem Catholicum obscurum), qui poscit aliqua opera Latina interdici.

[Anonymous No.20483797]

>>20483637
Certe hyperbole est, sed sunt multa quae hyperbolae erant at nunc sunt acceptae.
Nemo linguam latinam interdicere vult quod nemo linguam latinam legit. Sed iam factum est aliquibus operibus anglicis. Et istae non erant editiones ad tironum, sed ad adultorum.

[Anonymous No.20483818]

>>20483797
>Et istae non erant editiones ad tironum, sed ad adultorum.
Emendo
*ad usum tironum, sed adultorum*

[Anonymous No.20483948]

>>20483797
>Sed iam factum est aliquibus operibus anglicis
Adicio
Emendationes et expurgationes factae sunt, non interdictiones (adhuc). Quod scripsi ambiguum erat.

[Anonymous No.20483984]

>>20481778
I used Cambridge for my class way back in the day. I vastly prefer its texts and stories to LLPSI's painfully dull ones. Grumio will get you through the first book and the intrigue story in Britain is interesting enough to carry you along to the chunkiest (fourth) volume. About halfway through the fourth volume it then transitions to mostly real Latin.

I think its texts are close to the ideal IF you like to spend a good while reading constructed, graded texts before jumping into real Latin, which is always initially demoralizing.

The other anon is right that they opted for an approach that tries to keep readers interested in Roman culture as an aid to the stories. I admit I mostly skimmed this stuff since the whole reason I was learning Latin in the first place was because I already loved Roman history, but the stuff on Pompeii and archaeology was neat at least. And my mom and my ex used to love just reading all the non-Latin bits, so it appeals to some.

My biggest complaint with the Cambridge stuff is that it's a little too sparse on explicit grammar explanations for my liking. I'm autistic and I want explicit explanations upfront, with examples, for any new grammatical concepts. Not exhaustive explanations, just basic stuff that breaks down unfamiliar concepts and initially weird things, like datives of possession. I always felt like Cambridge was slightly scared to just info dump when necessary. But there are decent grammar explanations in there.

With a class, it's ideal, because anything confusing you can just ask or the teacher will intro it anyway. If you're like me, I recommend skipping the initial text whenever you start a new chapter, reading the grammar notes for the chapter, then going back to the chapter. I don't find the inductive approach particularly useful. Sometimes it's intuitive, but even then I don't see any harm in the chapter just saying "welcome to the pluperfect, now here it is."

[Anonymous No.20483990]

>>20483984
>If you're like me, I recommend skipping the initial text whenever you start a new chapter, reading the grammar notes for the chapter, then going back to the chapter.
I meant to say, go back to the text. Not skip the whole chapter, just read the grammar part first. Unless they've changed it, it used to be in yellow or beige boxes.

[Anonymous No.20484807]

Have a bump to survive the night, /clg/.

[Anonymous No.20484821]

cuniam noctem, per totam noctem

[Anonymous No.20485877]

>>20484807
>>20484821
fundatus

[Anonymous No.20485882]

Any recommended anki deck for LLPSI?

[Anonymous No.20485897]

>>20485882
Make it yourself, fag

[Anonymous No.20486217]

[Anonymous No.20486228]

>>20486217
reddit-tier

[Anonymous No.20486394]

Quid bibis?

[Anonymous No.20486524]

>>20486394
Cervisiam solite bibo

[Anonymous No.20486555]

>>20486394
Quomodo dicis coffee latine? Coffeum bibo

[Anonymous No.20486573]

Redditores redditum redite

[Anonymous No.20486622]

>>20486555
caffaeam? tamen non certus sum.

[Anonymous No.20486639]

heu, aegrotus sum. febrem habeo. mihi caput dolet est. etiam linguam latinam discere difficile est nam me.

[Anonymous No.20486667]

Estne caffea bona pro tecum?

[Anonymous No.20486678]

>>20486667
Ubi est pictura feminae nudae?

[Anonymous No.20486685]

Quisquis amat valeat!
Pereat quī nescit amāre!
Bis tantō pereat quisquis amāre vetat!

[Anonymous No.20486691]

>>20486678
Nullibi
Servus purgans feminam nudam in tabulis caeruleis non amat.

[Anonymous No.20486697]

>>20486691
Nōn servus, sed ianitor, amicē.

[Anonymous No.20486698]

>>20486667
melius traducatur "benefacit-ne caffea"

[Anonymous No.20486711]

Mentula mea mortua est. Arrigere non possum et semper defessus sum. Caput mihi dolet quoque. Puto testosteronem meum cecidisse.

[Anonymous No.20486715]

>>20486711
Microplastica

[Anonymous No.20486720]

>>20486711
turpe coomer es

[Anonymous No.20486730]

>>20486711
te sentio frater

[Anonymous No.20486731]

>>20478370
There are grammatical differences, but usually very small such as not using ut clauses and rather using quod. Nevertheless they have a much different tone when reading. Classical Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin approach the same sentiment with different sentences, but this is also very much just a product of the style of the time.

[Anonymous No.20486734]

>>20486711
dum anima est, spes est
noli concedere, amice

[Anonymous No.20486755]

>>20486555
https://la.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffeum
Invideo omnibus vobis Linguam Latinam discentibus potestate legendi Wikipediam in eàdem linguà. non possumus id facere nos, qui linguae Graecae studeamus.

[Anonymous No.20486891]

>>20486711
heu heu heu
pigerrimus anonus, necesse est tibi >>20486667
coffeum biberes et mentula agitare desineres

[Anonymous No.20487097]

>>20486697
Ianitor servum est. Is pecuniam non datur pro labore suo

[Anonymous No.20487169]

reminder all latin originally written on the internet is guaranteed dogshit, don't even attempt to read it. to be doubly safe don't bother with any "latin" written after 2000.

