To get all the input you need to master any of 40 languages, sign up for LingQ with this link and get 35% off the 12-month plan: www.lingq.com/accounts/new/?next=/accounts/subscription/basic_2018/12/b_12lukeranieri/checkout/&referral=lukeranieri

I like mixing the two, based on personal experience. I find that studying grammar for like 10-15 minutes for every hour of comprehensible input makes it so my input feels a lot more meaningful, but also enjoyable, as I have the grammar reinforced. That’s just me though! I’ve found it super helpful for French and Latin so far.

@gangiskon

Ай бұрын

me too, I find that those little grammar studies makes the input I'm having get more and more comprehensible and so I agree with your ratio, works great for me :)

@ridleyroid9060

Ай бұрын

How do you study comprehensible input? I'm trying to learn Japanese and I'm not really getting exactly how that works.

@user-kp1js6cb2s

Ай бұрын

@@ridleyroid9060 you start small - with what's easy to understand. Maybe even designed for children. You focus not on "remembering" things, but on "getting them" - hence comprehensible. Gradually extending your sources, getting new grammar as needed, but without forcing yourself to do tons of grammar exercises.

@cito2820

Ай бұрын

@@ridleyroid9060 Honestly, it's deceptively simple. When watching a simple video, and someone holds up a pen and says "calamus est" and you can’t even break up the words, but somehow you still understand that it means "It is a pen," that is what qualifies as 'comprehensible input.' As long as what you are watching kinda makes sense, even if you couldn't say what every word is and what all the grammar is, you have begun to use comprehensible input, and, in the opinions of steven krashen, begun to acquire the language. Think of it as just understanding/following what is going on rather than knowing every word.

@lazydictionary

9 сағат бұрын

You agree with Luke then - grammar study is a supplement to CI.

The person who said comprehensible input is for people who aren't bookish and just want it to be easy really reveals their true gripe with the concept: they imagine language learning as an elite intellectual pursuit, the sole domain of the highest stratum of gifted thinkers and not an inherent skill common to all mankind. They're afraid their hobby will lose its prestige if any person can do it.

This was my experience in school. I studied Latin, German, Greek, and Hebrew for years, all with a grammar-first approach. I had classmates who seemed to do really well with this approach, but for me I only ever understood the target languages through English. I spent countless hours with vocabulary flash cards and memorizing declensions and conjugations (much of which I've since forgotten). I like the analogy of understanding how an airplane works vs. being able to fly one. I also like to compare it to one of those decoder puzzles, where each word or letter has to be compared to a key to decipher what English word it corresponds to. I bought Luke's "Gospel of John" from his audiobook store and have been listening to and reading the Latin on repeat, and I feel like I'm really starting to mentally attach concepts to the Latin I'm reading, rather than just pausing to translate each word and phrase into English. So far, so good! I'm also trying to teach my kids a little Latin, and I've been using stories from "Ecce Romani" (a book I obtained for free). We're skipping most of the grammar parts of the lessons and just focusing on reading, re-reading, and understanding the simple stories.

I've had to explain this to my school leadership to make some significant changes to our Latin program. The original curriculum was heavy grammar translation using Henle and students were suffering. We've switched to immersive Latin and Lingua Latina. So far, I've seen enormous dividends in focusing on compelling content and making class a "conversation" as much as possible.

Generally, for people interested in how language acquisition works - from the cognitive and neurological side, and how multilingual individuals’ brains work - I highly recommend Martin Hilpert’s KZread channel - he has there lecture series on these things. I very highly recommend his bilingualism series! He talks about ambiguity and how vocabulary *doesn’t map* between languages (so translation is never fully accurate, one really has to make idea → vocab mappings for each language separately to truly use and understand a language). And his lectures on Construction Grammar also provide some good information (both from cognitive experiments, and from observations of what’s grammatical to different groups of speakers) on how language may *actually* work and why some structuralist and transformational ideas do not work. There’s also series on working with text corpora, and much more stuff. It’s great for general linguistics.

