Mary Beard Aug 11 article & response

[Dantius]

For me I try as little as possible to look it up and try to puzzle it out for myself — eventually I look at the translation and it's usually just some little thing I missed. For Liv. 1&2 I used a commentary by J.B.Greenough:

Greenough commentary

 

[Araneus]

Nice! Thanks for sharing that. I agree that ideally, using translations should be avoided completely. It's a bit too easy to refer to that rather than to put energy into rearranging the sentence, mentally or on paper, which is a far better exercise. However, with some sentences, by some authors, I see no other possibility than to seek help. With sentences such as the one I quoted above, even though I have read it 10 times, and made up my mind as to what I think it says, I find that I have misunderstood it completely. Better to get it cleared up than to rely on my own insecure misunderstanding.

Anyways, I often read things twice, unless it's all too long. For instance, I went through all of Caesar that way, reading each book first closely and painstakingly, looking up every word, puzzling together every difficult phrase and taking notes about grammatical constructions. I glanced at some online translations as well, when I found it necessary. Then, as I finished each book, I read it over again right afterwards, and as all the stuff above was fresh in my mind, it went smoothly and pleasantly, almost like reading English. A great benefit of this, is that I often miss alot of the action and the details of the content when I focus on the language. So when I re-read it, I understand more of what happens, and remember it much better afterwards. I've done this with other works as well, and plan on doing the same with each book of Livy that I read.

 

[Callaina]

By the way, just out of interest, how often do you consult a translation while reading a text?

Pretty much never. Just a handful of times in the past year, really (mostly for Greek). I avoid Loeb editions like the plague.

I just find that, if there's a translation nearby, I give up and cheat. If I'm forced to grapple and come to terms with everything myself, using only my own mental resources, then I may miss a nuance here or there, but the net benefit (for me) is so much greater than if I had a translation at hand.

The flip side of this is that I don't hesitate to use a dictionary and/or parser (the latter far less frequently) when needed.

 

[Callaina]

Anyways, I often read things twice, unless it's all too long. For instance, I went through all of Caesar that way, reading each book first closely and painstakingly, looking up every word, puzzling together every difficult phrase and taking notes about grammatical constructions. I glanced at some online translations as well, when I found it necessary. Then, as I finished each book, I read it over again right afterwards, and as all the stuff above was fresh in my mind, it went smoothly and pleasantly, almost like reading English. A great benefit of this, is that I often miss alot of the action and the details of the content when I focus on the language. So when I re-read it, I understand more of what happens, and remember it much better afterwards. I've done this with other works as well, and plan on doing the same with each book of Livy that I read.

Yes, this is a very good idea! I did this as part of the review for my second-year Latin class last year and got so much more out of it than if I had gone through it only once.

I also did something that another forum member, Godmy, suggested at one point and translated it to English, then looked at (only) the English and tried to back-translate it into Latin. A very useful exercise!

 

[Callaina]

Pretty much never. Just a handful of times in the past year, really (mostly for Greek). I avoid Loeb editions like the plague.

I just find that, if there's a translation nearby, I give up and cheat. If I'm forced to grapple and come to terms with everything myself, using only my own mental resources, then I may miss a nuance here or there, but the net benefit (for me) is so much greater than if I had a translation at hand.

The flip side of this is that I don't hesitate to use a dictionary and/or parser (the latter far less frequently) when needed.

Oh, and I do use a commentary when I get stuck (but only after making my own best effort.)

 

[Dantius]

The flip side of this is that I don't hesitate to use a dictionary and/or parser (the latter far less frequently) when needed.

I mainly use Whitaker's Words just because of how quick it is — just copy and paste the word in and it will tell you the meaning. (Of course the more I read the less I need it)

 

[Callaina]

I mainly use Whitaker's Words just because of how quick it is — just copy and paste the word in and it will tell you the meaning. (Of course the more I read the less I need it)

And how exhaustive -- it gives every possibility, which Perseus sometimes doesn't.

 

[Dantius]

It occasionally happens that I miss a shade of meaning using Whitaker's that Perseus has, but overall Whitaker's is good for me.
It's also sometimes happened that I guess a meaning and get it wrong... like "expers" which I assumed meaned "expert" or "very experienced", but it actually meant "lacking experience" or "free from"...

 

[Callaina]

It occasionally happens that I miss a shade of meaning using Whitaker's that Perseus has, but overall Whitaker's is good for me.
It's also sometimes happened that I guess a meaning and get it wrong... like "expers" which I assumed meaned "expert" or "very experienced", but it actually meant "lacking experience" or "free from"...

I've made that exact same mistake (quite recently, too, as I recall) as well as a similar one way back, when I thought "peritus" meant "dead" instead of "experienced".

 

[Callaina]

I've made that exact same mistake (quite recently, too, as I recall) as well as a similar one way back, when I thought "peritus" meant "dead" instead of "experienced".

Now, it was a passage from one of Seneca's Consolations and the guy (who it was describing) was, indeed, dead, so perhaps it was an understandable mistake.

 

[Araneus]

I've made that exact same mistake (quite recently, too, as I recall) as well as a similar one way back, when I thought "peritus" meant "dead" instead of "experienced".

Lol, yes that one really messed up my day once.

 

[Dantius]

Regarding the topic of fluency in the language a lot of people in my school are not very enthusiastic about the Latin language — part of the problem I think is

We’ve focused so long on grammatical knowledge, philology, and close readings that, while we’ve produced excellent analysts, we don’t generally experience Latin as a language in the same way we do English or another modern language, and that can have consequences.

Not enough attention is given to actually seeing these texts as exciting literature but just as sentences to analyze and translate.
I think more attention should be given to how interesting to read these texts really are — if you get over the difficulty, they can be quite exciting! , and maybe we should be exposed more to the more "exciting" / "funny" things like Martial, Petronius, Plautus, etc. Last year my teacher had us translate some Martial poems and the class seemed to like those

 

[Callaina]

Last year my teacher had us translate some Martial poems and the class seemed to like those

A class of 13-year-olds? I bet they did.

 

[Callaina]

A class of 13-year-olds? I bet they did.

Though perhaps your, er, diet of Martial has been rather restricted and I shouldn't be corrupting your young and innocent mind.

 

[Araneus]

Last year my teacher had us translate some Martial poems and the class seemed to like those

How about Catullus's naughty pieces?

 

[Dantius]

No

 

[Callaina]

Regarding the topic of fluency in the language a lot of people in my school are not very enthusiastic about the Latin language — part of the problem I think is


Not enough attention is given to actually seeing these texts as exciting literature but just as sentences to analyze and translate.
I think more attention should be given to how interesting to read these texts really are — if you get over the difficulty, they can be quite exciting! , and maybe we should be exposed more to the more "exciting" / "funny" things like Martial, Petronius, Plautus, etc. Last year my teacher had us translate some Martial poems and the class seemed to like those

My class also really liked Petronius (especially the more colloquial/ "slang" aspect of it.)

I wouldn't recommend Plautus for an intermediate class, though, because I find the archaic aspects of his language quite confusing personally.

 

[Callaina]

No

To me or Pacifica?

 

[Dantius]

Do you mean Araneus?

No to Araneus.

 

[Araneus]

You've read them? (ed.: Catullus's indecencies) What do you think?

I found it very surprising (pleasantly so, I may add) to discover how extremely indecent, filthy and creatively disgusting some ancient authors, like Catullus, can be. Many, I believe, would think that such indecencies are a modern phenomenon, and that the saltiest text in all of ancient literature is the Song of Songs in the Bible. Or perhaps some medieval drinking songs.