[Anonymous No.20487175]

you know /clg/ is cis lesbian general on /lgbt/ right?

[Anonymous No.20487254]

>>20487097
Ianitores quoque Hermaphroditi sunt.

>>20487169
Noli dicere quod mihi faciendum, nec verus pater meus es.

[Anonymous No.20487307]

>>20487097
recte dicis

[Anonymous No.20487319]

>>20487254
>nec verus pater meus es
hoc certone scis?

[Anonymous No.20487337]

>>20487319
Non posset certus esse quod ne mater sua quidem scit qui pater suus sit

[Anonymous No.20487338]

>>20487175
No. Why do you know that?

[Anonymous No.20487352]

>>20487319
Non potest certus esse quod ne mater sua quidem scit quis patrem suum esse

[Anonymous No.20487402]

>>20487097
>>20487352
esse doesn't take the accusative. think of it as an equals sign linking the subject to its complement.

>ianitor servus est
>mater sua nescit quis pater eius (not suus) sit

it's good you're starting to internalize case government though, even if in this case you've hypercorrected.

[Anonymous No.20487405]

>>20487352
Multi talis casus. Tristis

[Anonymous No.20487408]

>>20487319
>>20487352
Immo mater dicit se praegnas facta esse cum sola natavisset in fluvio, itaque deus fluminis pater meus est!

[Anonymous No.20487455]

>>20487402
>eius (not suus)
disregard this I'm retarded.

[Anonymous No.20487462]

>>20487352

Non certus esse potest num mater sciat quis sit pater suus.

[Anonymous No.20487473]

>>20487455
What, no. It should be "eius", unless we're talking about the mother's father.

I think it should be also "mater eius" instead of "mater sua", as this is all part of the subclause with "mater" as the subject.

[Anonymous No.20487479]

>>20487473
>Lucius nescit ubi sit liber suus = "Lucius doesn't know where his book is": suus doesn't refer to the subject of the clause it is in (the indirect question ubi sit liber suus, where the subject is liber suus) but it refers back to the subject of the verb (nescit) upon which the indirect question depends; it refers back to the person in whose mind that question is, and that person is ignorant of something concerning his own book, not someone else's. If we had had the genitive of a demonstrative pronoun instead of suus, it would have meant that Lucius was wondering about some other person's book.

[Anonymous No.20487481]

>>20487169

Quidnam dixisti modo mihi, cinaedule? Ego te certiorem faciam me exiisse e Phocis Classiariis optimum meae ordinis et in frequentibus incursionibus occultis contra Al-Qaeda expertum esse, et plusquam trecentas caedes probatas habere. In bello guerilla educatus sum et ego sum optimus ictor in totis UC viribus armatis. Tu es nil mihi praeterquam aliud destinatum. Ego te, scelus, conteram adamussim ut numquam usquam visum est in orbe terrarum, annota mea, catamite, verba. Arbitrarisne te posse illas contumelias dicere impune per interrete? Iterum arbitrare, nequam. Etiam cum colloquimur advoco meum secretum rete curiosorum per totas UCA et tuum IP excipitur, iamiamque ita potius est te parari procellae, vermis. Procella quae omnino perdit illud miserandulum quod tu tuam vitam nominas. Per deos immortales tu es mortuus, puercule. Ubivis, quandoque esse ego possum et novi te trucidare pluribus quam septingentis modis - et illis meis manibus solum. Non solum sum educatus plurifariam in proeliis inarmatis sed usu ego fruor toti armentarii Unitarum Civitatum Marini Corporis et eo utar effuse ut detergam tuum miserum os de facie telluris, caenulum. Si novisses quam defamatam ultionem "callidum" tuum dictum inlaturum esse fortasse retinuisses tuam linguam. Sed non poteras, non fecisti, et nunc poenas solvis, fatue miselle. Ego furiam cacabo super te totum et tu in illa merges. Per deos immortales tu es mortuus, puercule.

[Anonymous No.20487488]

>>20487473

No it should be suus referring to the subject of "potest certus esse", the whole thing is a subordinate clause.

[Anonymous No.20487502]

>>20487479
Huh, okay. So is it safe to say that suus (or however it's declined at that point) always refers to the subject of the main clause (as opposed to the subclause, as I had assumed)? Or is it more complicated?

[Anonymous No.20487503]

>>20487408
Cognosci vir cuius mater fuit impregnata per tauro ambulans. Id factum est iterum atque iterum, in eodem silva... Fortasse erat Iuppiter occultus, fortasse taurus normalis...
Amicus meus est bonus vir, potens sed stultus. Sed id quid dixit non sequitur... Res ipsa loquitur, mater eius amabat mentula taurina.

[Anonymous No.20487508]

>>20487481
Kek, I was just starting to go to the trouble to translate this. Saved me the trouble. Vale.

[Anonymous No.20487512]

Avete agagae!

Nomen mihi Iohanni est et ego odi unum quemque vestrum. Omnes crassi, fatui ignavi inertes estis qui quamque secundam diei perditis in imagines stultissimas spectando. Vos estis mundi malum. Vero, num quis vestrum umquam cunnulum cepisti? Licet lepidum sit alteros ridere propter tuas proprias infirmitates interiores, sed vos novum locum occupastis. Hoc est etiam peius quam te fricare Vultuslibri picturis.

Ne sis timidus, modo me feri optimo tuo colapho. Ego fere perfectus sum. Capitaneus pespilae meae manus eram, et primus in sportapilae manu. Quos ludos ludistis vos, praeter "fricare te nudis pictis Iapanicis"? Etiam recta A in studiis mereo, et habeo calide pulchram amicam (modo me fellavit, merda erat TAM quaestui). Vos omnes estis cinaedi plane suicidendi. Gratias audientibus.

[Anonymous No.20487530]

>>20487502

Nah it can refer to the subject of the subordinate clause, too.

