Latin at school, other languages?

[jfollows]

CLC was a classic. The modern textbooks look so modern that I wasn't aware it was first published in the seventies! A shame that I only completed one month of the course, modern languages were prioritised of course.

I started Latin with the Cambridge Latin Course in September 1973.

In the end, I don't think it was rigorous enough, but it was good for the first two years of study I reckon. I felt I needed more formality in the teaching nearer to O-level time.

 

[ABB125]

For an example of Law French, try Le Case de Mixt Moneys

[opens document]
Ummm...
[quietly closes document, hoping no-one notices]

So I consider Latin, along with the study of literature in any language, as not particular relevant for life and something not to be forced on pupils unless they have a particular interest in it.

Finally, someone who agrees with me about English as a subject at school! I consider it far more important to learn about the English language itself (for example, what is the pluperfect tense? Literally no-one in my GCSE German class had ever heard of it, and I'm still not entirely sure what it is!), rather than "analysing"* literature**.

*Also known as "making stuff up". For example: "the sky was blue". The author's use of "blue" here clearly shows how sad they are, as the colour is typically associated with melancholy. Furthermore, the author has cast this feeling unto the sky itself, suggesting that the very planet shares the mood.
What a load of utter tripe! The author used "blue" because that's what colour the sky is (apart from when it isn't). It's a fact! Get over it! Nonetheless, this is the kind of thing I'd write at school when I was really feeling annoyed with the subject. (Though perhaps the sky should be red, signifying frustration, in that case?)

**Though I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to read literature. It's just the analysis therein, and its compulsory nature at school, that I don't agree with.

 

[lxfe_mxtterz]

I did (some) Latin at school...

Alas, we were forced to give it up in exchange for French when the only Latin teacher quit her job after two years and they couldn't find a replacement.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I am retired and very interested in literature, stories, poetry. A quiet business, and not too exciting, as someone said.

What about Welsh? Gillian Clarke is the national poet of Wales. She said many literary Welsh people who use English wish they could use Welsh too.

 

[DarloRich]

Also known as "making stuff up". For example: "the sky was blue". The author's use of "blue" here clearly shows how sad they are, as the colour is typically associated with melancholy. Furthermore, the author has cast this feeling unto the sky itself, suggesting that the very planet shares the mood.
What a load of utter tripe! The author used "blue" because that's what colour the sky is (apart from when it isn't). It's a fact! Get over it!

I think you are somewhat missing the point there.

 

[John Webb]

I had the choice of either going to the local grammar school or a more distant comprehensive technical school. I chose the latter as I didn't fancy learning Latin and liked to use my hands. I have to say that on getting a job as a member of the research staff at a government research station (which I did for nearly 30 years) the fact of holding an O-level in "Engineering Workshop Theory and Practice" was of far greater use than a Latin O-level would have been!

 

[AlterEgo]

[opens document]
Ummm...
[quietly closes document, hoping no-one notices]



Finally, someone who agrees with me about English as a subject at school! I consider it far more important to learn about the English language itself (for example, what is the pluperfect tense? Literally no-one in my GCSE German class had ever heard of it, and I'm still not entirely sure what it is!), rather than "analysing"* literature**.

Don’t you think children’s lives are made a little richer and more meaningful by learning about superb literature?

School isn’t just about learning the mechanics of how to hold a job down in a globalised society.

What a dismal view of education. Perhaps you were taught poorly but don’t try to suggest other children shouldn’t have the same pleasures and privileges I had.

 

[tspaul26]

Don’t you think children’s lives are made a little richer and more meaningful by learning about superb literature?

School isn’t just about learning the mechanics of how to hold a job down in a globalised society.

What a dismal view of education. Perhaps you were taught poorly but don’t try to suggest other children shouldn’t have the same pleasures and privileges I had.

I may confess that I find the division between English langauge and literature (as I understand them to be taught in schools in England) somewhat baffling: how can one fully understand literature without an understanding of how language works and how can one appreciate the richness and fullness of language without studying its application?

I greatly enjoyed Advanced Higher English and can still remember most of my dissertation: Headstone and Raskolnikov: the elision of setting and psyche.

 

[ABB125]

Don’t you think children’s lives are made a little richer and more meaningful by learning about superb literature?

Of course - I absolutely would encourage people to read books.
What I don't agree with is forcing all pupils to write essays about (for example) a Shakespeare play (not that I have anything against the play itself), when the expected content of said essay is somewhat tenuously linked to the play. Though if that's what some people want to do, I have no objection to them doing so.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to Latin. Personally I would have found it interesting to look at the language casually, but it's a dead language, so rather pointless to learn properly (unless you want to become a Roman historian or something!). I'd much rather learn a useful, current language (as long as it's not French!). Russian sounds like it might be fun, for example.

