|
 |
Dead Languages & Polyglottery | ||
Tags: Sanskrit | Polyglottery | Romance Languages | Dead Languages | Alexander Arguelles | Greek | Latin | Reading | Grammar | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Polyglots |  | |
| Sinfonia Senior Member Wales Joined 6745 days ago 255 posts - 261 votes  Speaks: English* | Message 17 of 115 08 July 2006 at 6:39am | IP Logged | ||
Given what you already know, I'd say that Latin would be much more straightforward. On the other hand, I think you can take what Ardaschir says with a pinch of salt; it's patently absurd to claim that "a knowledge of ancestral "dead" languages such as Latin, Old Norse, or Sanskrit is an integral and essential ingredient of polyglottery". If you're interested in medieval culture, then by all means. Otherwise, my advice would be the opposite of Ardaschir's: concentrate on the descendants of those languages. After all, a knowledge of modern Icelandic will help you read the Old Norse Edda. A knowledge of modern Welsh will allow you to tackle Dafydd ap Gwilym. Learn modern Sardinian and Cicero will be fairly easy. A knowledge of modern Bulgarian (or even Russian) lets you understand quite a lot of Old Church Slavonic. And so on! 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Captain Haddock Diglot Senior Member Japan kanjicabinet.tumblr. Joined 6769 days ago 2282 posts - 2814 votes Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: French, Korean, Ancient Greek | Message 18 of 115 08 July 2006 at 6:59am | IP Logged | ||
|
My own subjective impressions:
Ancient Greek pros: unique Indo-European branch; really old; gives you access to ancient philosophical writings, epics, and Scriptures. Latin pros: sounds really cool when spoken; assists in learning any Romance language; gives access to a wealth of Medieval literature; has some relevance even today in science and religion. I think Old Norse would be neat as well. Edited by Captain Haddock on 08 July 2006 at 10:11am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Tjerk Bilingual Pentaglot Groupie Belgium Joined 6758 days ago 54 posts - 59 votes Speaks: Dutch*, Flemish*, English, Spanish, French Studies: Swedish | Message 19 of 115 08 July 2006 at 8:36am | IP Logged | ||
|
I think Latin is valuable tool. I studied it for four years in high school and it helped me an awful lot to learn English, French and Spanish. It is a very structured language and a must for somebody who loves a rigid grammar, with everything nice sorted up. It also helps to understand better prefixes and roots and helps a lot in seeing the link between languages.
You can learn latin on a very quick schedule. The main reason for this is that it is dead. So no trouble to understand, speak or write it. The sole purpose of latin nowadays is reading. So you only have to study basic vocabulary from Latin to your mother tongue. Accidental harder vocab you don't have to remember. And then you have to study the grammar, but I have to admit : Latin grammar is a jewel. It is so perfect in itself, very hard to use it actively, but facinating to see the magic work. Latin is a very compact language, every word tells a lot due to its different cases. When I studied it, I was twelve years old, and the only foreign language I had a (very small) base in was French, no english yet. We had four hours a week class and already in the second year we read Caesar, third year mythology and fourth year Cicero and Seneca. So I think with your extended base in languages and the fact you master Spanish (together with italian the closest remnant) you can be reading Caesar or Ovidius within two or three months. Cicero, Tacitus and Seneca half a year I would say. Furthermore your knowledge of latin will lead to a better and deeper connected understanding of your roman and Germanic languages. Just a teaser, how much do you already understand: Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appelantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae... (Beginning of Caesar's De Bello Gallico, and as you can imagine a long time favourite in Belgium :-) 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| lady_skywalker Triglot Senior Member Netherlands aspiringpolyglotblog Joined 6891 days ago 909 posts - 942 votes Speaks: Spanish, English*, Mandarin Studies: Japanese, French, Dutch, Italian | Message 20 of 115 11 July 2006 at 5:23am | IP Logged | ||
|
Tjerk, I get the general gist of the passage but I still need a bit of work. :)
And thanks also to everyone else for sharing their thoughts. :) If I did choose to study either Latin or Ancient Greek in future, I'm assuming it would be alright to learn how to read the languages and not bother too much with learning how to compose my own sentences? I have the feeling it would be much easier to acquire a passive understanding of the languages (ie. being able to read it) and don't really have a reason for learning the grammars in such fine detail so as to write in them. Of course, being able to construct some simple sentences in Latin does have a certain geekish charm. :) I suppose Latin would be the best option given my existing background but I find the Ancient Greek culture and mythology far more interesting. My only thought is whether or not I should first learn Modern Greek and understand how that language works before moving on to the ancient form. What would you recommend? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Tjerk Bilingual Pentaglot Groupie Belgium Joined 6758 days ago 54 posts - 59 votes Speaks: Dutch*, Flemish*, English, Spanish, French Studies: Swedish | Message 21 of 115 11 July 2006 at 5:33am | IP Logged | ||
|
I think it's true not to bother too much how to speak, that basic talking you'll get anyway for free. But you still have to know the grammar in some detail, but true, in a passive way. You need to know why a case is used in order to be able to translate it. Latin is a very compact language.