"Caesar noluit eum locum vacare, ne Germani e suis finibus transirent." (B.G. 1.28)

"Si qua significatio virtutis eluceat ad quam se similis animus adplicet et adiungat..." (Laelius 48)

[Anonymous No.20487575]

>>20474886
Stupid frogposter

[Anonymous No.20487596]

>>20487530
Let me try again:

"suus" and it's declensions are used to refer to something that occurred in the sentence, whether it occurred in a subordinate or in the main clause. (But is it always a subject? I'm not yet sure about that.)

"eius" is used to refer to something that you only know by context of that sentence.

[Anonymous No.20487606]

>>20487596

Suus always refers to the subject either of the main clause or the subordinate. Eius refers to something that is not the subject, as do illius, ipsius, etc. But there are exceptions:

https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/reflexive-pronouns

[Anonymous No.20487683]

>>20487606
I'm almost happy now, but in the page you linked:
300. is about reflexives in subordinate clauses,
300.1. is about Direct Reflexive, i.e. to refer to the subject of its subclause,
300.2. is about Indirect Reflexive, i.e. to refer to the subject in the main clause, if it "expresses the words or thought of the subject",
300.2.a. is about when the subclause is not indirect speech. Here "the reflexive is not regularly used, though it is occasionally found."

The original sentence
> Non potest certus esse quod ne mater sua quidem scit quis patrem suum esse
falls under 300.2.a, doesn't it? Anon is the subject of the main clause, the subclause does not express his thoughts, but still the pronoun refers to him.
Wouldn't it be better style then to use eius, after all?

(Honestly not trying to be a smartass, just trying to get to the bottom of it.)

[Anonymous No.20487706]

I've been trying to read Abraham de Balmes' translation of one of Averroes' monographs on Aristotelian logic and it's almost illegible. Abrham's other stuff was also pretty rough but this is really a new world of pain. And it sucks because the subject is extremely interesting.

Averroes is trying to argue that any conditional ("if x, then y") is either really a syllogism ("all a is b, all b is c, all a is c"), or it depends on a syllogism to establish its condition. That way Aristotle's logical system is really complete. And he's attacking Avicenna, who had pretty much left Aristotle behind to create a completely new logical system that had come to pretty much dominate logic in the Muslim world.

Some lol-worthy passages that also showcase just how brutal the translation is: "Notum itaque est ex hoc sermone, quod illud quod fecerit Aristoteles quod deviaverit ab hac specie syllogismi, et posuerit ipsum secundam speciem syllogismi ctegorici, est opus illius cui constiterit eius dispositio, non opus illius, qui considerat, quid est in imaginationis initio, et primo suae menti occurrit."

I take this to mean something like this. A 'translation' would be useless because it doesn't really make sense: "It should now be clear what Aristotle actually did in the Prior Analytics, and it is the mark of one who understands his teaching to avoid this kind of syllogism and not make a second class of syllogism besides the categorical. Someone who does this is writing whatever pops into his head without thinking."

I really have no fucking idea though, you can see the liberties I had to take.

"Et maior pars libri sufficientiae Philosophiae huius viri est contexta ex talibus sermonibus perversis tam in logicis, quam in aliis. Et qui vult initiari in his artibus, expedit ei quod fugiat eius libros, nam illi faciunt errare hominem et extrahunt ipsum a recto, potiusquam ipsum dirigant, et ordinent ipsum ad veritatem."

That sentence isn't so bad: "most of Avicenna’s Book of Healing (the Latins called it "Sufficientiae") is composed of these sorts of mistakes, as much in logic as in other
subjects, and whoever wants to learn these things should flee his books, for they lead men into error and will cause one to stray from the truth."

But really it's mostly complete nonsense, like something google translated into Hebrew and then google translated into Latin. And it sucks because the subject is interesting.

[Anonymous No.20487717]

>>20487683

Well the original sentence is completely ungrammatical first off. But the subclause is an indirect question, so it does refer to the words or thought of the subject.

[Anonymous No.20487754]

>>20487717
>Well the original sentence is completely ungrammatical first off
How?

[Anonymous No.20487756]

Χαίρετε /clg/, Gaius-Pericles mihi nomen.

XXVII natus annos, Philellen(id est videlicet auribus vestris barbaris, homo civilis). Orationes historiasque otio abutor scribendo, dies diesque artes perficio hasce atque δράμασι Graecis omnibus aliis praecellentibus magna cum delectatione perfruor(ab Aeschylo, Sophocle, Euripide scriptis).

Δόρατι in dies exerceo, quo aes ipse uno ictu transfodi potest eo quod milliens secum complicitur, genus hocce armorum multo sane superius omnibus aliis. Stipendium ipse merebam in exercitibus Graecis unde gradatim peritior fio.

Graece loquor egregie, et Ionice et Attice, scriboque perfecte. Totam Achivorum historiam didici atque mores eorum, quibus ipse vitam ago.

Cum primum hospitium mihi reperiam, me Athenas conferam ubi apud διδασκαλεῖον aliquid magis magisque de usu victuque Helladis discam. Spero fore praeclarum ῥήτορα sicut Demostenem et alios!

Sunt mihi multi χιτῶνες, quos in ipsa urbe induo. Vellem assuescere eos induens prius quam Graeciam memet conferam, ut benignius apud eos recipiar. Salvere omnibus senioribus iubeo atque Graece iugiter loquor, sed raro verbum reddunt.

Bene optate mihi in Graecia!

[Anonymous No.20487772]

>>20487754
Not him, but I would write it in this way (aside from the reflexives in question):
> Non potest certus esse quod ne mater sua quidem scit quis pater suus sit

>>20487717
I just now noticed that that quod doesn't even introduced a subclause, it joined two main clauses, the second of which makes no mention (explicitely or implicitely) of Anon. So forget about my argument from before, this is a much better reason for requiring eius.

