Conversational Latin e-book
- Thread starter Claudilla
- Start date
I applaud efforts of this kind and I admire that somebody is able to make Latin commercially (and otherwise) attractive and maybe more accessible to people that way. But, while I really do not want to be an asshole, I must say that even the part that is seen on the webpage:
'Annika: Oh classis mea huius diei tam longa erat, infinita erat. / Astur: Num ita mala erat, Annika? / Annika: Certe, ita erat! Caesar et bella sua erant, omnia de exercitibus suis, pugnis suis, hostiumque suorum exercitibus, vae, aegerrime hoc fero, narrationem omnium harum rerum. / Cordus: Ita obstupefactus sum, Annika. Caesar mirabilis est scriptor et plurimi hominum fabulas eius de bello, pugnis, quomodo exercitus suos duxerit, valde delectantes existimant.'
... that I find it a bit problematic grammar-wise in some (not in all) parts (the lexicon is up to question). The distinction between the perfect and imperfect verb tense in the verb 'to be' is surely for many non-Romance speakers one of the most difficult one, but, once understood, quite clear.
But here I find it ('erat'/'erant') in most cases used wrongly or at least questionably and to be substituted for 'fuit/fuerunt'. 'Erat/erant' can be also argued for even in these sentences (she is describing her state before it was finished) but, in my opinion, they imply a less intuitive context than if there is simply the perfect tense (= it happened).
I understand that the students at that stage have not probably started learning the perfect yet, but wrong examples of the use of the imperfect is not the way.
And this is a problem: if students are given incorrect examples of perfect/imperfect distinction, how can they ever master it if they cannot use their own book as a reference point at least at the beginning stages? It is a known thing that the only reliable source in Latin are the Roman authors themselves, but the book should do at least as much as it can not to break their rules.
Otherwise, I guess, a good job!
'Annika: Oh classis mea huius diei tam longa erat, infinita erat. / Astur: Num ita mala erat, Annika? / Annika: Certe, ita erat! Caesar et bella sua erant, omnia de exercitibus suis, pugnis suis, hostiumque suorum exercitibus, vae, aegerrime hoc fero, narrationem omnium harum rerum. / Cordus: Ita obstupefactus sum, Annika. Caesar mirabilis est scriptor et plurimi hominum fabulas eius de bello, pugnis, quomodo exercitus suos duxerit, valde delectantes existimant.'
... that I find it a bit problematic grammar-wise in some (not in all) parts (the lexicon is up to question). The distinction between the perfect and imperfect verb tense in the verb 'to be' is surely for many non-Romance speakers one of the most difficult one, but, once understood, quite clear.
But here I find it ('erat'/'erant') in most cases used wrongly or at least questionably and to be substituted for 'fuit/fuerunt'. 'Erat/erant' can be also argued for even in these sentences (she is describing her state before it was finished) but, in my opinion, they imply a less intuitive context than if there is simply the perfect tense (= it happened).
I understand that the students at that stage have not probably started learning the perfect yet, but wrong examples of the use of the imperfect is not the way.
And this is a problem: if students are given incorrect examples of perfect/imperfect distinction, how can they ever master it if they cannot use their own book as a reference point at least at the beginning stages? It is a known thing that the only reliable source in Latin are the Roman authors themselves, but the book should do at least as much as it can not to break their rules.
Otherwise, I guess, a good job!
I have to concur with Misius. First, the initiative is definitely laudable! I love the idea to teach Latin with engaging conversations, which the students easily can relate to. From what I have seen, they are very well written in this regard. The recordings are excellent too!
However, to be frank, only in the part that Misius cited, I have some issues with the language itself, which taken together would make me reluctant to use the text with my students.
In "Caesar et bella sua erant..." there is indubitably a grammatical error: as you know, "suus" generally is placed in a grammatically dependent phrase/clause and refers back to a subject (I'm glancing over some difficulties here, of course). Thus, you can say, e.g., "Caesar narravit de bellis suis". However, with the conjunction "et", the two conjuncted phrases are on equal foot: "Caesar et bella sua" can only mean something like "Caesar and their own wars", i.e., the wars belonged to the wars themselves: a very strange construction. Here it must be "Caesar et bella eius". (I might also add that I find it odd to use this as a subject -- Caesar and his wars, they "were"... what exactly? I would propose "(Schola) erat/fuit de Caesare et (de) bellis eius".)
I did not understand the meaning of "Ita obstupefactus sum" until I found and read the English translation ("I am so surprised"). With "ita", I would expect some kind of comparison or consecutive clause (ita ... ut); correct me if I'm wrong (which certainly may be the case), but I don't think "ita" can be used in an absolute, strengthening sense like this, except possibly after negations. Consider "valde".
