|
 |
Is mastering descendents necessary? | ||
Tags: Choosing a Language | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6708 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes  Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 17 of 26 23 May 2013 at 10:56am | IP Logged | |||||
|
When Latin versus its descendants is discussed it is mostly because of the old idea that learning Latin first should make it easier to learn the modern Romance languages. I can't see any evidence for that, and my feeling it that learning for instance Italian will help you more with Spanish, French etc. than learning Latin will. And unless your goal actually is to read the Classic and Medieval texts in their original texts you will have more out of two living languages than one (almost) dead and one living one. After you have learned some modern Romance languages it will however be a splendid idea to learn Latin too to get the overview over the family.
But the question actually was whether you need to learn the descendants too if your goal is to learn the old language. And no, it isn't. I have however bad experiences with learning Latin as a purely passive language, and it would probably be the same with Ancient Greek or other old languages. In the case of Old Greek and Old Norse they have descendants that are so close that knowing respectively French and Icelandic helps to keep the old forms alive even though they only are passive for me - I can still read the Chanson de Roland and La Mort le Roi Artu more than thirty years after my course in Old French without spending much time on the language. But not so with Latin, where even the complete package of all the modern Romance languages wouldn't give you the necessary background to read the Eneid. I suppose it is the same with Greek - at least I can't read Classical Greek yet even though my Modern Greek is progressing nicely (I have bought Harry Potter I in Ancient Greek to help me over this problem). So if you only want to learn Latin and Ancient Greek and Sanskrit and Old Chinese then you should at least try to learn them as more than potential translation exercises. Edited by Iversen on 23 May 2013 at 4:10pm 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| montmorency Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4833 days ago 2371 posts - 3676 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Danish, Welsh | Message 18 of 26 23 May 2013 at 12:43pm | IP Logged | |||||
( Not really relevant to the discussion, but while that is a very interesting paper, I note that: - In dative/accusative, he seems to have forgotten about she - her - I dispute that who - whom is dead - we still use it even in the spoken language, at least in RP English. (some dialects have "youm", but that's different...) - According to my Guide to Old English, OE had 5 cases, the 5th being Instrumental, sometimes replaced by the dative. ) 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6602 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 19 of 26 23 May 2013 at 1:14pm | IP Logged | |||||
Also, Old Church Slavonic is basically old Bulgarian. I do see things in Croatian that I know from prayers (as a Russian Orthodox), but that's also Croatian being conservative I think. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Γρηγόρη Tetraglot Groupie United States Joined 4460 days ago 55 posts - 154 votes Speaks: English*, Greek, Latin, Ancient Greek Studies: German, French, Russian | Message 20 of 26 23 May 2013 at 4:52pm | IP Logged | |||||
No need to be so rude. In fact, I am not just a dabbler who fancies himself an expert. I have a BA and MA in Classics, and am just about to finish my PhD in Classics, specializing in Ancient Greek. I have taught ancient Greek at the university level many times. I never implied that someone who knows Modern Greek can read Ancient Greek. The OP asked whether learning a descendant language helps in the learning of the ancient language. One still needs actually to learn the ancient language. I simply pose that acquiring fluency in Modern Greek affords an instinctive familiarity to much of the vocabulary and morphology of Ancient Greek in a way that simply trying memorize and recognize ancient paradigms cannot. I admitted from the beginning that there are many differences between the two languages. I was simply trying to give the OP a sense of how much benefit comes from learning the modern language. On the differences that you highlight: Loss of Dative: Yes, this changes the syntax, but, as an indirect object, it has simply been replaced with στὸν/ στὴν/στὸ, etc. (σε + Acc.). Even here, though there is benefit to the prospective student of Ancient Greek, since this is just a repurposing of the Ancient prepositional phrase εἰς τὸν/τὴν/τὸ, etc. Future Tense: In modern Greek, this is θα (= θέλω νὰ) + subjunctive, most frequently the aorist/momentary