I spent about 15 years trying to study Spanish on my own off and on, and did learn a few things... was even getting to the point of being able to have short easy conversations. Then I spent some time in a Greek community here in the US, and in a year ensconced in this community, I learned as much Greek as I had learned Spanish over 15 years. It was amazing. During this year, I spent around 4 hours a week studying Greek, but the rest of the time I was hearing it around me, and attempting to speak it. Right before I left that community, I was able to understand a full conversation and respond to it as best I could. Studying from books is great and valuable, but the input immersion is the best!

@RogerRamos1993

Ай бұрын

IMO, in the end, the number of hours you out into something os what matters. As for languages, you need to know around 5 thousand words to be able to understand most of what is spoken a language and some 80% of written language. Ultimately, what matters is that you reach that vocabulary and whatever the method you use, you'll only be able to learn 5 thousand words after many months, best case scenario. And one thing is understanding. Producing language takes more effort.

I learned English just by watching TV, never opened a single English textbook.

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

A powerful example.

@jpmontielr

Ай бұрын

I learned enlgish reading videogame websites.

@whothefluff

Ай бұрын

I failed English all the way to college. And I was never even close to passing it lol. One day I saw a roommate watching something that grabbed my attention so I asked "yo what is that", to which he replied "adventure time, it's a new show". The problem was that it wasn't dubbed (or famous) yet so I had to watch it in the original English without subtitles, relying on the context and the few basic words I did learn from school. Before finishing the first season, something clicked; I started to understand almost all of it, and I've never again had any problems with the language. To this day, family and friends still react with raised eyebrows and doubtful looks when I tell them how I learned my first second language. EDIT: my accent is still god awful though, I never quite managed to sound like Antonio Banderas and get all the ladies

@justaname1837

Ай бұрын

Yes, I would learn grammar with comprehensible input. Learning how to make real sentences by reading interesting content is more effective than studying a grammar book.

@alexartamonov2010

Ай бұрын

English grammar is so primitive that can be learned in a week. Try learn Finnish with its 17 cases or any Slavic language (except Bulgarian that lost case system).

The communicative method gets pushed mostly by native English speakers, but in its pure form it's exactly as inefficient as the traditional method. What it's very efficient at is keeping people paying to go to language school because they never progress. I learned English with the communicative method and it took me years and years, and if I hadn't put in considerable effort getting more input (reading) I would still be at the same level as most Italians. Grammar IS the structure of language and it needs to be learned. If it's not taught it will have to be inferred by the learner based on the input, which is what happens when you learn your native language. But the amount of input you get when learning your native language is immensely more than the amount you will ever get when learning another language, unless you are living in the country. So the point of teaching a language should be to make the learning process more efficient for the learner than it would be when just processing input on their own. This happens by teaching grammar and having a lot of exercises which use that grammar. The grammar exercises are an important part of the input, when combined with other types of input. The reason the traditional method doesn't work isn't the grammar, but the limited amount of input, that is of easily understandable texts or audio material. As a wild guess, I'd say you typically need about three times as much material as is normally found in a textbook. Of course some people will always reject grammar, maybe because they have traumas connected with learning it, or maybe because they just like more instinctual learning, but for every hater of grammar there is one person who really wants to learn the hows and whys of languages and who becomes anxious and frustrated when not provided with them.

@haeilsey

Ай бұрын

I tried to take a language class once where they never taught us concrete grammar and expected us to infer it, and gods was it frustrating to keep up with. lots of input is indeed very helpful (my french got much better after I left textbooks and started speaking and reading for real), but it's so important to have the basic ideas before you can really infer everything

@sebastianschmidt3869

Ай бұрын

How would you define the "communicative method"? I learned English in school through a mix of communication (the teacher speaks in English and the students respond in English - most of the time), reading + listening input and grammar instruction.

