What are the benefits of learning Latin?

[Joannm]

. It would be excellent to be able to read Papal documents in their original language. .

Not all papal documents are originally written in Latin. They are often written in one language and then translated into Latin. I recall the catechism came out in French first and there were a few other documents that had took a long time before they were translated into Latin by Vatican translators.

Here in NY, in the more prestigious high schools, latin is still taught but the up and coming language is Chinese. Spanish is very useful in many areas given the large number of immigrants from Latin and South America. Many good positions, especially in Church work, are looking for people who speak fluent Spanish.

I am not good with languages at all, I barely passed French in HS. I have tried to learn Italian several times but never really caught on. I guess some people are like that. Others I know speak 7 languages. I have tried but I guess the wrong side of my brain in dominant.

 

[japhy]

Based on your responses, I have decided to learn latin. It would be excellent to be able to read Papal documents in their original language. Not to mention being able to read the Vulgate. Plus it will open up an entire world of great scholastic works which haven’t been translated into english.

That’s great! I’m learning Latin via “Wheelock’s Latin” as well as a TAN book written by Scanlon and Scanlon designed at learning Latin for the reading of the Missal and Breviary (so it’s a limited vocabulary, but still a rather thorough grammatical instruction).

I was also shocked to see that all of the Harry Potter books have been translated into latin. Not that I like Harry Potter, but it goes to show that the language certainly isn’t as dead as some people think.

I think translating the Harry Potter books into Latin was a stroke of genius. It shows that Latin is accessible, and it might turn a few people on to Latin who hadn’t thought of studying it. (Most of the incantations in the H.P. series are based on Latin anyway.) I have a favorite book of mine translated into Latin: Regulus (“The Little Prince”). Once my Latin comprehension has improved a bit, I’ll try reading it.

Primer of Eccleasiastical Latin by John F. Collins and An Answer Key to Primer of Eccleasiastical Latin.

I have the first (but not the second, the answer key), but I never got far with it… the TAN book has caught my attention better, as well as Wheelock’s.

 

[ruslan]

I’ve been interested in learning latin for quite some time but I can’t help but wonder if it is pointless?

What do you think?

Latin or Spanish? I can’t decide.

IMO, it’s never pointless to learn another language. I studied Latin in high school.

It’s always nice to have a second (or third, fourth, etc…) language.

You have to make the choice. If you want to study Latin - then do so. If you want Spanish - go for it. You could study both and throw some German and Russian in there too.

:harp: :heaven:

 

[The_Prodigal]

I’ve ordered these two books:

Primer of Eccleasiastical Latin by John F. Collins and An Answer Key to Primer of Eccleasiastical Latin.

I am reacquainting myself with Latin after having learned it in school over twenty years ago. I learned classical Latin and want to learn ecclesiastical Latin which differs from the classical in vocabulary, and to a lesser extent in grammar and pronunciation.

Collins’s Primer is an excellent tool, but be warned: it is very dense. Each unit will take several hours of study and memorization. If I may make a couple of suggestions:

1. 
   *]Learning Latin requires a lot of memorization. Speaking the words out loud helps one remember them, so be sure to pronounce each word carefully. I can say this with authority as I used to teach a foreign language.
   
   *]In order to memorize vocabulary - especially the principal parts of the verbs - you really must make “flash cards.” Write the principal parts on one side of an index card, and the translation on the other. You will find it easy to look at the Latin and recall the English. The hard part is looking at the English and recalling all four parts of the verb correctly. This will take a lot of repetition. Sort the cards into piles “mastered” and “unmastered.” Keep learning with the unmastered pile until you can recall the Latin effortlessly.
   
   Learning Latin requires slow, patient work. I hope you find it rewarding! It will certainly help you understand English words and grammar in more depth.

 

[KingAlfred]

I’ve been interested in learning latin for quite some time but I can’t help but wonder if it is pointless?

It’s a dead language. Nobody speaks it. All Church documents are already translated. What use is learning this language? I would only use it in a religious manner anyway.

What do you think?

I might learn Spanish instead. At least this would be useful because I could communicate with people. It may even improve my career prospects.