[Anonymous No.20487773]

>>20487754

I wouldn't know where to start man, it's just not grammatical. It should be "num" because it's an indirect question, not "quod ne". The "quidem" is out of place and wrong anyway, I can only guess what he meant it to do. And it should be "quis sit pater suus", an indirect question, not "scit quis patrem suum esse" which is nonsensical. "Scit patrem suum esse" would mean something like "she knows his father exists", not "she knows who his father is". Virtually every word of that sentence is wrong.

[Anonymous No.20487780]

>>20487773
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.20487784]

>>20487772

The quod shouldn't even be there. The right way to say "He cannot even be certain that his mother knows who his father is" would be something like "non certus esse potest num mater sciat quis sit pater suus."

[Anonymous No.20487785]

>>20487773
> (Non potest certus esse) quod ((ne mater sua quidem) scit (quis pater suus sit))
> (He can't be sure) because ((not even his mother) knows (who his father is))

[Anonymous No.20487797]

>>20487785

Ah I thought he was trying to say "he cannot even be certain that his mother knows who his father is".

"Ne...quidem" can't have two words between it though.

It should be "Non potest certus esse, quod ne mater quidem sua scit quis sit pater suus."

[Anonymous No.20487822]

>>20487797
> "Ne...quidem" can't have two words between it though.
It absolutely can. Cicero:
> non modo quid gesseris, sed ne quibus in locis quidem fueris dicere audes

[Anonymous No.20487829]

>>20487706
Any reason you're going for Abraham de Balmes instead of Scotus? Speaking as someone who didn't read either.

[Anonymous No.20487835]

>>20487822
oof

[Anonymous No.20487858]

>>20487402
>esse doesn't take the accusative
You mean just the verb sum, ni? If it was any other verb, it would take the accusative, right?
Thanks for the corrections btw

[Anonymous No.20487873]

Anonius! He, anonius! Video te!

Braccae tuae aperiuntur!!!

Nec gratias mihi dare necesse est. Vale.

[Anonymous No.20487884]

>>20487858
not him, but yes. sum/esse is special in this regard.

[Anonymous No.20487910]

>>20487884
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.20487919]

>>20487829

Yeah, someone like Scotus was approaching logic in a very different way from Aristotle and Averroes.

One of the biggest misconceptions people have about the history of logic is that the Latin medievals were hung up on Aristotle. Abelard had already transcended Aristotle at the same time his logical works were becoming available in the west. So Scotus would have very different concerns from someone like Averroes, who was interested in Aristotle for his own sake.

I've never read a word of Scotus. I don't doubt that he was a better logician than Averroes. But for someone who is interested in Aristotle and the attempts to understand Aristotle, Averroes is more interesting. And if you can't read Arabic, Abraham de Balmes is the only place to read these monographs, the Quaesita, which contain his most interesting thoughts on the Prior Analytics in particular.

[Anonymous No.20487926]

>>20487785
>(Non potest certus esse) quod ((ne mater sua quidem) scit (quis pater suus sit))
Does that means that scio doesn't take an infinitive but a verb in subjunctive?

[Anonymous No.20487941]

>>20487919
Sorry, I should have been more precise: I meant the translation of Averroes' commentaries by Scotus, since those seem to be the ones that were most widely read during the Middle Ages.

But maybe those are not complete as I thought. It seems to be a bit of a mess:
https://averroes.uni-koeln.de/edition/current-editions/

[Anonymous No.20487951]

>>20487926
It can take accusative + infinitive, or an indirection question (as in the sentence you quoted), or many other things.

[Anonymous No.20488008]

>>20487941

Are you sure Scotus did Averroes translations? I think you're thinking of someone else, maybe Michael Scot?

The only translations of these particular works that are easily accessible were done by Abraham de Balmes in the 16th century. There were almost certainly medieval translations floating around but they're lost.

"Ac etiam si supponeremus, quod esse coniunctionem per se notam largiatur ipsa per se coniunctum eius per se notum inaliquo locorum, et repetitum, id est, cui inest coniunctio est ignotum secundum esse."

I've read most of Prior Analytics in Latin, and all of Averroes' middle commentary on it, and all of his other quaesita, and this might as well be in Hebrew for all the sense I can make of it.

"And if we suppose that the conditional's being known per se causes in some places the conclusion to be known per se, the being of the hypothesis, i.e., that to which the condition is joined, is unknown." (this being the absurd outcome of something al-Farabi said)

"Repetitus" means "hypothesis" because in a conditional it is repeated - i.e. "if the sun has risen, it is day; the sun has risen, so it is day" - the sun's having risen is the "repetitus".

"Conjunctio" means a conditional if...then... as opposed to an either...or... disjunction.

It's hard to tell if I'm actually slowly coming to understand it, or I'm just making something up.

[Anonymous No.20488057]

>>20488008
I meant Michael Scot, yes. Like in the picture I posted, his name is also often latinized, but I can see now how that's confusing.

[Anonymous No.20488127]

>>20488057

All I know about Michael Scot is that he used to wear an iron skull cap because he predicted by astrology or whatnot that he would be killed by something heavy falling on his head.

It's neat how sorcery and black magic was mixed up with Aristotle.

For example, Aristotle gives two-sided non-necessary propositions. "All men probably grow old = it is not impossible that no man grow old"; "all seeds probably sprout = it is not impossible that no seed sprouts". And some of his modal deductions involve converting from one form to the other. Themistius was critical of this - "if the premise is already likely, converting it to the other form would make it unlikely, and thus useless. Or if the premise was unlikely in the first place, why introduce it?"

Averroes said that these sort of highly unlikely contingent propositions were useful in the "ars notoria" i.e. sorcery.