Teaching of foreign languages at school is fairly poor in this country anyway, especially at primary level, but that's probably a subject for a different thread!

 

[Mat17]

I hate Shakespeare (almost as much as I detest opera), too high brow, too academic and I believe is only thought of as 'quality' and revered because people think it's aspirational and the thing to be seen to like or understand or enjoy. I.e. it's fashionable to like it.

I guess when they stopped teaching Latin they found another way to bore the life out of the students.

 

[70014IronDuke]

It’s more like saying if you understand mathematics and logic you’ll be a good controller. Understanding of systems is really crucial and that’s why prospective train drivers are often asked in interview of their experience with following prescriptive rules.

I can accept that.

Latin does not teach you about other languages but it does train your brain in a way which is different to many modern languages.

I'm sure that this is a thesis put forward by pro-Latin folks - but is there any evidence of this in reality? I mean, as opposed to learning German or Polish or Croatian (we'll leave out Russian and other Slavic languages using the Cyrillic alphabet for the sake of this argument - although several learners of Russian have made it clear to me that learning the alphabet is the easy part.)

I have never needed to use mathematics beyond a level which was taught to me at age 10-12, yet we prioritise mathematics for precisely the same reason as the above. I don’t *need* algebra, but the way algebra makes you think is a useful skill.

Sure. And I'm sure it encourages or engenders intelligence (if I can use those verbs in this context). I can believe Latin does this too - just I can't believe, or I won't believe until I see evidence, that you can't do this by learning other languages.

EDIT - However, what I could accept is that because you read Latin as you say it (according to your mother tongue) it does avoid the difficulties of learning the proper stress and pronunciation of learning a 'real' language. In that sense, I could accept that the "brain training" part of your argument is reached more easily and earlier with Latin than with a living language - which, in effect, presents the learner with a broader and deeper set of challenges.

.... Russian sounds like it might be fun, for example.

A lot depends on your personality when learning languages I think, ie how you cope with the difficulties, but I was only last night talking to a Brit (who already speaks two Latin languages) who is now trying to learn Russian - and he says it's a stinker. My wife speaks five languages at fluent levels, plus Russian to an intermediate level. She was top of her class at it in school, but she too says it's incredibly tough going.

 

[S&CLER]

I can accept that.



I'm sure that this is a thesis put forward by pro-Latin folks - but is there any evidence of this in reality? I mean, as opposed to learning German or Polish or Croatian (we'll leave out Russian and other Slavic languages using the Cyrillic alphabet for the sake of this argument - although several learners of Russian have made it clear to me that learning the alphabet is the easy part.)



Sure. And I'm sure it encourages or engenders intelligence (if I can use those verbs in this context). I can believe Latin does this too - just I can't believe, or I won't believe until I see evidence, that you can't do this by learning other languages.

EDIT - However, what I could accept is that because you read Latin as you say it (according to your mother tongue) it does avoid the difficulties of learning the proper stress and pronunciation of learning a 'real' language. In that sense, I could accept that the "brain training" part of your argument is reached more easily and earlier with Latin than with a living language - which, in effect, presents the learner with a broader and deeper set of challenges.



A lot depends on your personality when learning languages I think, ie how you cope with the difficulties, but I was only last night talking to a Brit (who already speaks two Latin languages) who is now trying to learn Russian - and he says it's a stinker. My wife speaks five languages at fluent levels, plus Russian to an intermediate level. She was top of her class at it in school, but she too says it's incredibly tough going.

An ex-monk I knew who had been at the Gregorian University in the Vatican, where teaching was in Latin, told me that lectures were given by an international faculty, who all used the pronunciation of their own country, which made it very hard to understand them. He also gave me an example of how some of the lecturers could literally translate into Latin idioms in their own native tongue, which made no sense to anyone else: it was "haec argumentatio non tenet aquam" (this argument doesn't hold water).

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I may confess that I find the division between English langauge and literature (as I understand them to be taught in schools in England) somewhat baffling: how can one fully understand literature without an understanding of how language works and how can one appreciate the richness and fullness of language without studying its application?

I greatly enjoyed Advanced Higher English and can still remember most of my dissertation: Headstone and Raskolnikov: the elision of setting and psyche.

English language and literature? I got A for the former and C (or E, lowest pass mark?) for the latter. Developed an interest in the latter decades later after recovering from being stuffed with Shakespeare and Hardy.

 

[edwin_m]

English language and literature? I got A for the former and C (or E, lowest pass mark?) for the latter. Developed an interest in the latter decades later after recovering from being stuffed with Shakespeare and Hardy.

I may confess that I find the division between English langauge and literature (as I understand them to be taught in schools in England) somewhat baffling: how can one fully understand literature without an understanding of how language works and how can one appreciate the richness and fullness of language without studying its application?

I greatly enjoyed Advanced Higher English and can still remember most of my dissertation: Headstone and Raskolnikov: the elision of setting and psyche.