subjunctive. Yes, this differs from the independent ancient future, but, together with the frequent use of να (= ἵνα) + subjunctive, gives the speaker a very good sense of the ancient aorist subjunctive, which differs only slightly. Similarly, the future passive essentially teaches the ancient aorist passive subjunctive. Other Tenses: Imperfect: For non-contract verbs, the formation is the same, except that the secondary endings have been replaced with those of the sigmatic aorist. Aorist: Only minor changes to the ancient paradigm, except that all verbs use the sigmatic endings. Passive forms use endings from the ancient Perfect, but a student moving from modern to ancient Greek will have learned the aorist passive stem (sometimes changed from θ to τ) for all the most common verbs, which is no small accomplishment. Also, the aor. passive subjunctive (necessary for modern future passive) is nearly identical between the two. Perfect + Pluperfect: Here is the biggest difference, but the formation of the ancient paradigms will not seem so foreign for someone who has used the modern participles, which derive from the perfect participles and in many cases even retain the reduplication. Also, the active endings of the Perfect are known from the modern Aorist. Optative Mood: Yes, it has been lost, but even in ancient texts, these are not the most frequently encountered forms. That's why the optative, except to express wishes, had more or less disappeared by the time of the New Testament and was only revived with the Atticist movement. I agree fully that the largest differences are syntactical. To me the greatest difference is in ancient Greek's reliance upon participles. This is one of the greatest challenges even for native Greek speakers who are learning the ancient language. That being said, the morphology of many participles is not foreign to Greek speakers. Modern Greek uses pres. act. participles as adjectives (e.g. ἐνδιαφέρων, -ουσα, -ον). It uses pres. passive participles for deponent verbs (e.g. ἐρχόμενος). And it uses perf. act. participles, frozen as nouns (e.g. τὸ γεγονός), and it uses many many perf. pass. participles, usually without the reduplication, but often with it (δεδηλωμένος, δεδομένος). 13 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Γρηγόρη Tetraglot Groupie United States Joined 4460 days ago 55 posts - 154 votes Speaks: English*, Greek, Latin, Ancient Greek Studies: German, French, Russian | Message 21 of 26 23 May 2013 at 5:58pm | IP Logged | |||||
Italian is also "the same language plus some centuries," fewer centuries, in fact, than in the case of Greek. Italian is just a form of late Latin and is so designated to highlight the amount that it has changed and to distinguish it from the other descendants of Latin. If there were no other descendant, we might feasibly call Italian "Modern Latin." 5 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Lykeio Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4249 days ago 120 posts - 357 votes | Message 22 of 26 23 May 2013 at 6:12pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
First off, if I came across as mean I apologise, that's just my "tone" when typing.
I'll try and keep this short so apologies to everyone.
I agree that it can be helpful, much more so than Latin, but I think I'm too used to these statements being co-opted into silly claims made by people. I think the shot at paradigms is weird...no programme stays like that, its very necessary to begin with and its what is done in Greek schools too. I also disagree on vocabulary in many instances since register and change is not taught. I've seen quite a few Greek translations of ancient texts where its obvious the translator was just glossing, its very common so clearly its not that helpful. Is having Greek more helpful than, say, Spanish? Absolutely, but I think its very easy to over estimate the level of help and I certainly don't fall into this mia glossa enas laos crap. Looking at your specific examples, these, again, aren't as small as you're making out. You're picking piece meal trying to match things. Grammatical forms aren't isolated, but work together as a system. Why not compare a paradigm of something common like einai? http://www.foundalis.com/lan/eimai.htm except that this is much more common in other forms too. Look at the medio-passive perfect formations and how unpredictable these can be to form without a sound understading of the original phonology. Let alone the important irregular verbs. Nor is the loss of the infinitive a small detail due to all the cool things it can do. re: Optative. It depends on period and area as to its commonality. The future opt seems to be an almost exclusively literary invention in that I've never seen it in colloquial Greek (inscriptions, papyri etc) apart from the occasional hyper-correction. Still important to learn.