Latin or Spanish? I can’t decide.

I speak a lot of Spanish. I started studying it in college and my wife is from Central America, where I lived when I was in the military. It’s so hard to learn a foreign language, even the ‘easier’ ones out there. Good luck. Personally, after about a week of speaking mostly Spanish with my in-laws whenever they come up from Costa Rica and Panama, I burn out, and literally can’t take it anymore. My mind shuts down. True fluency is complete independence and competence in the foreign language of choice. I mean…total independence. That is, being able to operate completely in that language, understanding everything and everybody in that language, under any and all circumstances. It’s not just a matter of memorizing a bunch of phrases out of a tour guide. It’s extremely difficult, time consuming and mentally exhausting.

After about three to four years of formal instruction, one needs to immerse oneself in the culture of a country in which nothing but that language is spoken. Immersion should last for at least a full year. After that, maintenance becomes the issue, because the foreigner will lose fluency very fast if he/she isn’t fully engaged in that language. Again…good luck.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I am reacquainting myself with Latin after having learned it in school over twenty years ago. I learned classical Latin and want to learn ecclesiastical Latin which differs from the classical in vocabulary, and to a lesser extent in grammar and pronunciation.

Collins’s Primer is an excellent tool, but be warned: it is very dense. Each unit will take several hours of study and memorization. If I may make a couple of suggestions:

1. 
   *]Learning Latin requires a lot of memorization. Speaking the words out loud helps one remember them, so be sure to pronounce each word carefully. I can say this with authority as I used to teach a foreign language.
   
   *]In order to memorize vocabulary - especially the principal parts of the verbs - you really must make “flash cards.” Write the principal parts on one side of an index card, and the translation on the other. You will find it easy to look at the Latin and recall the English. The hard part is looking at the English and recalling all four parts of the verb correctly. This will take a lot of repetition. Sort the cards into piles “mastered” and “unmastered.” Keep learning with the unmastered pile until you can recall the Latin effortlessly.
   
   Learning Latin requires slow, patient work. I hope you find it rewarding! It will certainly help you understand English words and grammar in more depth.

1. 
   Thanks for the tips. I’ll definitely follow your advice.
   
   I know that it is going to be a very hard task but I’ve decided to stick with it; I’m in it for the long haul. I don’t doubt that some aspects will be very boring but I feel that it will be worth the effort in the end.
   

   That’s great! I’m learning Latin via “Wheelock’s Latin” as well as a TAN book written by Scanlon and Scanlon designed at learning Latin for the reading of the Missal and Breviary (so it’s a limited vocabulary, but still a rather thorough grammatical instruction).

   I couldn’t decide which books to get. I chose the Collins book because it dealt specifically with ecclesiastical latin and I don’t want to learn the classical pronounciation.
   
   However, as I progress I will definitely buy the Scanlon and Scanlon book, and probably even the Weelock’s Latin book. Eventually, it would be great if I could read Virgil and other Roman Classics.
   
   Does anyone know where you can buy latin books? I’ve heard that a latin newspaper is published daily, is this true?
   
   As my studies advance, I will want to read latin texts as much as I can so that I can continue learning.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I have to agree with the previous poster that *Collin’s Primer * is not the best tool for a beginning student. It’s not just that it’s dense, (so’s any college-level textbook) but that it’s aim is to have you translating Augustine and other early Church Fathers and so it takes the grammar in an order that is unnecessarily difficult for a beginning student. (It’s a lot easier to use Collin’s when you’ve already mastered basic Latin grammar.)

I know that it is going to be a very hard task but I’ve decided to stick with it; snip

I couldn’t decide which books to get. I chose the Collins book because it dealt specifically with ecclesiastical latin and I don’t want to learn the classical pronounciation.

However, as I progress I will definitely buy the Scanlon and Scanlon book, and probably even the Weelock’s Latin book. Eventually, it would be great if I could read Virgil and other Roman Classics.

Learning Latin can, as you say, be difficult at times; thus I think you might want to avoid making it harder than it has to be.