There are some for whom it will have benefit, but probably a great number of 15-year-olds who have no interest and don't see the point. Forcing it down their will achieve no benefit in the short term and probably makes it less likely they will get an appreciation later in life.

 

[Domh245]

There are some for whom it will have benefit, but probably a great number of 15-year-olds who have no interest and don't see the point. Forcing it down their will achieve no benefit in the short term and probably makes it less likely they will get an appreciation later in life.

Indeed. Especially when you can't just read the book, but are instead forced to find additional layers of meaning. Something like Animal Farm there is a point, but my memories of GCSE English Lit (getting on for almost a decade ago now, eep) are anything but fond, as I can more or less only remember being forced to find meanings in things that appeared to be otherwise just a piece of writing

 

[talltim]

then you find there are words ending in 'er', then you find there are neutral words ending in 'um'

I think the top boss at my company must have learnt Latin, every other word is er or um.

Latin lessons were offered at lunchtime at my school. I wish now I had taken it up, but...

 

[ABB125]

Indeed. Especially when you can't just read the book, but are instead forced to find additional layers of meaning. Something like Animal Farm there is a point, but my memories of GCSE English Lit (getting on for almost a decade ago now, eep) are anything but fond, as I can more or less only remember being forced to find meanings in things that appeared to be otherwise just a piece of writing

+1

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed. Especially when you can't just read the book, but are instead forced to find additional layers of meaning. Something like Animal Farm there is a point, but my memories of GCSE English Lit (getting on for almost a decade ago now, eep) are anything but fond, as I can more or less only remember being forced to find meanings in things that appeared to be otherwise just a piece of writing

+1

So what texts were on the syllabus? Give us an example. I wonder if the complexity or nuance of the texts were beyond you. That kind of complexity isn't for everyone. I enjoyed English Literature but there were certain books that just passed me by, Jane Austen for insentience.

 

[ABB125]

So what texts were on the syllabus? Give us an example. I wonder if the complexity or nuance of the texts were beyond you. That kind of complexity isn't for everyone. I enjoyed English Literature but there were certain books that just passed me by, Jane Austen for insentience.

For my GCSE, we studied Macbeth, Jekyll and Hyde, and An Inspector Calls. All three good books (well, two of them are actually plays!).
I think that possibly one of the reasons I didn't like English literature is because I read very quickly*: having been a prolific reader during childhood (less so nowadays, as I don't have as much time), I think my brain has become accustomed to not completely absorbing everything that's written, only enough for the story to make sense. Thus, when I'm forced to actually try to interpret the text in a different way, it takes a lot more effort to do so. I still got a grade 7 though (about an A)

*as an example, late last year I read the second volume of George RR Martin's A Dance with Dragons, which is 500 pages of slightly smaller than typical text. I somehow managed to read the whole thing in 8 hours, non-stop. As a result, much of it went straight over my head (though admittedly, starting at 8pm and reading continuously until 4am doesn't help!), and I'm conscious of that. I need to read it again, slower, to properly understand what's happening. But I'm not doing that until the next book in the series is published (at which point I'll read the entire series again), and as anyone who is invested in Martin's work knows, no-one knows when that might be!

 

[Domh245]

So what texts were on the syllabus? Give us an example. I wonder if the complexity or nuance of the texts were beyond you. That kind of complexity isn't for everyone. I enjoyed English Literature but there were certain books that just passed me by, Jane Austen for insentience.

I was AQA English Literature, this would have been the paper I sat (I think?)

Looking through the list of texts on page 2, I can recall studying "An Inspector Calls" for section A (modern prose/drama), but for the life of me cannot remember actively learning something from Section B (Exploring cultures) - it must have been Of Mice and Men as that was the only one on that list I can remember from school but can only remember covering that early on in the school, and not as part of GCSE . I think I've successfully purged any memory of the anthology from my mind as well!

Question 17 What do you think is the importance of Inspector Goole and how does Priestley present him?

Question 18 In the rest of the play, how does Priestley present and develop some of the ideas shown here?

--
Question 21
Part (a)
In this passage, what methods does Steinbeck use to present Curley’s wife and the attitudes of others to her? Refer closely to the passage in your answer.
and then Part (b)
How does Steinbeck present attitudes to women in the society in which the novel is set?

In fairness, I think quality of teacher is probably also a factor. My teacher for GCSE english was, in the nicest possible way, useless (as was, back on topic, my first/second year Latin teacher - another subject with less than fond memories)

 

[ABB125]

I think I've successfully purged any memory of the anthology from my mind as well!

Ah yes, the poetry section...

Though once again, I'll add that I have nothing against reading (or indeed writing) poetry. However, being presented with one of 15 poems from the anthology, then being required to write an essay comparing it to any one of the other poems in the anthology (all from memory) is not my idea of fun. And don't get me started on unseen poetry...

