![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was mildly taken to task for my pro-ancients stance in my notes to Latinteach/previous blog entry. What about those who enjoy learning more about English? Grammar, derivatives, etc?? What about people who take Latin for those reasons??
Well...I probably stuck with Latin to begin with for all of those reasons. I liked finally understanding who/whom. Once I really started paying attention to derivatives, I liked that too. I liked morphology. I liked the secret code aspect.
I HATED TO READ. Ok, maybe not hate, but I never felt inspired about it. Which was ok, because I never felt that inspired to read things in English when I was in school. Oh sure, I was a good little student, but I wasn't doing a lot of reading for pleasure--certainly not like I do now. I mean, now I have two or three books going: I'm rereading Course of Honor (Lindsey Davis), reading a bit of Cicero in translation, reading Lingua Latina (in Latin), and I have an article somewhere I wanted to read about creativity being a habit of the mind.
When I was younger, I wasn't that interested. I was usually doing creative stuff. I did some calligraphy; I played piano (not that well, but well enough to enjoy it myself); I rode my bike all over San Antonio. But I didn't have my nose in a novel all that often. Short stories, maybe. Scripts maybe as well. But nothing long.
And here was all this Latin to read. Except that we weren't reading Latin, we were decoding it or translating it. We were NOT reading it.
So I clung to what I liked because I didn't know there was anything else to like.
And I fear we have a generation or two of Latin teachers who probably were probably not much different in their approach toward Latin. I know colleagues that don't want to teach advanced Latin because they are no longer comfortable with it, if they ever were. Oh sure, if they had hours of free time like they had in college to translate every single word, carefully parsed, into English. But we're all adults now with frantic lives, for the most part. Ok, mine is, that's for sure.
So we have people who stick to this love of Latin for its side benefits of helping English. And I can't help but wonder if this is because they never got to where they could really ENJOY *READING* Latin? I'm not there yet. Hey, I'll be very honest about that. I can't just sit down and easily and comfortably read any Latin author. Oh, I read Martial in small doses, but in a Loeb. (Mind you, I noted one that I'm sure is translated wrong--probably artistic license--but I wouldn't translate it that way.) Reading...who gets to a point with a BA in Latin who can read with comfort? Who has been taught explicit reading skills for Latin? Oh, I suppose the people at U of Michigan are teaching it, but I haven't seen anything of the sort at my alma mater, but then what do I really know?
I know this. I know if we taught Latin at least with a goal of learning to read from left to right, learning to read sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, page by page, and not word by word, stopping to grab a dictionary the first time we see something new, we might develop readers. I know if we could figure out how to get students writing sooner as opposed to doing exercises and forms we might also build up more linguistic confidence.
There might be all sorts of side benefits from Latin, but the ONLY WAY we can really sell a DEAD LANGUAGE (and no one get their knickers in a twist because I've called it dead!) is if we talk about the importance of communicating to those who are dead as well. The wisdom of the ancients shouldn't come in sound bites that can be printed on posters. The secrets of true communication shouldn't be revealed (or attempted to be revealed) through translations.
And as long as we're teaching our students to do no more than 10-20 lines of independent reading at a go, we'll never do more than teach sound bites.
With luck I'll be at a new school next year. I might even have to teach out of a textbook different from Cambridge. One thing I know, I have to do things differently myself. I can't just talk the talk. If I want students to write more, I have to figure out how to make that more doable for them and still gradable for me. I want to do a reading log, in Latin. Not sure how. Now sure how to grade. Not sure of anything.
I do know we do ourselves no favors by not facing these issues honestly. If the goal of a French class is to ultimately get a student to a point of fluency that would allow him or her to function in France--to read newspapers, literature, hold conversations, and write--then we need to consider similar.
I haven't read much Cicero. Suddenly I'm interested. Can you imagine writing letters to Cicero? Why not? You could pretend to reply to one of his letters taking on the persona of the person he wrote to. How about discussing some philosophical thread in Latin? Picking apart a defense in Latin?
Oh, I don't know. I suppose I'm rambling now.
I do know this: we can't settle for the same. I want my students to be SIGNIFICANTLY SUPERIOR Latin students compared to what I was. I want them to feel able to take more than one Latin course per semester at college. I want them to learn how to READ READ READ.
And then let them be whatever they want after that. Doctors, lawyers, politicians, graphic design artists. But let them form a PROPER opinion of what Latin is about, not that it's only for SAT scores and English skills. Otherwise, guess what? We LOSE all the arguments for keeping Latin. Because SAT scores and English skills can be had elsewhere.
But learning how to READ the language and communicate with those from centuries gone by who want and need to speak, THAT is our argument.
Well...I probably stuck with Latin to begin with for all of those reasons. I liked finally understanding who/whom. Once I really started paying attention to derivatives, I liked that too. I liked morphology. I liked the secret code aspect.
