ginlindzey

The Latin 3's have hit a point of frustration so I'm taking this four day week (we had a holiday on Monday) to back up and review and get a bigger picture of what we are doing.

On their last test over stages 36-37 (Martial, present subjunctives, indirect discourse with present tense main verbs using present and perfect infinitives) there were many seriously low grades. However, what they missed were things they should know, like cases that were OBVIOUS if not because of actual endings then because of patterns and placement. Clearly they are missing these vital clues--those of context, those of word order--and combined with this class's weakness in endings has meant a disastrous result. And I refuse to accept that this is just the way things are this year. I don't believe you have some years where you have smart kids and some you don't; I think you have some years with students who learn in traditional ways and some years where traditional methods don't work. And you know what? I LIKE THAT. It forces ME to be more creative and to examine and reexamine what I do and how I teach and whether it's good enough. (haha--never is.)

I have been thinking a lot about sentence patterns. There are basic patterns that recur and recur both in the textbook and then again in Vergil. I know some teachers hate that CLC starts out with the same sentence pattern so that students can guess at meanings instead of needing to put meaning together based on whether they know their endings or not. I have always reinforced endings via metaphrasing (see previous entries for more on metaphrasing). But sometimes, when sentences get really long, students lose sight of sentence patterns.

And let's face it: there are certain patterns that create expectations, and it's these expectations that allow us to toss aside improbably cases and reach for the more logical ones that fulfill those expectations for completing a thought.

In the ACTFL guideline for language proficiencies which I was reading earlier today, they say this about the "Advanced" level of reading (this is on page 22).

"At the Advanced level, readers can understand the main idea and supporting details of authentic narrative and descriptive texts. Readers are able to compensate for limitations in their lexical and structural knowledge by using contextual clues. Comprehension is likewise supported by knowledge of the conventions of the language (e.g. noun/adjective agreement, verb placement, etc.). When familiar with the subject matter, Advanced-level readers are also able to derive some meaning from straightforward argumentative texts (e.g., recognizing the main argument)."

Consider what it says about an Intermediate level reader (from page 23),

"At the Intermediate level, readers can understand information conveyed in simple, predictable, loosely connected texts. Readers rely heavily on contextual clues. They can most easily understand information if the format of the text is familiar, such as in a weather report or social announcement. Intermediate-level readers are able to understand texts that convey basic information such as that found in announcements, notices and online bulletin boards and forums. These texts are not complex and have a predictable pattern of presentation. The discourse is minimally connected and primarily organized in individual sentences and strings of sentences containing predominantly high-frequency vocabulary."

Wow. See, our students never (rarely) get that unless we generate it. That is. from time to time I do converse in Latin with them on Facebook (or of course in class), but nothing extensive. But I think the more important thing to recognize here is that we basically aim to take our students straight up to the advanced level with little stop for appreciation or even proficiency at the intermediate level. Also consider that when we read a text, more often than not we are demanding our students to understand most everything on the page. To do less is to be a sloppy Latin teacher, or so it seems. Drill those forms! Know those endings! Write those charts! DECODE that sentence! (But is that treating Latin like a language??)

There is that added issue that the "smart" students want to know it all and understand it all; the ones that are guessing are rarely making educated guesses based on context. They are just guessing because they didn't study and are apathetic.

In that paragraph on Advanced level readers, we are to understand that students are "able to compensate for limitations in their lexical and structural knowledge by using contextual clues." How many of us expressly teach this? I know I try to. "Comprehension is likewise supported by knowledge of the conventions of the language (e.g. noun/adjective agreement, verb placement, etc.)." This is where sentence patterns come in.

When sentences become longer, filled with participial phrases and a myriad of subjunctive clauses, not to mention appositives and other things that fatten out a sentence, students start to crumble. Too many endings, too many possibilities. I expressly teach reading in word order and letting the sentence unfold, but that's not enough. Not this year. Perhaps not in the past as well.

So anyway. The Latin 3's did poorly on the last test, as I said, so I took a passage from Stage 36 (more poetry) and another from Stage 37 (more prose) and made a handout where I copied each sentence separately and placed them under subsections of the various cases. Sentences with expressed nominatives were under the section for Nominatives and the words that were in the nominative were in all caps. Sentences with expressed accusatives were under the section for Accusatives, etc etc. I did this for each case. And then we started looking at sentence patterns. Here were the patterns we focused on to start with:

Nom + est + Nom (what we call "Est takes the twin noms" and draw a stick figure, Est, with girls, Noms, on each arm)
(Nom) + PP + V (pp=prepositional phrase)
(Nom) + ACC + V
(Nom) + Dat + Acc + V
(Nom) + Dat + V* (special verbs)