Basic Latin grammar (and quite a bit of vocab.) is absolutely the same no matter which pronunciation you use (and that’s up to you if you’re learning on your own.) Pronunciation guides are available online ([here’s](http://cfaonline.asu.edu/haefer/classes/594/EccLat(name removed by moderator)ronunciation.html) an example) and some textbooks will give you both systems.

Latin is also very logical and benefits from being presented in a methodical way. I’m not familiar with the Scanlon and Scanlon book, but my experience with textbooks that are based on the old Missal is that they have such a narrow focus that they greatly compromise on methodical presentation and useful vocabulary.

I would highly recommend that you start with a textbook that presents Latin grammar in a clear, logical fashion, regardless of which pronunciation system it uses. Wheelock’s or the Henle series (which has been growing on me lately; I can’t remember which pronunciation it uses, though, and I don’t have Book 1 at hand to check…)

 

[Dempsey1919]

I would highly recommend that you start with a textbook that presents Latin grammar in a clear, logical fashion, regardless of which pronunciation system it uses. Wheelock’s or the Henle series (which has been growing on me lately; I can’t remember which pronunciation it uses, though, and I don’t have Book 1 at hand to check…)

Which book would you most recommend?

I will most likely buy several more once I have began teaching myself but I decided to by the Collins books first solely based on this review:

Best Instruction Book For Latin On The Market

Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin is really THE first instruction book for the Latin language even for people that don’t want to just study Chruch Latin. It is the best value that gives the best instruction possible from a book. Any student that studies from this book will easily be able to read and understand, without translating, the works of ancient autors like Caesar to Christian writers like Augustine all the way to the modern day news services published in Latin everyday. The author of this book was someone who held conversations in Latin everyday and didn’t just read it off a page.

If I were to write a review that simply praised this book I would only need to copy all the great things that have already been written. However, let me direct my comments to anyone who is looking at this book and trying to decide to buy it or another book on Latin such as perhaps the Wheelock text. Some people may have a reason to use the Wheelock text but the Primer of Eccclesiastical Latin is a far better book.

First let me compare teaching method. Wheelock uses the memorize grammar and translate method that has been shown by ESL and other second language teachers the world over to be inadequate for learning a language. P.E.L. teaches the grammar and has some translation exercises but the main teaching strength of the book are the numerous drills that will get you using the Latin to express your own ideas and thoughts. This method will get you using the natural inflection of the Latin language in your head without the need to look up the correct form from the back of the book every ten minuets as happens to Wheelock students. P.E.L. from the very start shows you the Latin language as a tool for communication and not simply a code for English as is the sole focus of the Wheelock text. PEL gives you a focused vocabulary of words you are likely to use soon and often since they are familiar and useful while it avoids throwing strange words at you that were only every used by one Latin writer such as Cicero or Catullus. The Wheelock vocabulary sections throw a lot of strange archaic, even for Latin, words at the student that have little or no conection to other languages and would be completley unfamiliar to the student, thus causing them to have to look up words in the back of the book constantly.

The pronunciation in PEL is a natural sounding, very fluid pronunciation that has been the pronunciation of Latin for over 2000 years and is the begining of the beauty so often noticed in the romance languages such as French. The pronunciation used in Wheelock is based on a theory that is yet unproven and indeed is unprovable. It changes the way a lot of words are pronounced thus making them sound very strange, kind of like Klingon. The pronunciation of words as taught by Wheelock make the words hard to say so the author of that text relys on macron to form the “correct spelling” of a Latin word as a visual aid to knowing the difference between similarly spelt words. PEL doesn’t need these since you will be saying the word correctly from the beginning and will be able to hear the difference. Wheelock claims to be staying true to the way the original “Romans” used the language and this is the reason for the discontinued use of the letter ‘J’, if true I want to know where he found macron in ancient writings. PEL has retained the use of the letter J as is proper since this aids in understanding, notice understanding and not translation, and correct pronunciation. Wheelock would have you guessing when to use the letter I as if it were a J and when not to do so. PEL also gives you the correct understanding of where to put the stress on a word as you say the word and then shows how this stress was what seperates 2nd from 3rd conjugations so that you don’t have to look up the word in the back of the book, you will know how to conjugate it in your head and will do it naturally.