[Anonymous No.20488211]

"Erras centum per centum ex iactuum, quos non facis.
- Wayne Gretzkius"
- Michael Scotus

[Anonymous No.20488920]

bump

[Anonymous No.20489283]

Here's a question that's possibly been discussed to death: If someone wants to eventually learn both Latin and (few of) the modern Romance languages (say French, Italian, Spanish), is it better to start with Latin or with the modern languages?

[Anonymous No.20489285]

>>20474886
Any resources on english derivatives of Latin words?

[Anonymous No.20489307]

>>20489283
They are not really similar. Currently I'm studying Latin and French, but I'm a native Portuguese speaker and know Spanish and I don't feel like any of those two I know are helping me with Latin. Anyway, if you want to learn X, then learn X instead of Y unless Y is a prerequisite for X.

[Anonymous No.20489319]

>Magus Niger, magicae nigrae impetum!

[Anonymous No.20489328]

>>20489285
unironically wheelock. He namedrops a ton of english derivatives in his book

[Anonymous No.20489526]

I am sure that this question has been answered, so forgive me for asking it again, but if I want to teach myself classic Greek what are the best resources for that?
Everything I've seen so far assumes that you've got either a grasp on the language to some degree or that you have a teacher.

[Anonymous No.20489653]

>>20489526
Disregard, actually, as I just checked the folder. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.20490074]

>>20489283
Learn Latin first
This is assuming you have a genuine passion for Latin and you don't actually just want to learn French but feel the compulsion to do it properly i.e learning Latin first
Latin is the most useful language to know for Italian however

[Anonymous No.20490217]

I wonder, does the vowel length distinction in these ancient classical language sound maybe a bit weird to us westoids(that seems a complaint I hear often about how the reconstructed classical pronunciation sounds weird, even to me it sounds nice) because the short vowels were pronounced quite faster and shorter than we are used to with ours?
Maybe someone who speaks a modern language with such distinction as native can chime in e.g I think Czech has it and I can see how they may have an easier time with it as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6G6cKYCGrI

[Anonymous No.20490852]

>>20490217
You can do Classical pronunciation without dragging out the vowel length. This is a YouTube myth that you have to do some kind of all or nothing convention. You don't. If anything, it comes off as being pretentious.

You should keep in mind that language is for communication. If you are genuinely trying to use Latin as a living language, then you should pronounce things to be understood, not impress.

[Anonymous No.20490900]

>>20490852
>This is a YouTube myth
the youtube myth is that latin long vowels sounded the way luke ranieri pronounces them, like 3-4 times longer than the short vowels.

>salveeeee
>quooomodo teee habeees
>nooomen miii est scorpiooo maaartiaaanus

he doesn't even consistently observe long vowels or geminates either which is weird considering how much he bitches about people doing just that

>vitra ocularia in mea facie sunt
instead of
>vitra oculāria in meā faciē sunt

he also doesn't elide his vowels which is a very well reconstructed feature of CL pronunciation, but that's another story.

[Anonymous No.20491101]

cogitatus ego
intus nihili meus exulceravero
Pater, dimitte ego, non enim me scio

[Anonymous No.20491114]

>>20490900
Weird, I thought his problem was excessive elision

[Anonymous No.20491137]

>>20491114
the only videos of his I can remember there being prominent elision in are his old LLPSI videos which were just terrible

>roma in italiā est
>rrrrrrrrrrommin italiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'st

I think he's since deleted them

[Anonymous No.20491146]

>>20491114
the only videos of his I can remember there being prominent elision in are his old LLPSI videos which were just terrible

>rōma in italiā est
>rrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooommin italiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'st

I think he's since deleted them

[Anonymous No.20491519]

>>20490217
Japanese has vowel length distinctions and they aren't very noticeable. Technically long vowels are double short ones but in practice they are more like 1.5x or perhaps even shorter. Familiarity with a language allows you to pick up on very subtle cues

[Anonymous No.20491853]

>>20489283
Learning romance languages before latin or learning latin before romance is only useful to people who have no idea what inflected languages are (anglos)
If you are from the continent start learning latin immediately (unless you really want to know those other languages)

[Anonymous No.20492160]

>>20479984
followup question - what and where can one go to here verbalization exercises, or if they are buried in the mega what should i look for. In order to read the language i feel i must at least hear how it's going to sound and annunciate to read the text properly, otherwise i'd end up with ridiculous verbal mistakes (bourgeoisie comes out boar-joy-ze for example, without proper instruction). so yea, any audio work in latin 101 would be sweet bros

[Anonymous No.20492488]

If I finish LLSPI could I read Saxo Grammaticus?

[Anonymous No.20492500]

>>20486667
Coffeo in mane nihil melius, nihil dulcius

[Anonymous No.20492502]

>>20491146
Salvayyyyyyyytayyyyy omnayyyyyyys

[Anonymous No.20492532]

>>20476613
>wanting to learn the least interesting stage of the Egyptian language

[Anonymous No.20492584]

Will this help me learn Latin after reading LLPSI?
Or is it a waste of time reading these editions for learning?

[Anonymous No.20492593]

>>20492584
They’re decent but the translations take way too many liberties imo, though some are better than others.

[Anonymous No.20492601]

>>20492593
Oh wow
I was told that the translations were awful as translations because they were too literal in order to help language learners get something from then
That's disappointing to hear

[Anonymous No.20492627]

>>20492601
The ones I have are needlessly verbose

>pace vestra liceat dixisse, primi omnium eloquentiam perdidistis (8 words)
translated
>with your permission I must tell you the truth, that you teachers more than anyone have been the ruin of true eloquence (22 words)

why not just
>if I might say so, *you* [teachers] lost eloquence first of all (11 words)

[Anonymous No.20492767]

>>20492584
they are a great tool if you can be honest with yourself about your skill level.