The first sentence we looked at was "in auditorio exspectant MULTI CIVES." Immediately we are in a different pattern, or are we? (PP + V + Nom) This led to a discussion about emphasis and that sometimes the very end of a sentence added extra emphasis. We also looked at "eum sequebatur EPAPHRODITUS, epistulam manu TENENS." If we ignore the partiple and its dependents for a moment, we have ACC + V + Nom. This time I pointed out that Romans liked to write in the order in which things happened. (Dexter Hoyos makes a great argument for this in his book, _Latin: How to Read it Fluently_.) Domitian (eum) was followed into the room by Epaphroditus, who is holding the letter, which will be the next thing to focus on. In fact, not only the order in which things happened (or are happening), but also in importance in society. But I digress.

Once we got past these, and started racing through more, we started seeing our old patterns in their old forms, such as these:
* OMNES inter se colloquuntur. (Nom + PP + V)
* COMPLURES AUDITORES se convertunt ut Sabidium, QUI in ultimo sellarum ordine sedet, spectent. >>
- COMPLURES AUDITORES se convertunt (Nom + Acc + V)
- ut Sabidium, ..., spectent. (Acc + V)
-QUI in ultimo sellarum ordine sedet (Nom + PP + V)
* EGO POETA sum, TU tantum AUDITOR. (Nom + est + Nom) -- (es understood for the 2nd set of words)

I told them the most common NOMINATIVE word misidentified on tests was truly a NOM plus a form of est. And I must admit that I felt totally rewarded when at the end of class many responded VERY positively, that we should have more days like this, etc etc. That was yesterday.

Today we were looking at Accusatives. I reminded them of the patterns we've seen with Accusatives:

(Nom) + Acc + V
(Nom) + Dat + Acc + V
preposition + acc (sometimes the obvious escapes them!)
Noun + Acc + Participle (present ACtive or perfect ACtive)
Acc + V + Nom (the pattern we had noticed yesterday--see above)

Then we looked some sentences, including these:

*auditoribus plaudentibus, Martialis SCAENAM ascendit ut VERSUS SUOS recitet. [ignore the abl. abs.] (Nom + Acc + V) + (Acc + V)
* primum recitare volo VERSUS QUOSDAM nuper de Sabidio COMPOSITOS. (V + Acc)

We took a moment here to discuss Nouns and their Participles and the stuff nested in between. We spend a great deal of focus in Latin 2 and Latin 3 metaphrasing whole participial phrases, treating them as a whole, so my saying that this was just Verb plus Accusative and that I was considering even the nested adverb and prep phrase part of that accusative was not a problem for them. (Well, no one acted surprised so I assume that they tracked that without question.)

*HOC tantum possum dicere - non amo TE. (Acc + V) (V + Acc)
*EMPTOS haec habet, illa SUOS (Acc + Nom + V + Nom + Acc)

After these two we discussed how Latin poetry and even prose sentences like this mirror-image word order. A couple of students commented on how cool this was. From here we turned to stage 37 sentences. First we looked at this sentence again:

* EUM sequebatur Epaphroditus, EPISTULAM manu tenens. (Acc + V + Nom) (noun + ACC + participle)

I emphasized the accusative with present active and perfect active participles, pointing out that we should almost expect accusatives here--and that when I target a word in the accusative to be grammatically identified on a test, it is often one in this position--predictable because of the present active participle, plus, you know, it has an ACCUSATIVE ending! (ahem.)

* in hac epistula Agricola nuntiat EXERCITUM ROMANUM ad ULTIMAS PARTES Britanniae pervenisse.... (PP + Nom + Verb of the Head + ACC + INF)

We stopped here an added this new pattern, one we had indeed been discussing in recent weeks but had yet to add to the day's pattern list:

VoH + ACC (+ACC) + Inf.

(VoH = verb of the head = speaking, seeing, understanding, thinking, etc setting up the indirect statement)

We discussed that because of the use of 2 accusatives that the first will be the subject, the second the direct object. We talked about how despite what they might think, the Romans wrote in a way that could be understood to the reader or listener, and would not purposefully write something that when read IN WORD ORDER could be easily misconstrued. We followed that with this sentence which demonstrated the two accusatives:

* cognovimus, domine, CN. IULIUM AGRICOLAM CALEDONIOS tandem superavisse. (VoH + ACC + ACC + INF)

Tomorrow, we'll look at Datives, Ablatives, and Genitives. This has been good. Students who I thought love me and just tolerated Latin are suddenly expressing understanding and interest. THIS IS GOOD. THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT. And their feedback helps me consider what they need and how I can be a better teacher.