The grammar sections of PEL are presented in a straghtforward manner with easy to understand explanations to distinguish between similar structures. PEL in this regard is a simple and serious book. Wheelock also presents the grammar pretty well but you need to keep in mind that the grammar sections in Wheelock come way too slowly. The grammar in Wheelock is mixed in with lots of ad libed sections about the authors personal ideas about Roman Culture. Wheelock is in a sense only 40% a book on Latin and 60% a book on Roman political, and decidant culture. PEl will have you creating meaningful sentences while Wheelock will have you translating bits about putting people to death and how Roman women ‘stripped the bark’ off of Roman men and what the correct way to pray to Roman gods is. On top of everything already said, PEL actually exposes the learner to more grammar then the Wheelock text and is therefore more exhausetive and a greater value. All the grammar in Wheelock is talked about in PEL and then PEL goes furter.

The PEL text doesn’t lie to the reader. Wheelock makes several assumptions about why the Latin language does a certain thing that are just lies told to the student to help them translate more quickly but prevents actual understanding of the structure. Wheelock aserts that the imperfect subjunctive is formed from the present infinitive when really they look alike by accident. Wheelock says that the subjunctive is the “might, could, would” mood of the verb where PEL correctly identifies the subjunctive a simply a syntax and grammar tense without meaning outside of idiom similar to the ‘TE’ form of a verb in other inflexive languages like Japanese. Wheelock states that fear clauses used to be two seperate sentences where PEL correctly shows that they are always the same sentence. Wheelock incorrectly labels the gerundive as the gerund in the translation formula given in chapter 39 of that book. PEL give you the correct understanding of both the gerund and the gerundive so that you will not confuse them in the first place. Consturctions that Wheelock tells you are imposible in Latin, PEL correctly shows is possible and useful but it just doesn’t fit into the quick Latin to English translation method of Wheelock.

PEL presents itself first and foremost as a text to learn the Latin language. It has Ecclesiatical in the title but don’t think that you will only be learning the Mass or the liturgy. This is a book that will get you using Latin and understanding Latin so that you can understand the mass when you go and not just translate it into English. Wheelock sets itself up to not just be a text on the Latin language but also a primer on ancient Rome. PEL leaves the extra study into either ancient Rome or modern Roman culture for another book and gives you the Latin language. PEL presents Latin as a complete and full language that is not defective, dead or broken as is suggested by Wheelock. After the study of PEL you will be able to say off the top of your head “my dad can beat up your dad”. I doubt a Wheelock student coud accomplish this.

What do you think about the points he raises?

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions. You’ve been a great help.

 

[peregrinator_it]

This is going to be a brief and partial reply as I have to leave pretty soon here.

I would be very interested to know who wrote the take on Collins you quoted- it reads more like a polemic than a review.

I’m not going to comment on the reviewer’s take on pronunciation methods. Pronunciation is the least of your problems when learning Latin and I have no opinion on which system is more historically accurate or beautiful.

Wheelock also presents the grammar pretty well but you need to keep in mind that the grammar sections in Wheelock come way too slowly.

IMO, presenting grammar “too slowly” is (with one exception that really doesn’t apply to high school- or college-level Latin texts) is not a flaw in a Latin textbook. It is much, much easier to speed up the pace of learning and work through more of the textbook in a shorter time-- either as an independent student or as a classroom teacher-- than it is to try move more slowly than the textbook. This is especially true if the text does provide extra exercises on concepts.

The grammar in Wheelock is mixed in with lots of ad libed sections about the authors personal ideas about Roman Culture. Wheelock is in a sense only 40% a book on Latin and 60% a book on Roman political, and decidant culture. PEl will have you creating meaningful sentences while Wheelock will have you translating bits about putting people to death and how Roman women ‘stripped the bark’ off of Roman men and what the correct way to pray to Roman gods is.

This is an old and terribly worn-out complaint. If a text is going to give the student classical literature to study, it’s necessary in this day and age (when ancient history is not taught) to give them some context. Newer editions of Wheelock’s attempt to try and catch the student’s attention with this context in order to keep them interested; it can get a little cheesy. And his percentages (of grammar vs. cultural context) are downright untrue.