[Anonymous No.20492769]

>>20490217
German kind of has phonemic vowel length, but for everything but long and short a there is a slight quality change too ("e" is either ε or e:, "i" is either J or i:, "ü" is either ʏ or y:, "u" is either ʊ or u:, "ö" is either œ or ø:, "o" is either ɔ or o: and "a" is a pure quantity difference of a or a:). It is fairly important for determining the meaning of the word. If there are two consonants behind a vowel it is always pronounced short, if there is an h behind it, it is always pronounced long. Vowel length is also the main contributer to where a word is accented. If someone fucks up the vowel length you either assume he is a foreigner or that he misread the word. Similarly i would assume the ancient Romans and Greeks would have judged you for getting that wrong. Sometimes you might not even be intelligible (if you read the acc. article "den" with a short e, it will get confused with "denn" which means because).

[Anonymous No.20492782]

>>20492767
Could you please elaborate

[Anonymous No.20492793]

the best video on vowel length and pitch accent https://youtu.be/BJfKqy3fUDQ

[Anonymous No.20492808]

>>20492782

[Anonymous No.20492830]

>>20492584
Reading authentic Latin is always good for you. Take the translations with a grain of salt and only refer to them when stuck on the Latin. Force yourself to focus on the authentic text as much as possible. Use a dictionary, refer to your textbook and a grammar if need be, and only then go to the translation. Alternatively once you have finished a passage and feel like you understood it read the translation and see how it differs from your interpretation. Try and understand how the translator got that from the Latin.
Gallic War is a great stepping stone and has traditionally been one of the first texts for beginning students. I recommend you start trying to read it before finishing you textbook. It may be difficult, in fact probably will be almost incomprehensible, but if you go into it knowing that you are out of your depth will benefit you in the long run. Don't get discouraged, Latin is hard for everyone at first.

[Anonymous No.20492971]

>>20492830
>probably will be almost incomprehensible

The grammar i'm using(Collar&Daniels) feels designed to ease people into the Gallic war, every other exercise is:

>the Gauls defended the town fiercely
>Caesar sent Labienus across the river.
>these chiefs did not come to the conference

etc.

[Anonymous No.20493088]

The list of greek and latin texts I want to read is enormous, many 300-600+ page books. Right now I can barely read a single page, I have to go line by line, often rereading it after analysing it to understand it.

With enough practice can I realistically reach a level where I can read it as fast I can read english?

[Anonymous No.20493124]

>>20493088
No. You will always need a dictionary and come across strange feeling syntaxes when encountering new writers. If you have experience with becoming fluent in other languages you know that feeling of knowing 95% of what's being said and filling that 5% with intuition. That's the best we can hope for.

[Anonymous No.20493139]

>Urbi Romae olim magnum periculum a Volscis, qui erant populi Romani hostes audaces, praebebatur.

Translated literally this is something like, "The city of Rome was once furnished/provided with great peril by the Volscians",(who were bold enemies of the people of Rome) right? I've translated it as

>The city of Rome was once in great peril from the Volscians, who were bold enemies of the people of Rome.

Feels like a more natural English sentence.

[Anonymous No.20493178]

>>20493139
Urbi Romae is not the subject. A literal translation would be more like
>A great danger was once provided to the city of Rome by the Volscians
Your translation sounds much better in English and captures the essence of the sentence though.

[Anonymous No.20493183]

>>20493124
> You will always need a dictionary
I don't know. The OLD has 40k entries, which aren't that many to begin with, and lots of times five entries should count as one, because they're a verb, an adjective, and adverb, and two nouns (one for the action, one for the agent), all derived from the same root. And plenty of those roots are intuitively known to English speakers. There are also many proper nouns in there that shouldn't really count.

So at least for classical Latin, it doesn't seem that far-fetched to me to know the entire vocabulary. You'd maybe just need 10k roots, or so.

Of course you might still want to look up some obscure word in a dictionary from time to time, but so do some native speakers of a language.

[Anonymous No.20493198]

>>20493178
Dammit, you're right. I'll stop making dumb mistakes eventually.

[Anonymous No.20493288]

>>20493183
> There are also many proper nouns in there that shouldn't really count.
And many words that only ever occurred in the Natural History, I forgot to mention. If you're not interested in that particular work, you might as well just drop them.

[Anonymous No.20493517]

>>20493183
>>20493288
This is the opinion of someone who doesn't read Latin
Look up Hapax Legomena in Cicero alone

[Anonymous No.20493611]

>>20493124
>If you have experience with becoming fluent in other languages you know that feeling of knowing 95% of what's being said and filling that 5% with intuition.
I'm an ESL and can understand 99% of a given English text

[Anonymous No.20493705]

>>20493611
>of a given English text
That just depends on the difficulty of the text. There have been many academic articles where I've had to read some paragraph like five times before understanding it clearly.

[Anonymous No.20493766]

>>20493705
It's not like natives can understand every academic article easily. The point is, you can certainly improve a foreign language to a level equivalent to your native language.

[Anonymous No.20493773]

>>20493766
Which also means that even in your native language, you will find academic article that you will have a hard time reading.

[Anonymous No.20493799]

>>20493773
Exactly? But the original question was
>With enough practice can I realistically reach a level where I can read it as fast I can read english?
And the answer is clearly "yes".

>If you have experience with becoming fluent in other languages you know that feeling of knowing 95% of what's being said and filling that 5% with intuition. That's the best we can hope for.
And this is wrong, because it's not the best we can hope for.

[Anonymous No.20493980]

>>20493517
I'm unable to find a number, but I also don't see how it would contradict anything I wrote (unless it's 10k, which is absurd).

Just looking through the dictionary, there are entries like "breviloquentia" that are only attested for Cicero, but this is exactly what I was talking about: you won't need to look up words like these, even if you've never seen them before.

[Anonymous No.20494280]

>>20493980
Just to be clear though, you haven't read Cicero, have you? Can you read Latin?
I know the answer already, just want you to say it.

