Has anyone read this book,Amo,Amas,Amat by a Mr. Mount? It's going cheap in WH Smith. Anyhow, it's quite amusing and interesting, but at the very end he has a real go at the Cambridge Latin course and its authors. Does anyone agree with his criticisms, and do they think his criticisms are at all valid? What, in fact, do the forum members think of these more modern ways to learn latin?
Amo,amas,amat
- Thread starter Delichon
- Start date
My understanding of Mount's argument (a strong word, as this is definitely a tongue-in-cheek book) was that the "modern" approach of the CLC neglected certain foundational elements of grammar.
I am not completely aware of how the CLC is/was designed, but from the textbooks I've glanced at I believe he is mis-characterizing the series. IMO the CLC is a good text that provides more than enough grammar/syntax (i.e. it isn't all "immersion" or doomed attempts to teach Latin conversationally).
I suspect Mount in his younger days found his love of Latin while atending a British prep school (I believe such schools are called "public" in Britain; such schools would be labeled "private" in the US). The CLC is designed for non-exclusive schools where the curriculum time for Latin has been severely reduced (and so the textbook needs to move more quickly and gloss over the difficulties). Nonetheless, Latin has made something of a comeback in Britain under the CLC, and so I found that final chapter of Mount's book to be less of a substantive criticism than a nostalgic rant.
I am not completely aware of how the CLC is/was designed, but from the textbooks I've glanced at I believe he is mis-characterizing the series. IMO the CLC is a good text that provides more than enough grammar/syntax (i.e. it isn't all "immersion" or doomed attempts to teach Latin conversationally).
I suspect Mount in his younger days found his love of Latin while atending a British prep school (I believe such schools are called "public" in Britain; such schools would be labeled "private" in the US). The CLC is designed for non-exclusive schools where the curriculum time for Latin has been severely reduced (and so the textbook needs to move more quickly and gloss over the difficulties). Nonetheless, Latin has made something of a comeback in Britain under the CLC, and so I found that final chapter of Mount's book to be less of a substantive criticism than a nostalgic rant.
Mount's argument is.... in the good old days, student would learn loads of tables of grammar and do lots of translation ( both ways). Much of this grammar was learned by rote, initially devoid of any meaningful context. CLC, Ecce Romani etc introduce the grammar as it is needed, in context, using stories as a vehicle... a bit like learning English by watching a soap , but with lots of relevant grammar lessons as you go along.
Mount claims that CLC abandons grammar...but he is surely wrong. Each chapter has a special set of grammar exercises and tables, and each book has a big grammar reference section at the end. Has Mr. mount ever actually read CLC or worked through a bit of it? I have a bit of an axe to gring here, as being an old person I learned Latin by the Mount method, and very awful it was too. Now I am relearning it in a far better way.
Mount claims that CLC abandons grammar...but he is surely wrong. Each chapter has a special set of grammar exercises and tables, and each book has a big grammar reference section at the end. Has Mr. mount ever actually read CLC or worked through a bit of it? I have a bit of an axe to gring here, as being an old person I learned Latin by the Mount method, and very awful it was too. Now I am relearning it in a far better way.
Learning bits of grammar and vocabulary at a time, along with stories using what was just learned and perhaps stretching it a bit, is the same way other, living languages are taught (except that living languages also have listening and speaking exercises, which I think would greatly benefit Latin teaching, provided a greater number of people would bother to learn to pronounce it correctly and speak it flowingly).
The method we use for modern languages has a great deal of success, although of course, immersion is the best teacher. The closest we can get to immersion in Latin is to insist on using text from ancient authors rather than making up new text for the stories, the reason being that ancient texts preserve the original stylistic elements of Latin which are often ignored by newer writers.
As a student of any modern language should know, there is more to translating than merely picking equivalent words and stringing them together grammatically--there are all sorts of idioms you must be aware of, and an overall sense of aesthetics, little details about word choice/order that might be understandable, but will peg you as a non-native speaker if you use them incorrectly. There are a great many things in Latin taught as being mere options, such as -que vs. et, or "flexible word order", but the reality is these things were stylistic elements, and it is by reading their use in the original texts that you can get an understanding of how these stylistic choices effect shades of meaning.