@markus-ks9sf

Ай бұрын

​@@sebastianschmidt3869Communicative method is just like it's taught in Lingua Latina Per Se Ilustrata. Cambrige Latin has a mix of both grammar and pure input. But its grammar somewhat light. Assimil has traces of an input based book but tends more towards grammar. Wheelock is the most notorious book for the translation method; but I've seen worse that are pure granmar and no samples.

@sebastianschmidt3869

Ай бұрын

Well...even LLPSI teaches some grammar (in Latin). I thought she meant an approach where the teacher speaks in the target language only and makes things comprehensible through drawings and gestures.

@pml8256

Ай бұрын

¡Tienes toda la razón te apoyo!

You know, you touch on something very good at the start of this when responding to the guy who asks why would you waste time with modern graded readers instead of historical literature. While I could rant about how trying to do that made me hate Old English because I would sit at my desk for 3 hours, ruin my whole day, and not even get a whole stanza through of like Wanderer or something (and that is with me being like A2 in German at the time), I won't. I used to have the same mindset about watching TV and movies and reading books. So I spent most of my whole teens in high school not doing that. I didn't even watch anime. And then in my early twenties, I was going through a rough spot and I watched some stuff, and then it clicked, and I got it. And I realised that not everything has to be work-work all the time. When you do other stuff, you broaden your horizons. And when you approach a language slowly through children's books and graded readers or watching a dubbed TV show you already know by heart for passive input, it lets you have fun, and learn at a steady pace so that when you do have to do something strenuous or whatever, that is the exception, not the norm. And you have to have a balance. It can't all be fun and it can't all be overly serious. That's why relatoinships fail. They either are overly non-serious or overly too-serious. C.S. Lewis has a great quote, "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

Throughout the video Luke mentions Italy and Italian quite often. This surely is because Luke's Italian is amazing and he has been living in Italy for a while, but I think it mostly is because he got a good understanding of how bad our education system really is, especially when it comes to language. Luke is completely right about acquisition: it takes time, it takes a lot of effort, bit it is the only way to be able to speak a language. Also, I am really happy that Luke pointed out how "the traditional method" is everything but traditional! It just is a modern monster that must be slayed as soon as possible. Good job Luke! I hope a lot of Italian teacher watch your video! Un caro saluto da un italiano a Canton!

@ridleyroid9060

Ай бұрын

I have to say it is disheartening as someone trying to learn Japanese now, and the information as to what to even do to learn it is so numerous and conflicting it hurts my brain. I'm ok with it taking time, that's normal, but where do I put that time? It's just confusing as heck.