"Plurimi hominum", while not really an error, seems like a calque of the English "most people". But there really is no reason to add "hominum" here. In the classical corpus, "plurimi" alone is common, but not "plurimi hominum". Another possible Anglicism is found in "valde delectantes existimant": I certainly don't want to appear like some kind of self professed arbiter elegantiae, but, personally, I would be wary of using "delectantes" as an adjective like this. (The verb "(me) delectat" can be translated as "is interesting (to me)", but you wouldn't say *"est delectans".)
While I'm at it, from all that I have found about the Latin word "classis", it can only refer to a group of students (them having been "classified" in some way); it is then strange to use it for "lesson", especially as there are far better terms available, such "sessio" (fairly generic term), maybe "(prae)lectio" if applicable, or, my favourite, "schola".
I sincerely hope this does not come across as overly critical: I don't want to rain on the parade, but at the same time, I don't think anyone benefits from ignoring possible problems out of misdirected courtesy. There certainly are many good things about this book, and it is obvious that quite a lot of effort has been put into it.
However, to be frank, only in the part that Misius cited, I have some issues with the language itself, which taken together would make me reluctant to use the text with my students.
In "Caesar et bella sua erant..." there is indubitably a grammatical error: as you know, "suus" generally is placed in a grammatically dependent phrase/clause and refers back to a subject (I'm glancing over some difficulties here, of course). Thus, you can say, e.g., "Caesar narravit de bellis suis". However, with the conjunction "et", the two conjuncted phrases are on equal foot: "Caesar et bella sua" can only mean something like "Caesar and their own wars", i.e., the wars belonged to the wars themselves: a very strange construction. Here it must be "Caesar et bella eius". (I might also add that I find it odd to use this as a subject -- Caesar and his wars, they "were"... what exactly? I would propose "(Schola) erat/fuit de Caesare et (de) bellis eius".)
I did not understand the meaning of "Ita obstupefactus sum" until I found and read the English translation ("I am so surprised"). With "ita", I would expect some kind of comparison or consecutive clause (ita ... ut); correct me if I'm wrong (which certainly may be the case), but I don't think "ita" can be used in an absolute, strengthening sense like this, except possibly after negations. Consider "valde".
"Plurimi hominum", while not really an error, seems like a calque of the English "most people". But there really is no reason to add "hominum" here. In the classical corpus, "plurimi" alone is common, but not "plurimi hominum". Another possible Anglicism is found in "valde delectantes existimant": I certainly don't want to appear like some kind of self professed arbiter elegantiae, but, personally, I would be wary of using "delectantes" as an adjective like this. (The verb "(me) delectat" can be translated as "is interesting (to me)", but you wouldn't say *"est delectans".)
While I'm at it, from all that I have found about the Latin word "classis", it can only refer to a group of students (them having been "classified" in some way); it is then strange to use it for "lesson", especially as there are far better terms available, such "sessio" (fairly generic term), maybe "(prae)lectio" if applicable, or, my favourite, "schola".
I sincerely hope this does not come across as overly critical: I don't want to rain on the parade, but at the same time, I don't think anyone benefits from ignoring possible problems out of misdirected courtesy. There certainly are many good things about this book, and it is obvious that quite a lot of effort has been put into it.
I also had some other issues that Alatius has, but I did not mention all of them:
There are actually cases when 'suus' rather refers to the semantical owner (that a thing cannot own anything, so we do not care that it is a subject and the real owner is not), as we can see in Plautus for example. I personally would use in all those cases 'eius' where the subject is not the owner, but it is problematic to argue that it is used actually wrongly.
'Ita obstupefactus sum' - that also sounded weird to me but then I guessed the meaning and I did not want to be long...
I agree with the rest. I have seen already 'classis' with this super-new meaning, but that, of course, does not make it non-problematic (so it is up to question as I mentioned).
That is interesting, Pacis Puella. I guess it is some stuck phrase coming from some different idea. I wonder about this sentence in Italian or other Romance language.
There are actually cases when 'suus' rather refers to the semantical owner (that a thing cannot own anything, so we do not care that it is a subject and the real owner is not), as we can see in Plautus for example. I personally would use in all those cases 'eius' where the subject is not the owner, but it is problematic to argue that it is used actually wrongly.
'Ita obstupefactus sum' - that also sounded weird to me but then I guessed the meaning and I did not want to be long...
I agree with the rest. I have seen already 'classis' with this super-new meaning, but that, of course, does not make it non-problematic (so it is up to question as I mentioned).
That is interesting, Pacis Puella. I guess it is some stuck phrase coming from some different idea. I wonder about this sentence in Italian or other Romance language.
