|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:39 pm
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:02 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:53 am
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:01 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:03 pm
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:57 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:12 am
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:25 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:05 pm
|
|
|
|
Hermonie Urameshi The only differences I have heard of are pronunciation and certain words. When it came to grammar, I thought that was just literary style.
Even in my books, Classical doesn't have two vowels. I own Wheelock's, Oxford and my brother has one the 1930's. Those are the Classical. The Ecclesiastical are Henle and Scanlon and various websites. None ever mentioned grammatical differences or those two vowels. They said there were long and short vowels... I can only assume they were trying to make it simpler for you to wrap your brain around it all. In my own experience, I run into church-goers who use certain expressions in Latin and I take note of minor grammatical differences. I'll ask why or if they notice, and the usually say that they don't, very similarly to what you're telling me right now. As the modern Romance languages go, they are just simplified version of Latin for the most part, and I assume the same can be said for your books; they simplify it to make it easier. Pronunciation is also not a particularly big deal when learning Latin for obvious reasons, so that is probably a greatly contributing factor as to why they tell you such concerning the vowels. Alas, these are only theories. I can't really say for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:45 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:01 am
|
|
|
|
Hermonie Urameshi Just curious, where did you learn Latin?
I'm thinking that some of the grammatical differences may be mostly do to literary works. They're in every language. Like, the language you use for non-fiction works is different from what you use for fiction, and even within fiction, writing styles, including grammar can be different, and all this is different from the style used for poetry and verse.
I'd have to actually see some classical vs ecclesiastical works to get more perspective, but so far, I haven't seen any differences... I learned from quite a number of sources over the years and a large part of it through trial and error. I haven't really read many of the literary works except for the Illiad, which was in Greek, not Latin. A random example would be the phrase "priori ex nihilo quod ex deo". Both "nihilo" and "deo" are one case, but "quod" (which is functioning improperly in this case) is a separate case; it does not change to match either nihilo or deo, despite being linked to both of them. Likewise, "ex" shouldn't have the -x unless the next word begins with a vowel. Both words begin with a consonant, but the -x is still present regardless. "Priori e nihilo quo e deo." That's what I'm getting at; little things like that, where the rules are just kind of ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tc Frorleivus Almus Ph Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|