The method we use for modern languages has a great deal of success, although of course, immersion is the best teacher. The closest we can get to immersion in Latin is to insist on using text from ancient authors rather than making up new text for the stories, the reason being that ancient texts preserve the original stylistic elements of Latin which are often ignored by newer writers.
As a student of any modern language should know, there is more to translating than merely picking equivalent words and stringing them together grammatically--there are all sorts of idioms you must be aware of, and an overall sense of aesthetics, little details about word choice/order that might be understandable, but will peg you as a non-native speaker if you use them incorrectly. There are a great many things in Latin taught as being mere options, such as -que vs. et, or "flexible word order", but the reality is these things were stylistic elements, and it is by reading their use in the original texts that you can get an understanding of how these stylistic choices effect shades of meaning.
I agree with Marius up to a point (and that may be because I'm assuming the rest of his argument). Latin is--for better or worse--no longer spoken conversationally, so the primary goal of learning Latin is somewhat different than modern languages.
In short, most students learn Latin to read Latin literature. There are no doubt other goals (understanding the Catholic Latin Mass, acquiring an easy intellectual cache), but there is nothing close in the introductory study of other languages. Think about it: By the fourth year, students are studying the sppeches of Cicero and the sophisticated poetry of Virgil; if we followed that model in, say, French, most of the final year would be taken up with translating Flaubert and Moliere. If you were to learn French this way, you'd most likely have wonderful things to say about French literature, but might not be able to order in a restaurant or ask for directions to the Louvre.
I agree ancient texts should be introduced quickly--with all their stylistic quirks--because reading these is ultimately the goal of learning the language. However the main drawback to this approach is that it can overwhelm a student; this is, perhaps, why Caesar is the first "real" text most students meet, since his Latin is meticulous about following the rules of grammar and he isn't particularly quirky in style. Made-up stories don't bother me too much, but I think a student gets a much better grasp on a grammar point if he/she is force to translate into Latin.
But certainly at the bottom of the list is the drab memorization of tables: "Terra, terrae, terrae..." Still, even here, a few students actually like this method, so it would be silly to abandon it completely. The point in all this is that there is no one, single method to teach Latin; a good teacher will have to bring a variety of tools to engage a diversity of learning styles in any language class.
In short, most students learn Latin to read Latin literature. There are no doubt other goals (understanding the Catholic Latin Mass, acquiring an easy intellectual cache), but there is nothing close in the introductory study of other languages. Think about it: By the fourth year, students are studying the sppeches of Cicero and the sophisticated poetry of Virgil; if we followed that model in, say, French, most of the final year would be taken up with translating Flaubert and Moliere. If you were to learn French this way, you'd most likely have wonderful things to say about French literature, but might not be able to order in a restaurant or ask for directions to the Louvre.
I agree ancient texts should be introduced quickly--with all their stylistic quirks--because reading these is ultimately the goal of learning the language. However the main drawback to this approach is that it can overwhelm a student; this is, perhaps, why Caesar is the first "real" text most students meet, since his Latin is meticulous about following the rules of grammar and he isn't particularly quirky in style. Made-up stories don't bother me too much, but I think a student gets a much better grasp on a grammar point if he/she is force to translate into Latin.
But certainly at the bottom of the list is the drab memorization of tables: "Terra, terrae, terrae..." Still, even here, a few students actually like this method, so it would be silly to abandon it completely. The point in all this is that there is no one, single method to teach Latin; a good teacher will have to bring a variety of tools to engage a diversity of learning styles in any language class.
I was actually pretty fond of the declension tables, but I also went through the course (Latin 1-3) at about 3 times the pace, so I didn't drill them nearly as much as the other students in the class. But they had a certain rhythm that made sense to me.
Declension tables, for me, provide an easy and accessible insight into the repetition of grammar patterns and help me while in doubt.