I HATED TO READ. Ok, maybe not hate, but I never felt inspired about it. Which was ok, because I never felt that inspired to read things in English when I was in school. Oh sure, I was a good little student, but I wasn't doing a lot of reading for pleasure--certainly not like I do now. I mean, now I have two or three books going: I'm rereading Course of Honor (Lindsey Davis), reading a bit of Cicero in translation, reading Lingua Latina (in Latin), and I have an article somewhere I wanted to read about creativity being a habit of the mind.
When I was younger, I wasn't that interested. I was usually doing creative stuff. I did some calligraphy; I played piano (not that well, but well enough to enjoy it myself); I rode my bike all over San Antonio. But I didn't have my nose in a novel all that often. Short stories, maybe. Scripts maybe as well. But nothing long.
And here was all this Latin to read. Except that we weren't reading Latin, we were decoding it or translating it. We were NOT reading it.
So I clung to what I liked because I didn't know there was anything else to like.
And I fear we have a generation or two of Latin teachers who probably were probably not much different in their approach toward Latin. I know colleagues that don't want to teach advanced Latin because they are no longer comfortable with it, if they ever were. Oh sure, if they had hours of free time like they had in college to translate every single word, carefully parsed, into English. But we're all adults now with frantic lives, for the most part. Ok, mine is, that's for sure.
So we have people who stick to this love of Latin for its side benefits of helping English. And I can't help but wonder if this is because they never got to where they could really ENJOY *READING* Latin? I'm not there yet. Hey, I'll be very honest about that. I can't just sit down and easily and comfortably read any Latin author. Oh, I read Martial in small doses, but in a Loeb. (Mind you, I noted one that I'm sure is translated wrong--probably artistic license--but I wouldn't translate it that way.) Reading...who gets to a point with a BA in Latin who can read with comfort? Who has been taught explicit reading skills for Latin? Oh, I suppose the people at U of Michigan are teaching it, but I haven't seen anything of the sort at my alma mater, but then what do I really know?
I know this. I know if we taught Latin at least with a goal of learning to read from left to right, learning to read sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, page by page, and not word by word, stopping to grab a dictionary the first time we see something new, we might develop readers. I know if we could figure out how to get students writing sooner as opposed to doing exercises and forms we might also build up more linguistic confidence.
There might be all sorts of side benefits from Latin, but the ONLY WAY we can really sell a DEAD LANGUAGE (and no one get their knickers in a twist because I've called it dead!) is if we talk about the importance of communicating to those who are dead as well. The wisdom of the ancients shouldn't come in sound bites that can be printed on posters. The secrets of true communication shouldn't be revealed (or attempted to be revealed) through translations.
And as long as we're teaching our students to do no more than 10-20 lines of independent reading at a go, we'll never do more than teach sound bites.
With luck I'll be at a new school next year. I might even have to teach out of a textbook different from Cambridge. One thing I know, I have to do things differently myself. I can't just talk the talk. If I want students to write more, I have to figure out how to make that more doable for them and still gradable for me. I want to do a reading log, in Latin. Not sure how. Now sure how to grade. Not sure of anything.
I do know we do ourselves no favors by not facing these issues honestly. If the goal of a French class is to ultimately get a student to a point of fluency that would allow him or her to function in France--to read newspapers, literature, hold conversations, and write--then we need to consider similar.
I haven't read much Cicero. Suddenly I'm interested. Can you imagine writing letters to Cicero? Why not? You could pretend to reply to one of his letters taking on the persona of the person he wrote to. How about discussing some philosophical thread in Latin? Picking apart a defense in Latin?
Oh, I don't know. I suppose I'm rambling now.
I do know this: we can't settle for the same. I want my students to be SIGNIFICANTLY SUPERIOR Latin students compared to what I was. I want them to feel able to take more than one Latin course per semester at college. I want them to learn how to READ READ READ.
And then let them be whatever they want after that. Doctors, lawyers, politicians, graphic design artists. But let them form a PROPER opinion of what Latin is about, not that it's only for SAT scores and English skills. Otherwise, guess what? We LOSE all the arguments for keeping Latin. Because SAT scores and English skills can be had elsewhere.
But learning how to READ the language and communicate with those from centuries gone by who want and need to speak, THAT is our argument.
Tags:
I'm in total agreement
Date: 2006-06-12 05:51 pm (UTC)That was several years ago. But, having resolved to start reading again about a year ago, I'm getting a little better, despite the hectic life of working parent with family to care for, etc.
I can say that, for myself, the decision to start praying the Roman Breviary in Latin has made the biggest difference. While I'm fairly sure that's not an option for many Latin teachers as a teaching tool, I have found it more accessible, as a reader, than most classical texts.
I'm about to acquire the Bolchazy-published set of Latin readers for the 4-year-old set, in an effort to give our kids a love of reading Latin as they're learning language for the first time.