[Anonymous No.20494306]

>>20494280
>Just to be clear though, you haven't read Cicero, have you? Can you read Latin?
>I know the answer already, just want you to say it.
Oh god, he's back.

[Anonymous No.20494731]

>>20494306
Timui ne illam inanilogistam responderem. Utinam Latine scriberem ab initio.

>>20494280
> Can you read Latin?
Cur glossario linguae utar cum eam nesciam? Cogitas modo. Vel potius linge testes meos, vexator fili.

[Anonymous No.20494774]

>>20489328
Yeah that's really the only source I have which is a bit frustrating bc it usually leads to some very interesting English words. There must be a site or something where you can view these things en mass.

[Anonymous No.20494782]

>>20489285
>>20489328
>>20494774
Forgot to mention: this is then only thing i've found in my searching for something of the sort.

http://www.inrebus.com/latinderivatives

[Anonymous No.20494790]

>>20494774
The etymology of English words on Wiktionary is very extensive, if not totally trustworthy. You could probably program something that gets you a list of words that come from Latin.

[Anonymous No.20494795]

>>20474886
It's incredible to me how easy it is to learn romance languages once you know Latin. The conjugation tables of literally every other romance language are so smol compared with what Latin uses. Currently learning french and the whole wiki chart for etre(to be) is about 1/4 of the size of sum, maybe even less. we are gonna make it bros :,^)

[Anonymous No.20494843]

>>20493799
I agree with you. My point is that even in your own native language, you can't be sure you will be able to read anything easily.

[Anonymous No.20494863]

>>20494795
Idk, French pronunciation vs spelling is so annoying after learning something so logical like Latin.

[Anonymous No.20494967]

Libros viris qui tibi dicebant dare uoluit.

He wants to give books to the men who were speaking to you.

does this translation work? is the relative pronoun in the right form?

[Anonymous No.20494982]

>>20494967
You need the accusative mas plural, not nom sing: quos.

[Anonymous No.20495014]

>>20494982
shouldnt it be nom. plural because it refers to "the men /who/ were speaking you" - the men being the subject

[Anonymous No.20495041]

>>20495014
I also think "qui" is correct.
"voluit" is in the past, however. For present, you want "vult".
"tibi dicebant" without specifying what's said seems weird to me. I'd use "locuti sunt cum te".

[Anonymous No.20495050]

>>20495041
for
>>20494967

[Anonymous No.20495052]

>>20494967
where's this from? "speak to" is more commonly expressed with alloquor
dico tibi without a direct object would be like english "I say to you" without an object, doesn't work like that
libros viris qui te alloquebantur dare voluit

[Anonymous No.20495057]

Latin class and Wheelock's are extremely gay. Just puzzle solving with extra steps. If I want to do this kind of clinical problem solving, I'll just learn math or cryptography.

[Anonymous No.20495070]

>>20495052
its from a worksheet written by a prof. who is notoriously unreliable - it reads strange to me so I thought i would check

[Anonymous No.20495104]

>>20494731
>Latine scriberem ab initio.
This would solve instantly most of the arguments here. Like >>20495057
I also remember a British schizo from /int/ who would always appear when anything about Latin was mentioned, similar to the trolls here, and would always shut up instantly when someone tried to make him answer in Latin. I wonder if he lurks this thread

[Anonymous No.20495123]

>>20495104
Man, the one with the hard-on for Gwynne who wouldn't shut up about Gaelic. I remember him, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.20495149]

>>20495052
Wait, so you're trying to translate the Latin sentence to English, but don't know whether the Latin sentence is correct? Because your initial post made it look the other way around.

In this case you're in trouble, because if the prof meant "quos" instead of "qui", then the verb makes a bit more sense. But then it's ambiguous whether they were talking about the books or the man.

[Anonymous No.20495153]

>>20495149
for
>>20495070
for fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.20495174]

>>20495149
he left the relative pronoun blank

[Anonymous No.20495199]

>>20495174
Alright, in this case I'd put "quos", then "dicebant" has a direct object.

[Anonymous No.20495606]

So do you need to remember the conjugation of each verb in Latin or can you rely on a types of conjugation for groups of verbs?
Just wondering how much memorisation there is in Latin

[Anonymous No.20495609]

>>20495606
I memorized all the regular Latin paradigms by rote. It took me 6-7 months to write each paradigm by hand 100 times.

[Anonymous No.20495612]

>>20495606
That probably doesn't make any sense
I mean can you classify verbs into maybe like type 1, type 2, type 3 and idk, type 3B and based on which type a particular verb is you just conjugate it like every other verb in the same type?
Or is there no 'types' when it comes to verbs in latin and every conjugation is basically unique or maybe there are types but the exceptions are so frequent that you basically have to memorise them all anyway?

[Anonymous No.20495779]

>>20495612
Everything conjugates similarly enough in the language, despite small differences that you should just memorize piecemeal. Don't think about it too much. Just practice regularly and it will be second nature in no time. My way of getting this down was copying and pasting the conjugation chart from wikitionary onto a google doc and then deleting all the content so i only had the chart itself. Typing is much easier than writing.

[Anonymous No.20495872]

>>20495779
So then why do people make a big deal out of memorising pages upon pages of conjugation tables in their textbooks?
Why not just focus on learning verbs and apply the few conjugation techniques when they're applicable?

[Anonymous No.20496258]

Is it true that learning latin through a LLPSI method will make you a good reader but a poor translator?
How difficult is it to go from the LLPSI method to the grammar translation method in order to get good at translation?
Has anyone here done that?

[Anonymous No.20496414]

>>20496258
no one here has finished LLPSI

[Anonymous No.20496434]

>>20495057
I like solving puzzles.

[Anonymous No.20496439]

>>20495872
You memorize the conjugation techniques.

