Here in Minnesota we're on fall break, which is a good thing for everyone even though the liberal Education Minnesota folks are meeting together and plotting their latest assaults on quality education and traditional morality. At my house it means more time with the children, time out for my wife, and house/business/school projects that get attention.
Thus it was last night that I was able to sit down with the 1897 edition of an 1877 Latin grammar. I found it fascinating to discover how differently 19th century scholars approached language study. You can see in their approach that they considered themselves highly scientific (which would have been part of the pragmatism of the day, if I recall my study of Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth) by their use of "science of language" and other similar phrases.
I can also see why people of earlier eras considered Latin study so difficult. Pages and pages of small text bring out intricacies of the language right away. There was no attempt to simplify at the beginning, only to explain. Also a fairly erudite vocabulary of grammatical terms was assumed.
However, I found myself learning (within the first 20 pages) several things that I'd been wondering for years. For instance, what is the vocative of 3rd-5th declension nouns? Bet you don't know. Why is the dative plural of filia filiabus instead of filiis? I used to wonder these things too, but no longer. Eductus sum!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You don't know how much I wish I could write this comment in Latin without resorting to grammars and dictionaries (or how much I wish that if I did try it with the grammars and dictionaries it would take less than all day). I'm glad you're continuing to learn. Can you explain why "deum" in "Te deum laudamus" isn't vocative? It seems to be accusative (I hope)to correspond with "te" but it feels like it out to be vocative. Of course that feeling is based on the common translation "We praise thee, o God", which probably derives more from English metrics than translation theory.
Incidentally, I would guess that pragmatism was a result of scientism rather than the reverse, though I've not read Pearcey.
Yes, it does feel like it "out" [sic] to be vocative, but obviously it isn't unless it's some older form of that case. I would opt for accusative and say that "Deum" is an appositive renaming "Te"; thus, "We praise You (who are) God."
As regards the pragmatism, I was just casting about for a term to describe the intellectual atmosphere of the late 19th century. You're right, pragmatism is probably too late, but I couldn't remember the other term. Pearcey talked about the bias during that time towards justifying anything by calling it scientific. Is that scientism?
Post a Comment