I'm the creative end and Latin student and I appreciate your encouragement and critiques, though first I have to say this book is written for Americans and standards are different. We're not taught in high school to write in imitation of Cicero. We don't have your great tradition of Latinity.
Now firstly I posted that chapter without giving it my editor (we're going through final edits) so that's on me. As to the usage of the imperfect this is his answer:" Here there is not a "right" answer, it depends on the point of view. When we use imperfect, we put an accent on the duration of the class and of all in it." and here is my co-writer:
"it started to seem that imperfectum is even better here, since one of its functions is to express an action that was going on for a certain time and you can even see it used in classical literature as a stylistic device to emphasize the continuance of action. Here Annika complains about the seemingly endless class and I felt that imperfectum would support this meaning well, something like Vergil’s: „Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem,“ or, from a more personal point of view, Ovid’s description of his last night in Rome: „quocumque aspiceres, luctus gemitusque sonabant, formaque non taciti funeris intus erat.“
Dessesard uses 'classis' in "Le Latin Sans Peine" but no one is obliged to use that word, use 'schola' or 'sessio.' I always intended for the book to be used flexibly to give students the same joy that I had as a student in French, Russian and Italian class. I talk about lattes and movies, Batman, manga, Star Trek and pizza. I would say take what you like from it and use it any way you wish. I just want to give students the confidence to start speaking and to enjoy the experience.
Now firstly I posted that chapter without giving it my editor (we're going through final edits) so that's on me. As to the usage of the imperfect this is his answer:" Here there is not a "right" answer, it depends on the point of view. When we use imperfect, we put an accent on the duration of the class and of all in it." and here is my co-writer:
"it started to seem that imperfectum is even better here, since one of its functions is to express an action that was going on for a certain time and you can even see it used in classical literature as a stylistic device to emphasize the continuance of action. Here Annika complains about the seemingly endless class and I felt that imperfectum would support this meaning well, something like Vergil’s: „Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem,“ or, from a more personal point of view, Ovid’s description of his last night in Rome: „quocumque aspiceres, luctus gemitusque sonabant, formaque non taciti funeris intus erat.“
Dessesard uses 'classis' in "Le Latin Sans Peine" but no one is obliged to use that word, use 'schola' or 'sessio.' I always intended for the book to be used flexibly to give students the same joy that I had as a student in French, Russian and Italian class. I talk about lattes and movies, Batman, manga, Star Trek and pizza. I would say take what you like from it and use it any way you wish. I just want to give students the confidence to start speaking and to enjoy the experience.
Every Latin that is still called Latin and which is not a continuation of the genuine vulgar Latin (for example) or a pre-classical Latin is in its dead stage either direct or indirect continuation of the 'codification' set in the time of Cicero (and we often say that by him, not because he would have done that consciously but because he is the one who we retained the most works of prose from). An indirect continuation is using as your reference point a later author who did not consciously use exactly the spoken-living form of the language, who himself used the classical standard (or sometimes called Ciceronian) as a reference or several chains of authors where ultimately in the end of the chain is an inspiration in and a continuation of the literary dialect of the classical era (usually from writings of Varro or Cicero when it comes to prose: the bigger portion of Varro is lost).
Even by using the Latin endings that you use you consciously take part in what we call the literary Latin - a Latin that we use as a dead language. Saying that you use and write in Latin (which unmistakably looks like the literary Latin/the classical Latin also used by Cicero) but that it is not fact the classical Latin, the Latin of Cicero, is in 99% a false argument and very often used as an excuse for not knowing and not using certain given rules.
The usage of perfect and imperfect has absolutely nothing to do with your point of view: the aspect/aktionstart has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect - but in Latin they are tenses, not aspects (and I repeat: they are not aspects)
There is a set of definite rules for the usage of perfect and imperfect, many times it is purely syntactic, it is independent on the writer's point of view and saying otherwise usually means, unfortunately, not sufficient familiarity with these rules. But why should I be here defending it: you can open any respectable grammar book of Latin and read it yourself, you do not have put your trust in me or anybody else at this forum. Or try to search in the corpus of Roman Latin (you can do that for free using the internet) and try to argue that 'here in this point the author could have used perfect but actually used imperfect because he had a different point of view'. If you cannot do that or otherwise backup your claims, then I would advise not using this argument anymore.
The sentence from Vergil, you argued with, means something different: the City was not founded yet at the point of the utterance, they were founding it or about to found it, it is 'giving a sigh' that the founding will not go easily. Here you cannot use the perfect without changing completely the course of the story and jumping to the end. The imperfect there follows the rules and it is not there because Vergil felt like 'putting emphasis on the duration'. It is a different case than in your own sentences (unless you also refer to the state where she was still sitting at the class which I called a less intuitive context/interpretation in such conversation).
