Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Learning Latin and Greek (Re: learning Esperanto first) Message-ID: <37@spar.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 00:22:23 EST Article-I.D.: spar.37 Posted: Thu Jan 17 00:22:23 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:24:50 EST References: <1143@druny.UUCP> <262@topaz.ARPA> <634@ut-sally.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 61 From Prentiss Riddle: > >How many people do you know who really read the classics in the original? >As far as I'm concerned, learning Latin or Greek is like studying >butterflies, pottery or chess: interesting, rewarding, broadening, and part >of what life is all about for those to whom it appeals, but not to be >compared with the practical importance of learning a language spoken by >living people. Don't get me wrong -- I have no desire to diminish anyone's enthusiasm for Esperanto. Furthermore, I hope that interest in international languages may eventually become a vehicle for world peace and understanding. But I am in total disagreement with Prentiss's apparent belief that spoken languages are somehow inherently more practical than dead ones. Frankly, I can think of no languages more important than Latin and ANCIENT Greek, especially for English speakers. A great deal that is incomprehensible about our language becomes very clear after studying the classics. English orthography, one of the worst on this planet, is `designed' to preserve the appearance Latin and Greek words, far more so than French, Italian, Spanish, or Esperanto. Intimate knowledge of, for instance, ancient irregular verbs, is indispensible to correct English spelling. Moreover, our native roots, prefixes, and suffixes have largely been displaced by borrowings taken almost directly from original classical forms. Meanwhile many of these morphemes have drifted in meaning or disappeared entirely in the modern Romance languages (and thus usually in Esperanto as well), thereby diminishing the relevance of those languages. There is simply no substitute for the study of Latin and Greek vocabulary, morphology, and etymology (topics strongly emphasized in classical studies) for improving one's comprehension of new or unfamiliar English or international words. Finally, whether we like it or not, the grammar of formal English evolved to its present state only after centuries of influence by writers who were making a conscious attempt to force English into the classical mold, which is why high-school grammar sounds like so much gibberish to most people who did not study Latin. Note that my arguments in support of the classics have focused on only the most mundane and practical of considerations -- namely: "Why learn a spoken language in which you are likely NEVER TO GAIN FLUENCY (and will probably forget) when, by studying a dead language, you can understand your native tongue with depth that is otherwise unattainable?" I have not yet mentioned the eloquence of Cicero, the dignity of Socrates, nor the blinding light of Plato; nor have I mentioned the intuitive power available to one who shares the very language in which western art, science, in fact, civilization, were created. But then this article is too long already. The opinion that classical studies lack `relevance' seems to have been one symptom of the tragic decay in American education during the myopic 70's. I hope that the recent resurgence of interest in high school Latin is a sign an upcoming renaissance. -michael