Well yes, though I would add vocabulary there too. Syntactical problems come out in composition and dating, not understanding when exw vs dative plus esti or participle formation with labwn is used or even the different shades of Greek verbs for thinking. And a myriad of other things. I agree, very much so, that it can be a massive help to ancient Greek. I do think you've presented it in a facile manner though, certainly if someone hasn't been through the Greek school system and therefore had the long exposure to grammar all the way throughout school. I do also think that anyone seriously interested in Greek ought to learn the medieval and modern forms. But if someone is not able to diligently understand the differences across different dialects, genres, styles and registers then they still haven't got the "active" part down, despite knowing Greek. I also disagree, very much so, that the Greek method is a good model. Its not, its one notorious for producing poor philology and readers (on the ancient tongue, the modernists are great). If someone has the goal of reading ancient texts then there is literally no point in starting with a modern language. Moreover I knee jerk resent the idea that modern Greek is only useful in connection with its earlier forms. I understand that you didn't make this claim and I apologise here, but many do. I can't help but feel that this arbitrary fascination with the classical Attic tongue is harmful in the long run. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Lykeio Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4249 days ago 120 posts - 357 votes | Message 23 of 26 23 May 2013 at 6:22pm | IP Logged | |||||
Is it though? Look at the extent to which it diverges though. This is fuzzy for me since its been a while since I've looked at, say, Adam's book on the regional diversification of Latin which I'll check later. I think some degree of creolization definitely needs to be taken into account, certain changes are limited to the western half of the old empire which are inundated with non Latin speakers. Take the formation of nouns, proto-Romance/ the earliest dialects randomly start forming nouns based on the old accusative, it seems funny how certain late sound changes have counterparts in some Germanic shifts (e.g the famous /k/ > /ts/ in front of certain vowels is paralleled in Anglo-Saxon takeovers of toponyms) etc. None of these seem to affect the eastern dialects, which go through their own changes too. Why Italian? why not Spanish? why not French? It seems almost arbitrary. Yes Italy is where Rome was and where several other Italic dialects were spoken but it was also flooded with Germanic migrants. Likewise despite your counterfactual statement Italian wasn't the only language which arose. I think a lot more things were going on than "natural evolution" (I know that sounds Nazi like, sorry) and the level of variety is quite large. I don't think its that analogous to Greek, which had the advantage of populous urban centres, a central imperial administration and a habit of co-opting migrant elites into the Greco-Roman life style. I do think that in this case linguistics alone don't suffice and the wider social changes tell a different story. 5 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Γρηγόρη Tetraglot Groupie United States Joined 4460 days ago 55 posts - 154 votes Speaks: English*, Greek, Latin, Ancient Greek Studies: German, French, Russian | Message 24 of 26 23 May 2013 at 6:43pm | IP Logged | |||||
I don't recall taking a shot at paradigms. I think that they need to be learnt thoroughly. I don't think that I am picking forms piecemeal. I did a broad survey of each of the tenses and pointed out what benefit one would reap from them. The reason that I don't highlight a verb like εἶναι is that it is highly irregular in both languages. In both situations, the verb must be learnt by rote. I think, in general, that you are emphasizing the differences, while I am emphasizing the similarities. For a language learner, these similarities can be very helpful. Yes, the loss of the infinitive is significant, but the substitution with subjunctive clauses is still very instructive for someone who wants to learn both languages. I also do not think that the pedagogy of Ancient Greek currently used in Greece is very good. But that is because the books are devised such that students can rely too much on the glosses and their testing regime places so much emphasis on memorizing prepared translations rather than actually reading unseens. These are capitulations that have been made to appease those who have wanted for many years to remove Ancient Greek from the curriculum altogether. Also, I love Modern Greek as a language unto itself (I have raised my children bilingually in it) and share your concern about fixating on Attic Greek. I read and enjoy Greek literature from Homer through Classical Athens, the Hellenistic, Imperial, and Byzantine periods, to the present day. I even have a perverse love of reading literature written in καθαρεύουσα. It's not a single language, but it is a single tradition, and it's a great pleasure to explore its breadth and depth. 3 persons have 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. |