The other thing is, of course, that arguing for prose with poets has very little validity on itself. (Here you would have done actually much better with Cicero, no matter how much you dislike him) But even Vergil confirms here what we know from the grammar and what we would expect in the actual language.
In the second sentence you of course have to use the imperfect too and there is no other choice... (and I hope I do not have to explain why).
Again: let us not mistake the two Latin past tenses with the aspect/aktionstart.
I guess that you did not expect any negative criticism at this place, but, as it seems, the forum is not just a free advertising platform, since this source is not for free and in need of publicity: I dare to say that the thread survived because it happened to be grammatically 'interesting' and someone would have eventually brought this up elsewhere.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that the book/the recordings (I have not checked them yet) are an interesting and maybe innovative idea.
Even by using the Latin endings that you use you consciously take part in what we call the literary Latin - a Latin that we use as a dead language. Saying that you use and write in Latin (which unmistakably looks like the literary Latin/the classical Latin also used by Cicero) but that it is not fact the classical Latin, the Latin of Cicero, is in 99% a false argument and very often used as an excuse for not knowing and not using certain given rules.
The usage of perfect and imperfect has absolutely nothing to do with your point of view: the aspect/aktionstart has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect - but in Latin they are tenses, not aspects (and I repeat: they are not aspects)
There is a set of definite rules for the usage of perfect and imperfect, many times it is purely syntactic, it is independent on the writer's point of view and saying otherwise usually means, unfortunately, not sufficient familiarity with these rules. But why should I be here defending it: you can open any respectable grammar book of Latin and read it yourself, you do not have put your trust in me or anybody else at this forum. Or try to search in the corpus of Roman Latin (you can do that for free using the internet) and try to argue that 'here in this point the author could have used perfect but actually used imperfect because he had a different point of view'. If you cannot do that or otherwise backup your claims, then I would advise not using this argument anymore.
The sentence from Vergil, you argued with, means something different: the City was not founded yet at the point of the utterance, they were founding it or about to found it, it is 'giving a sigh' that the founding will not go easily. Here you cannot use the perfect without changing completely the course of the story and jumping to the end. The imperfect there follows the rules and it is not there because Vergil felt like 'putting emphasis on the duration'. It is a different case than in your own sentences (unless you also refer to the state where she was still sitting at the class which I called a less intuitive context/interpretation in such conversation).
The other thing is, of course, that arguing for prose with poets has very little validity on itself. (Here you would have done actually much better with Cicero, no matter how much you dislike him) But even Vergil confirms here what we know from the grammar and what we would expect in the actual language.
In the second sentence you of course have to use the imperfect too and there is no other choice... (and I hope I do not have to explain why).
Again: let us not mistake the two Latin past tenses with the aspect/aktionstart.
I guess that you did not expect any negative criticism at this place, but, as it seems, the forum is not just a free advertising platform, since this source is not for free and in need of publicity: I dare to say that the thread survived because it happened to be grammatically 'interesting' and someone would have eventually brought this up elsewhere.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that the book/the recordings (I have not checked them yet) are an interesting and maybe innovative idea.
Sorry I just looked for my list of vocabulary from Dessesard and I can't find it. It might have come from Smith's Smith's has for 'classis': they had arranged the boys in classes : "pueros in classes distribuerant" Quintilian; to be at the top of a class: c. ducere, Quintilian. Smith's has 'schola' tentatively for schoolroom Traupman has 'classis' for class. My editor is being very strict with me so I am not sure if he will keep it or not.
I want to thank everyone here so much for their helpful critique! as my editor (alumnus of Accademia Vivarium Novum) was very strict and completely rewrote the dialogues. I think now the book is also suitable for Europeans. It's now available here. http://voxromana.org
Met some guy from there today in some Latin site. How little the world is.
It is a tiny world, Laurenti, I really like that about Latin. Though now I live in the US I have friends all over the world ( sadly my co-writer and I had to part as she was just too busy and couldn't redo the dialogues and sound files. My editor did).
Good luck for the book anyway. 
This is a very late response, but as I missed it before I'll go ahead and make a correction.
No, Alatius was right, and there is nothing problematic in what he said: suus is definitely used wrongly here, unless you're willing to accept (very) late Latin or medieval Latin standards of grammar. While it's true that the antecedent of suus doesn't have to be to the subject of the sentence in every case, under no circumstances is it permitted to be either another noun that's coordinated with the noun suus modifies or a noun in a separate coordinate clause from the modified noun. It can, in certain circumstances, refer back to a noun in a clause separate from its own if its own clause is subordinate to that one (especially indirect discourse AcI clauses and final clauses/jussive noun clauses).