I did the new AQA GCSE, which can be found here. These are (I think) the two exams I did (I haven't opened them to check (not that I'm likely to remember what the questions were anyway!), painful memories are contained therein):

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2018/june/AQA-87021-QP-JUN18.PDF

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2018/june/AQA-87022-QP-JUN18-CR.PDF

 

[Calthrop]

I enjoyed English Literature but there were certain books that just passed me by: Jane Austen ...

I sympathise: mercifully from my point of view, I escaped having to "do" Jane Austen in formal education. With so many people being so enthusiastic about her works; have (voluntarily) tried more than one of them, on several occasions -- I find Ms. A. , for me, flat-out unreadable: twenty pages in, has been my record before admitting defeat. I don't see trying her again, in this life...

 

[Busaholic]

I sympathise: mercifully from my point of view, I escaped having to "do" Jane Austen in formal education. With so many people being so enthusiastic about her works; have (voluntarily) tried more than one of them, on several occasions -- I find Ms. A. , for me, flat-out unreadable: twenty pages in, has been my record before admitting defeat. I don't see trying her again, in this life...

Jane Austen was my predominant reason for quitting school just before my nineteenth birthday. I was resitting my A levels in the hope of better grades, but finding Jane Austen on the reading list (combined with the glandular fever I'd managed to contract while doing the original exams) was enough to convince me I just had to get out and earn some money. University could wait til I was 35!

 

[DarloRich]

I sympathise: mercifully from my point of view, I escaped having to "do" Jane Austen in formal education. With so many people being so enthusiastic about her works; have (voluntarily) tried more than one of them, on several occasions -- I find Ms. A. , for me, flat-out unreadable: twenty pages in, has been my record before admitting defeat. I don't see trying her again, in this life...

Overblown melodramatic nonsense imo. Cant stand it. Same with the Bronte sisters.

I was AQA English Literature, this would have been the paper I sat

I did the new AQA GCSE

Is that the standard paper for a GCSE? I am going to come over all Tory minister here: That is pi$$ easy! it even gives you the extract of the text to comment on! I had to remember the text and then write an essay.

There is a good variety of texts to choose from in that list. Really accessible. The poetry selection is also really open. Not even a WW1 poet. Worlds gone mad.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Larkin's earthier poems might be suitable for precocious teenagers.

 

[Calthrop]

Jane Austen -- for fairly obvious reasons, her works have a tendency to appeal to women more than to men; but one is aware that she has a very sizeable minority of male devotees too. Some of our gender (e.g. myself, @Busaholic, and @DarloRich) will, it seems plain, never "get" her. I've read that Richard Adams of Watership Down fame long felt this way, despite repeatedly and earnestly trying to get "into" J.A.'s output: a "breakthrough" at last came for him in a situation of prolonged and extreme boredom during his Army service in World War II -- he was prolongedly in an isolated location, far from any fighting: where the only reading matter in a language that he knew, was a complete set of the lady's novels.

Trying to get a little way back toward the thread's stated topic: I would readily bet any amount of money, that at some stage some bright spark has translated Jane Austen's complete works into Latin ...

 

[tspaul26]

Trying to get a little way back toward the thread's stated topic: I would readily bet any amount of money, that at some stage some bright spark has translated Jane Austen's complete works into Latin ...

A Latin translation of Sense and Sensibility was published last year, under the somewhat poetical title De corde et mente.

I am not aware of any other published translations though

 

[Ediswan]

I recall somebody having a 1970s 'Modern Latin Phrase Book' with entries such as hoc est in statione nuclearibus.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. Especially when you can't just read the book, but are instead forced to find additional layers of meaning. Something like Animal Farm there is a point, but my memories of GCSE English Lit (getting on for almost a decade ago now, eep) are anything but fond, as I can more or less only remember being forced to find meanings in things that appeared to be otherwise just a piece of writing

So what texts were on the syllabus? Give us an example. I wonder if the complexity or nuance of the texts were beyond you. That kind of complexity isn't for everyone. I enjoyed English Literature but there were certain books that just passed me by, Jane Austen for insentience.

Due to a move of region and school, I ended up studying "The Merchant of Venice" twice. I duly brought out some of the interpretations suggested by the teacher at the first school and they were dismissed as rubbish by the teacher at the second. That suggested to me that the whole things was highly subjective, one reason why I'm highly cynical about the compulsory study and examination of literature and (for slightly different reasons) of creative writing. I did come back to theatre in my 20s, but not to Shakespeare.

 

[Gloster]

There is a gentleman called Jukka Ammondt in Finland who has recorded Elvis Presley songs in Latin. I wonder if this was easier or more difficult because Finnish comes from a completely different linguistic family. I ought to try something like that: Nunc hic aut numquam (It’s now or never).