Re: I'm in total agreement
Date: 2006-06-12 06:29 pm (UTC)I particularly like the animal book. But really, even these readers aren't quite what they should be, but it's a decent step forward.
How we promote Latin
Date: 2006-06-13 08:25 pm (UTC)My knickers -- or underpants -- are strangling me!
I fear that we sell Latin short if we treat it as merely a classical language. Yes, of course you are right, because it was used in ancient times and produced some magnificent stuff that, due to the efforts of the rich and highly educated and powerful, we are lucky still to have. Unfortunately much of it is a bit too sophisticated for other than our most studious students. Moreover, it has to compete with selected matter in other languages that is less sophisticated and more directed to their ability and prior knowledge.
You can sell Latin short also by stressing the reading aspect. But, then, it could be that I am misreading you, and you would also have Latin declaimed, so that students can not only passively read Virgil and Cicero, but also hear and even feel the crash of sword on armour and the sarcasm directed against Antony.
However, more Latin has been written since the Romans than by them. I hope that noone would not wish to deprive our students of the fun of Erasmus' 'Colloquies', for only one example. Students could profitably write -- and act -- their own colloquies for practice and fun, not as Romans but as themselves or their contemporaries. Whilst Livy and Tacitus are our main sources for ancient history, Bede is a prime source for Mediaeval times. Diego Valadés and other 16th century commentators provide a live record of the "conquest" of South America.
That is before I in turn risk distorting your underwear by drawing attention to the amount of Latin spoken and written today, and mainly outside the Church. Let that be another story.
However much one feels inclined to include or exclude in Latin studies, how right you are that we need to sell or market the result, with all the fortunate and unfortunate overtones in those last words. I have only just heard of a reference in the context of tennis to the four P's -- product, placement, promotion and price -- each of which we need closely to establish and define. We are aware of how far the media brainwash these days: why should the Devil have all the best tunes?
Re: How we promote Latin
Date: 2006-06-13 11:06 pm (UTC)If we lived in an ideal world where we could design Latin programs to be whatever we want them to be, then heck I'd have students reading lots of Vives and playing cards and reenacting 16th century dialogs or reading about Columbus's Voyage to the New World. My point is that we don't in most cases. Most cases we have our curriculum dictated to us, often ending with AP Vergil or Cicero.
And that being the case, we shortchange our programs by selling Latin's secondary values: improved English skills and verbals on SATs and whatnot. And I think there are probably more than a few teachers who teach Latin solely for those reasons who would rather not have to teach upper division classes because their own Latin was never that good, or isn't that good anymore.
I know teachers that water down their courses and make it nothing more than vocabulary and Junior Classical League events, and maybe do some independent student with their brightest students.
I know teachers that use only crossword puzzles to teach, yea verily to teach Vergil!
People who are my age (41) who took Latin when I did are mainly the types who can say, amo amas amat and puella puellae puellae and not much more. They might remember JCL events fondly and perhaps they do write better English and have a broader vocabulary. But it wouldn't matter what passage of Latin you put in front of them, whether it was Caesar or Eutropius or Vulgate. They didn't LEARN TO READ from left to right, develop any sense of fluency, etc, and thus they can't begin to approach a passage in the right way.
Heck, I'd love to do a King Arthur in early British history as recorded by Bede and Geoffrey of Monmouth. Maybe I will do that one day. BUt it wouldn't be to translate or decode. It would be TO READ. Better yet, to discuss in Latin.
And do we really have that many students who are incapable? I think the real problem is that too many teachers do not understand where the disconnects happen with Latin. THey don't understand that when they have a student memorize morphological forms they tapping the lowest level of cognitive ability. Same with memorizing vocabulary. And the same teachers, when faced with students who know their forms but can't translate a passage in front of them, just assume that the student is stupid or just not up to the challenge of Latin. It never occurs to them that they are requiring students to jump from knowledge level skills (on Bloom's Taxonomy) to higher level skills of analysis and synthesis, without ever stretching them with midrange cognitive skills or walking them through the analysis steps that the brains in the class are doing automatically.
I fully believe that ANYONE can learn Latin, if the teacher knows what he/she is doing.
I want to teach students how to read so they can pick up Erasmus, Bede, Monmouth, Eutropius, Vives--WHOMEVER--and enjoy these authors as AUTHORS, not persons writing in a secret code.
So we need to talk about why we really learn Latin--to communicate with those who spoke the language, whether they be ancient or medieval or Renaissance or whatever. And if we teach Latin so that only a handful of those who enter Latin 1 will ever learn enough to "communicate" then we are blowing our jobs. Our jobs should not be about teaching word power unless the course is explicitly about teaching word power. Our jobs should be about teaching LATIN, THE LANGUAGE.
Scratch "ancients" in my argument. Focus on the COMMUNICATE part.