![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So there was a discussion on the classics list regarding whether a textbook should include an explanation of when you use which and when you use that. Below is my two denarii on the subject:
****
I have read this thread with interest, esp since I noticed that my sole AP student (which I inherited from another school during a midyear transfer), used "that" in a translation the other day. Since I doubted whether he truly understood the difference between which and that I confess I told him to remember that AP is so literal to switch it to which. Now, admittedly, that was lame, but considering he's in a class that also consists of 17 Latin 2's and 8 Latin 3's, I didn't exactly have time for a lengthy discussion of that vs which.
But with all that being said, I think it is worth mentioning the distinction and it can be up to the teacher and/or student about whether to use the information. Better to have the information and decide to break a rule than to be ignorant. I definitely remember when a English prof went on a which-hunt on one of my drafts and my being stunned that no one had explained that vs which to me before.
I have always found relative clauses tricky to teach; the sharpest kids understand the whole concept of the antecedent providing gender and number, while the use in the clause providing case, but in general I find students have a very difficult time, say, choosing the correct form of a pronoun to complete a sentence correctly. But more important than picking the right pronoun is comprehending the relative pronoun accurately when reading.
I think the *real* question is whether there was any expression of restrictive vs non-restrictive IN LATIN. We are supposed to be teaching students how to read Latin, with improving English skills as merely a side benefit. There are many constructions in Latin that don't have a smooth and easy equivalent in English. Consider William Harris's article, "Latin...Why Study It at All" http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/whylatin.html).
Should we not be more concerned with teaching our students how to THINK LIKE A ROMAN, than to translate with perfect English? By all means, provide information for translating appropriately, but shouldn't we focus more on getting into the "Roman head"? If we don't, will we ever get beyond "read 60 lines for the next class" and really read with depth and length? Wouldn't you like larger upper division classes, or are you happy with the way we weed out students by only advancing the best decoders, not letting the rest know that you can learn to read in word order and thus read with better comprehension and less stress (and thus able to cover more lines)?
For instance, ablative absolutes sound so clumsy in English, and students hate them because they are difficult to translate. But if you get BEYOND the need to translate and focus on the need to READ and READ LOTS, then ablative absolutes become nifty, compact little constructions. I like them.
They are great connectors, as are those pesky relative pronouns that will start a sentence for seemingly no reason. Surely if we focus more on how to UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND these as a Roman would, a more flowing, natural translation will eventually follow.
BTW, I've never read anything from Prof Harris's site that I haven't liked.
They are thought-provoking articles that students should be shown.
****
I have read this thread with interest, esp since I noticed that my sole AP student (which I inherited from another school during a midyear transfer), used "that" in a translation the other day. Since I doubted whether he truly understood the difference between which and that I confess I told him to remember that AP is so literal to switch it to which. Now, admittedly, that was lame, but considering he's in a class that also consists of 17 Latin 2's and 8 Latin 3's, I didn't exactly have time for a lengthy discussion of that vs which.
But with all that being said, I think it is worth mentioning the distinction and it can be up to the teacher and/or student about whether to use the information. Better to have the information and decide to break a rule than to be ignorant. I definitely remember when a English prof went on a which-hunt on one of my drafts and my being stunned that no one had explained that vs which to me before.
I have always found relative clauses tricky to teach; the sharpest kids understand the whole concept of the antecedent providing gender and number, while the use in the clause providing case, but in general I find students have a very difficult time, say, choosing the correct form of a pronoun to complete a sentence correctly. But more important than picking the right pronoun is comprehending the relative pronoun accurately when reading.
I think the *real* question is whether there was any expression of restrictive vs non-restrictive IN LATIN. We are supposed to be teaching students how to read Latin, with improving English skills as merely a side benefit. There are many constructions in Latin that don't have a smooth and easy equivalent in English. Consider William Harris's article, "Latin...Why Study It at All" http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/whylatin.html).
Should we not be more concerned with teaching our students how to THINK LIKE A ROMAN, than to translate with perfect English? By all means, provide information for translating appropriately, but shouldn't we focus more on getting into the "Roman head"? If we don't, will we ever get beyond "read 60 lines for the next class" and really read with depth and length? Wouldn't you like larger upper division classes, or are you happy with the way we weed out students by only advancing the best decoders, not letting the rest know that you can learn to read in word order and thus read with better comprehension and less stress (and thus able to cover more lines)?
For instance, ablative absolutes sound so clumsy in English, and students hate them because they are difficult to translate. But if you get BEYOND the need to translate and focus on the need to READ and READ LOTS, then ablative absolutes become nifty, compact little constructions. I like them.
They are great connectors, as are those pesky relative pronouns that will start a sentence for seemingly no reason. Surely if we focus more on how to UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND these as a Roman would, a more flowing, natural translation will eventually follow.
BTW, I've never read anything from Prof Harris's site that I haven't liked.
They are thought-provoking articles that students should be shown.
Wonderful comments
Date: 2006-10-26 11:42 am (UTC)relative clauses restrictive vs nonres in Latin
Date: 2006-10-28 07:49 pm (UTC)ken
Re: relative clauses restrictive vs nonres in Latin
Date: 2006-10-28 08:11 pm (UTC)