I have attended no formal courses of Latin, all I know I've learned by myself, with the aid of this wonderful tool the Internet is. Thankfully, my knowledge in Spanish and some simple 'introductory' lessons were all I needed to start delving into this beautiful language.
I didn't start alone, however. A friend of mine engaged in the study of Latin too, though he has so far dropped it. Though at the beginning we gave a try to conversation in Latin, which was most useful.
My own method includes the memorization of declension and conjugation tables, the study of vocabulary and practice (through translation efforts - thank God for this Forum) as well as conversational practices by myself. If speaking to yourself was ever thought as crazy, imagine speaking to yourself in Latin.
I also share Cato's woe. Sadly, Latin is merely learned to read the Classics, and not for conversational purposes. How I wish my friend could retake his learning of Latin, or to meet more people interested in this language.
Sadly, there are not Latin Circles or anything like that in Panama, to my own chagrin.
Thankfully, this Forum does have a Latin chat section, and though I still haven't posted there yet (as Iynx once prompted me to do so) I will soon, when I believe I have mastered my grammar sufficiently enough to have a steady flow of give-and-take.
I have no standard with which to measure my progress, but my own subjective evaluation of myself. I might be going at this the wrong way, but thanks to all of you, I have a continuous flow of corrections and evaluations.
I have attended no formal courses of Latin, all I know I've learned by myself, with the aid of this wonderful tool the Internet is. Thankfully, my knowledge in Spanish and some simple 'introductory' lessons were all I needed to start delving into this beautiful language.
I didn't start alone, however. A friend of mine engaged in the study of Latin too, though he has so far dropped it. Though at the beginning we gave a try to conversation in Latin, which was most useful.
My own method includes the memorization of declension and conjugation tables, the study of vocabulary and practice (through translation efforts - thank God for this Forum) as well as conversational practices by myself. If speaking to yourself was ever thought as crazy, imagine speaking to yourself in Latin.
I also share Cato's woe. Sadly, Latin is merely learned to read the Classics, and not for conversational purposes. How I wish my friend could retake his learning of Latin, or to meet more people interested in this language.
Sadly, there are not Latin Circles or anything like that in Panama, to my own chagrin.
Thankfully, this Forum does have a Latin chat section, and though I still haven't posted there yet (as Iynx once prompted me to do so) I will soon, when I believe I have mastered my grammar sufficiently enough to have a steady flow of give-and-take.
I have no standard with which to measure my progress, but my own subjective evaluation of myself. I might be going at this the wrong way, but thanks to all of you, I have a continuous flow of corrections and evaluations.
Amo amas amat
I've read amo, amas, amat - I found it rather disappointing - not as humorous as I expected. The best bit was the first chapter about Beckham's tatoos. It was an easy read, though.
I know very little about the Cambridge Latin Course, but I suspect his gripes are unfounded. He thinks it's great to know what a passive periphrastic is. But I think the grammatical terminology of traditional Latin teaching is excessive - it makes the language seem rigid and dry, which it isn't.
It's also very fashionable to criticise any modern teaching method. I have little sympathy for the old-style methods.. At my school Latin teaching proceeded like this:
lecture on some grammatical point
10 sentences to illustrate point
read 20-line passage from Vergil
Would anyone teach French like that?
- Ken
I've read amo, amas, amat - I found it rather disappointing - not as humorous as I expected. The best bit was the first chapter about Beckham's tatoos. It was an easy read, though.
I know very little about the Cambridge Latin Course, but I suspect his gripes are unfounded. He thinks it's great to know what a passive periphrastic is. But I think the grammatical terminology of traditional Latin teaching is excessive - it makes the language seem rigid and dry, which it isn't.
It's also very fashionable to criticise any modern teaching method. I have little sympathy for the old-style methods.. At my school Latin teaching proceeded like this:
lecture on some grammatical point
10 sentences to illustrate point
read 20-line passage from Vergil
Would anyone teach French like that?
- Ken