The “stripping the bark” quote is a reference to an infamous poem by Catullus, which a) is filthy (yes, the Romans were pagans!) and b) has been remarked on by generations (literally!) of students and c) is only one fragment of a poem (again, literally; none of the other reading selections are like this) - no one says you have to translate it if you study on your own.

More later; I have to run. I’m going to try & borrow a copy of Collins, so I can give some support to the rest of my remarks.

Which book would you most recommend?

I will most likely buy several more once I have began teaching myself but I decided to by the Collins books first solely based on this review:

What do you think about the points he raises?

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions. You’ve been a great help.

 

[The_Prodigal]

Thanks for the tips. I’ll definitely follow your advice.
I couldn’t decide which books to get. I chose the Collins book because it dealt specifically with ecclesiastical latin and I don’t want to learn the classical pronounciation.

The pronunciation difference is quite trivial. Once you have learned one pronunciation, you can learn the other in literally minutes. The really significant difference is in vocabulary. Many words in the early Church were adapted into Latin from koine Greek.

I have to agree with the previous poster that *Collin’s Primer * is not the best tool for a beginning student. It’s not just that it’s dense, (so’s any college-level textbook) but that it’s aim is to have you translating Augustine and other early Church Fathers and so it takes the grammar in an order that is unnecessarily difficult for a beginning student. (It’s a lot easier to use Collin’s when you’ve already mastered basic Latin grammar.

As I see it, the greatest advantage for using Collins’s book is that it will enable you to follow along and understand the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy. It will also enable you to read the Vulgate. Indeed, among the first longer reading selections in the book are the ordinary of the Mass and parts of the Gospels.

I would highly recommend that you start with a textbook that presents Latin grammar in a clear, logical fashion, regardless of which pronunciation system it uses. Wheelock’s or the Henle series (which has been growing on me lately; I can’t remember which pronunciation it uses, though, and I don’t have Book 1 at hand to check…)

Collins is logical but very concise. I can find no fault with its presentation of grammar and I have studied many languages and taught one. As I mentioned in another post, you will need to be prepared to spend lots of time on each unit.

There is nothing wrong with Wheelock’s, but it will not enable you to read the Latin of the Church because it lacks the vocabulary of ecclesiastical Latin. If you find Wheelock’s easier to learn from, then use it but you will need to supplement with the vocabulary lists from Collins. Certain constructions in ecclesiastical Latin are not found in classical Latin, as well.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I’m back and re-reading my previous post I’m realizing that I’m starting to sound a little polemical. I meant to say it’s better for a beginning Latin textbook to be “too slow” than too fast.

I don’t think Collins is a bad text; just that if I were going to be stuck on a desert island with a beginning Latin student and only one textbook I’d much rather have Wheelock’s than Collins.

That, said my sister doesn’t apparently own it; I do, but it’s not with me at the moment. I’m going to have to purloin a copy, so I don’t base my comments on one of the umpteen other texts that have passed before my eyes. So I’ll delay my further response to the review 'til tomorrow.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Collins is logical but very concise. I can find no fault with its presentation of grammar and I have studied many languages and taught one. As I mentioned in another post, you will need to be prepared to spend lots of time on each unit.

There is nothing wrong with Wheelock’s, but it will not enable you to read the Latin of the Church because it lacks the vocabulary of ecclesiastical Latin. Certain constructions in ecclesiastical Latin are not found in classical Latin, as well.

I taught Latin for 6 years at various levels and at one point looked at Collins in desperation as possible replacement for the wholly inadequate text the school I taught for handed on to me.

Books that pile too many concepts into one lesson are a pain to and inefficient for both the classroom teacher teaching beginning Latin and the independent student learning it. The classroom teacher will have to write/put together supplementary exercises until the students have mastered whatever concept they’re working on. The independent student is stuck trying to master a concept without sufficient exercises to give him practice.