[Anonymous No.20496461]

>>20495872
Because you need to be able to recognize things and distinguish them from other very similar forms. Learning all the conjugations isn't even hard, there is no "pages upon pages," it's a page.

[Anonymous No.20496916]

>>20496258
i see no reason to try and get good at translation if im already a good reader

[Anonymous No.20497473]

>>20496414
ive got one chapter to go and then im done

[Anonymous No.20497675]

>>20496258
Might be, since the point of llpsi is to not translate in your head. But why would you want to translate works that have been translated 100s of times before?

[Anonymous No.20497701]

What about Roma Aeterna, has anyone finished that? And if so, what did you move onto after it?

[Anonymous No.20498109]

Should I wait until I am fluent in Latin before I go to Rome? I want to read the Latin in the museums.

[Anonymous No.20498142]

>>20497473
Don't do it bro

[Anonymous No.20498290]

>>20497701
Everyone who used Familia Romana and nothing else got immediately filtered by Roma Aeterna.

[Anonymous No.20498338]

>>20498109
buy a book of latin inscriptions

[Anonymous No.20498384]

>>20498290
Does it include interesting and/or real stuff? FR almost killed me with boredom.

[Anonymous No.20498437]

>>20498290
Any reason for that? Given that Familia Romana was supposed to be "the best way of learning Latin". I'm using it and some old as fuck Latin grammar book because I learned french using this method and it worked quite well for me. Just the natural method book was not enough.

[Anonymous No.20498522]

>>20498384
>real stuff
The first few chapters are written by Orberg, the rest are excerpts of real authors.
>Any reason for that? Given that Familia Romana was supposed to be "the best way of learning Latin"
Because it's not the best way to learn Latin. It's a graded reader, not a textbook. Trying to learn a language only using a graded reader is stupid. Graded readers are fantastic when you use them for what they are actually for. Familia Romana is a great way to the get most frequently used words and see most basic grammatical concepts used in context. It's not a good place to learn those concepts for the first time.

[Anonymous No.20498913]

>>20498109
Not only should you be fluent in latin but you should also have read Edward Gibbons entire 4000 page book on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, in addition to bible, both old and new testament (because it's the HOLY Roman Empire for most of its history you filthy paganii).
I also strongly recommend reading the history works of Mercellinus, Appian, Diodorus, Cassius Dio, Eusebius, Livy, Plutarch, Polybius, Procopius, Suetonius, Tacitus, Paterculus, Aurelius Victor, Cornelius Nepos, and Eutropics,
As well as the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, just for fun.

While also not required but would be very helpful in Rome would be to learn to read ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics because there was once a big obelisk in the Circus Maximus (it's gone now but it used to be there) with hieroglyphics on it that you may wish to read.

To go to Rome without having even this most basic understanding of the area would be like going to India without having read the Mahabharata

[Anonymous No.20498932]

Has anyone translated any manga into Latin? I think that would be far more interesting to read than "Publius goes to the Roman market to buy 5 apples" or Harrius Potter

[Anonymous No.20498936]

>>20498932

[Anonymous No.20498965]

>>20498913
Also remember to do all this before being 20yo if you don't want to be a pathetic loser

[Anonymous No.20498969]

>>20498936
Now I want to translate Chrischan's comics

[Anonymous No.20498974]

>>20498522
Checked and thanked

[Anonymous No.20499034]

>>20498932
I'd read Deathnote in latin, I think it would provide interesting latin text

[Anonymous No.20499056]

>>20498913
also don't forget to practice wearing your toga at home so that when you go to Rome you will be comfortable wearing it. And always address your elders as domine

[Anonymous No.20499071]

>>20495872
It's best to utilize both i think. Most of Latin is so logical that things can be inferred pretty easily when you get its rules down, but writing out tables is helpful too.
>>20496461
Also this. The text i used to learn put most of the active verb tenses in one chapter.

Again, you're thinking about it too much!

[Anonymous No.20499108]

>>20499056
is there a Roman one of these?

My latin sucks so I can't make it but I imagine it would go something like
>picture of ken in a toga

Salvete! nomen mihi est Gaius Publius Kentius
I'm a 27 year old American Patrician (Roman fan for you plebians). I carve inscriptions on my clay tablet and spend my days perfecting my craft and playing superior Roman games. (latrones, tabula, terni lapilli)

I train with my gladius every day, this superior weapon can penetrate clean through bronze becuase it is forged by Vulcan, and is vastly superior to any other weapon on Earth. I earned my sword license two years ago and have been getting better every day.

I speak Latin fluently, both Classical and Ecclesiastical dialect, and I write fluently as well. I know everything about Roman history and their Corpus Juris Civilis, which I follow 100%

When I get my Italian visa, I am moving to Rome to attend a prestigious collegium to learn more about their magnificient culture. I hope I can become a gladiator for Emperor Augustus or a Senator!

I own several togas, which I wear around town. I want to get used to wearing them before I move to Rome, so I can fit in easier. I bow to my elders and seniors and speak Latin as often as I can, but rarely does anyone manage to respond.

[Anonymous No.20499568]

>bump limit again
Yay! We did it again, reddit!

[Anonymous No.20499656]

>>20494967
>>20494982
>>20495014
I see. I'm a little confused on this then. I thought that relative pronouns just took the verbs which follow them?
Rex cuius soror Romae vivit bene se gessit.
The king, whose sister lives at Rome [locative], conducted himself well (was well behaved).

Here, for instance, the relative genitive is taking the verb vivit but that seems to come from the noun soror being nom. It doesn't seem that you always need a nominative relative pronoun to take the verb, or is it just special in this case bc there IS a nominative in the clause to take the verb? Maybe this is a dumb question but could anyone chime in on how to construct something in which Rex takes cuius without a nom noun following?

[Anonymous No.20499722]

Fīlum novum:
>>20499715
>>20499715
>>20499715
>>20499715
>>20499715