I agree that Greek culture is even more interesting. Ancient Greek is probably a bit harder. I see no reason why you should study the modern version first. As with latin, a read-only approach of ancient greek is gonna be far more quicker then modern greek. I think you should start with the one you're interested most in. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| winters Trilingual Heptaglot Senior Member Italy Joined 7045 days ago 199 posts - 218 votes Speaks: Croatian*, Serbian*, Russian*, English, Italian, Latin, Ancient Greek Studies: Greek, French, Hungarian | Message 22 of 115 11 July 2006 at 3:42pm | IP Logged | ||
Perhaps I can try to answer some of your questions. I attend classical school, where Latin and Ancient Greek are my 'major' subjects. On my own, I also study dead slavic liturgical language, Old Church Slavonic, so I have quite an experience in dead languages for my age. From my experiences, theoretically, Latin is easier. Practically, when you get to translate original texts, it is the opposite - I always understand Greek texts better, and there are a couple of factors that make it easier. Through learning grammar, you will learn how to compose your own sentences. Still, I did not reach the point of being able to write Latin and Greek, or to converse in them, unless I am using simple sentences. I have reached the point of being able to read the texts with relative ease (which are adapted to my level, of course; I am not a trained classicist...yet ;)). My passive knowledge of them is much higher than my active knowledge. I think it always remains that way; after all, the languages are technically no longer spoken. Modern Greek... I have been studying dimothiki for a year now. I had experiences with the Ancient one before I started the Modern one. Actually, I think my way is easier. I think it is easier to learn Modern from Ancient than vice-versa, because you notice the development of the language... You do not notice that development 'backwords' that well, I think. I actually found my knowledge of Ancient Greek to be very helpful when studying the Modern one. You just realise how easier the Modern one is. I think it is better approach than to go from easier to something which is very hard. Only my opinion, though. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| sigiloso Heptaglot Groupie Portugal Joined 6780 days ago 87 posts - 103 votes Speaks: Spanish*, EnglishC2, PortugueseC1, Galician, French, Esperanto, Italian Studies: Russian, Greek | Message 23 of 115 12 July 2006 at 9:21am | IP Logged | ||
With due respect, you haven't understood. What a terrible thing to say. Ardaschir was giving the best of his own experience, together with the experience of earlier polyglots. Mind this is in the polyglots discussion section, where we are supposed to discuss on the nature of and the means to achieve polyglottery, no beginner's section, and when Ardaschir uses the word polyglottery he has in mind the conquest of whole families of around a dozen languages each, something that he knows is possible among other reasons because he has done it himself, I reckon he must be moving today beyond 40. It is not a mere question of languages allowing you to passively understand other languages, naturally this happens in many directions, but Ardaschair was pointing to more insightful factors beyõnd that, in my own words: - development of linguistic intuition, that is, the feeling of how a word should be in, say, Romanian, even before ever having encountered the word - insight and understanding in so a fantastic number of linguistic and cultural phenomena, that it would take someone who know, not me, and big big tomes to explain you mate - creation of "crystalization centers" in your mind around which a host of otherwise unconected information organize and settle in more easily - creation of a network of what I call "nemonic slots" in your mind, you are kinda dying to fill up; example, without me knowing Romanian, the learned word for things connected with rain is bound to be some "pluv- with a Romanian ending which explanation I am bound to know and retain if I know the changes, unless some Slavonic influence, but I would retain better nonetheless, because in my mind would be an exception, you know, one key of memory, finding a sense to a mass of information; while the plain word for rain is bound to be one with the sound changes that I know too, so you learn very quick; if you are aiming only 2-3 naturally forget about this, but do you know how for example hindic languages organize (dead drop cultural heritage, 1 billion speakers soon)? -the mother language is the link which tie them up together; from the other´s you go to the rest sort of blindfolded, or in a ridiculous roundabout -insight and a feel of how languages evolve through history, so insight in Language as a human faculty that you get directly, no in a linguistics handbook -and above all, the pleasure and gratification of knowing things properly, for Christ's sake. Do you want to have a culture or a cultural veneer? When you don't know Latin etc, and you go around pretending you know about language, you end up being the laughing stock of the ones who really know; it has happened to me in uni, without them you are like a half-linguist, an amateurish mumbler. Believe me, it works; a professor I knew went to Sweden knew no Sweedish, and people thought he was lying. Edited by sigiloso on 12 July 2006 at 9:32am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| CaitO'Ceallaigh Triglot Senior Member United States katiekelly.wordpress Joined 6858 days ago 795 posts - 829 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian Studies: Czech, German | Message 24 of 115 12 July 2006 at 2:29pm | IP Logged | ||
I don't know about this. I think you're right, but it's backwards. Sure, I know some Czech and Russian, and when I see Old Church Slavonic, I understand quite a bit. But imagine if I knew Old Church Slavonic. I'd have an even deeper understanding of all Slavic languages. I would assume the same if I knew Latin, which I don't. You know, I'm so glad this thread came up, because I've been thinking about studying Portuguese or Italian next. I couldn't decide, because I'd like to know both, actually. Catalan intrigues me, as well. I'm fascinated by Aragonese as well for some reason. Why, I should just study Latin, and nip all these romance languages in the bud! Thanks to whomever it was who re-opened this thread. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