My impression of Collins was (and I could be entirely wrong, that’s why I want my copy: I expect you’ll correct me) that it (like the text I was using) introduced the subjunctive before the student was presented with the entire indicative (which is a big no-no IMO) and/or it presented sequence of tenses/conditionals in a less than clear fashion.

It’s just the downside to learning an ancient language that the student must add to his vocabulary in order to translate works not aimed at by the textbook he uses. I think it’s exponentially easier to add to your vocabulary than to attempt to start translating without a very solid grasp of grammar. I learned from a text (not mentioned here) that was aimed at having the student read Caesar, but when I finished I still had the basic vocabulary for the ordinary of the Mass. Wheelock’s would require a very little supplemental vocabulary in order to enable a student to do the same.

 

[BSHoop96]

I’ve been interested in learning latin for quite some time but I can’t help but wonder if it is pointless?

It’s a dead language. Nobody speaks it. All Church documents are already translated. What use is learning this language? I would only use it in a religious manner anyway.

What do you think?

I might learn Spanish instead. At least this would be useful because I could communicate with people. It may even improve my career prospects.

Latin or Spanish? I can’t decide.

Well, I was going to say Spanish until I saw you were not from the U.S. Now I’m not sure. I would learn as a second language one that was most prevalent where I lived.

 

[ProVobis]

What are the benefits of learning Latin? Easy. If you learn Latin, you won’t embarrass Obama when you visit Latin America.

Not that I’ll be voting for Obama, but you’re plagiarizing Dan Quayle.

 

[ProVobis]

Et ceteris paribus, some of the better lawyers are somewhat versed in Latin. Also, some of the US currency has some Latin in it. How else are you going to know you have true currency?

 

[DixitDominus]

The top ten benefits of learning Latin:

1. Reading classical authors such as Virgil
2. Communicating with others who read, write or speak Latin
3. Reading St. Thomas and other important Doctors
4. Praying the Divine Office of either form in the official language of the Roman RIte
5. Assisting without a hand-missal at Mass in either form of the Roman Rite
6. Reading the Latin Fathers in the language in which they wrote
7. Reading the other magisterial doucuments such as the CCC in their original or official language
8. Reading the majority of the Ecumenical Councils in their original language.
9. Reading nearly all papal documents in their original (or at least offical) language.
10. Reading Scripture in a translation that has been declared by the Church to be free from error in regards to faith and morals

 

[Dempsey1919]

My impression of Collins was (and I could be entirely wrong, that’s why I want my copy: I expect you’ll correct me) that it (like the text I was using) introduced the subjunctive before the student was presented with the entire indicative (which is a big no-no IMO) and/or it presented sequence of tenses/conditionals in a less than clear fashion.

Based on what you’ve told me, I’ll buy the Wheelock’s text as soon as I can. I know nothing at all about latin; I’m a complete beginner.

The review I posted was from Amazon and the opinions of the author were the only reasons I bought the Collins book. Had I known your opinions on which was the best book, I would’ve bought the weelock’s book first; I’m going to buy it as soon as I’ve got the money.

Thanks for the advice. I really appreciate it.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Do you think a knowledge of latin would help me when learning other European languages, such as Spanish?

absolutely. People would take latin for two years and then another language. I was also told it could help you with your SAT’s.

Also, I’ve never really understand why latin was part of the traditional curriculum of many schools? In the past, the intellectual classes of society were all well versed in latin. Why was it deemed deemed necessary? And more importantly, why did they stop teaching latin in modern schools?

 

[tee_eff_em]

I was also shocked to see that all of the Harry Potter books have been translated into latin. Not that I like Harry Potter, but it goes to show that the language certainly isn’t as dead as some people think.

Only the first two books have been rendered into Latin – *Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis *and Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum. I have recently learned that Bloomsbury has no plan to continue the series. (Which is okay with me – I have both of the above and, like Harry Potter in English :twocents: , the novelty wears off pretty quickly --There are plenty of better works to read in Latin )

tee

 

[skatepixie]

If you do choose Latin, learning Spanish, French, and Italian will all be easier. It will also help you build your English vocab. (In fact, high school students who take Latin tend to do better on the SAT verbal.)