As a fellow Latinist (and as a learner of Ancient Greek), I would like to laud your wonderful videos once again! I love your deep-dives into ancient language phonology and pedagogy, and I've even used some of your Latin videos in tutoring. I've sent your videos to many of my friends and colleagues because I feel they're just so accessible and well-presented, and I'll certainly send this one out as well in the hopes that it might help ease some reservations towards input-based approaches, which, in my experience, is something a lot of classicists at my university are reluctant to embrace because it's so different from how they learned Latin and Ancient Greek. Something I'd be interested to get your perspective on, though, is translating the other way - that which universities in the English-speaking world like to label _prose composition exercises._ I learned a lot from the prose composition courses my study program put me through, and it's always come quite naturally to me, but I can't help but feel like that is, in significant part, because I was incorporating active Latin into my study routine from the early days of my Latin studies in college. The way I approached them and made them work for me was by focusing on the example sentences, which were often simple sentences designed to elucidate a certain grammatical point and/or teach vocabulary, and skipped the parts that were super heavy on the language-of-instruction side like vocabulary lists or lengthy grammar explanations. It also certainly helped that I had access to my favorite grammar of the Latin language, a German one written by Burkard and Schauer (my two main gripes with it are that they don't use macrons and that they only base their analysis on Cicero and Caesar, even going so far as to call different language usage _unclassical,_ which gives my linguist arm immense goosebumps; however, their work is good enough overall that I still think it's probably the best reference grammar out there by virtue of being both in-depth and accessible. Not only do they use a ton of example sentences that are much more illustrative than the accompanying explanations in German, but they also specifically take it upon themselves to question some elements of the scholastic tradition that don't necessarily represent how the Latin language is actually used even just in the works of those two authors, and in that sense, they actually are pretty descriptive, albeit operating off the questionable assumption that Caesar and Cicero are the only sources of good Latin. My favorite chapter by far is their chapter on the Cōnsecūtiō Temporum, where they discuss how the use of subjunctive tenses in subordinate clauses is far less rigid and strict than textbooks would like to have you believe and note that psychological factors like the _function_ of, say, the perfect subjunctive as describing an action regarded as completed from the perspective of the present are much more important than a supposed ironclad rule about subjunctive tenses in subordinate clauses.). I also know, however, that prose composition is very difficult for the vast majority of college-level Latin students, which I do think is largely an outgrowth of the grammar-translation approach de-emphasizing the original language and treating it as this alien thing that you can only ever regard from the distance. I think it's very important to teach active Latin, and prose composition classes are the only real point in most people's university education at which that is done, which is why, as much as most students initially struggle with prose composition, once they're done with their requirements in this area, they often feel like these courses really helped them build knowledge of the language, but I do think they could benefit from a lesser emphasis on, well, translation and a greater one on actual _composition_ and free-form writing. I know I'm young, and I have no idea if I'll be able to land a contract in academia eventually, but it is a little bit of a dream of mine to revolutionize the way in which prose composition is taught even at just one university and turn these courses into low-pressure classes (taught in Latin to the extent possible - even simple classroom phrases can help familiarize the language) meant to slowly undo the damage grammar-translation has inflicted on many Latin students even at the college level, ease them into actively using the language and gaining an intuitive command of the grammar through simple sentences, and cultivate a healthier relationship with the Latin language as not alien, but deeply familiar, which I can certainly say from experience goes a long way in improving reading proficiency. And as someone who really enjoys writing poetry, I feel like a verse composition class for more advanced learners could also be a lot of fun. In the end, courses focused on using the language also have a lot of potential in introducing the Latin students of today (which is to say, the Latin teachers of tomorrow) to methods centered around active Latin and comprehensible input in a more practical way - if they hear _vōs salvēre jubeō_ several times a week for part of their college days, they'll probably be more open to teaching the accusative plus infinitive in a similar way and gain a more direct understanding of what it does in Latin. It's why I think a lot about ways to make composition courses a more appealing and less dry part of the college Latin experience. I apologize for the long diatribe, but I'd be interested to hear what you think of the matter and some of the considerations I've laid out. EDIT: So, I realized after writing this comment that I hadn't actually watched the last portion of the video, which touches on very similar questions, haha ... I'm still interested in getting your thoughts on the matter I raised specifically, but I also did want to say that I completely agree with you that composing a diary is a really good exercise (as is writing text messages in Latin at a slightly more advanced level, which I sometimes do with friends). If I do teach a prose composition course in the future, I intend to assign writing a diary as a mandatory component in place of any exams that would ordinarily be scheduled, with grading based on consistency rather than total number of errors or something like that (I think grading is kinda BS to begin with, but that's a story for another day, and I don't see grading disappearing from the college landscape in the foreseeable future).

@user-xp2po5tt6i

Ай бұрын

"...but I do think they could benefit from a lesser emphasis on, well, translation and a greater one on actual composition and free-form writing.,," I am not young. I've been teaching Greek (ancient and modern) and Latin for more than 40 years and what you're saying is absolutely true in my experience. Although, eventually, the way we learn a language depends on our personal learning style and background, prose writing is the only way to learn the target language in depth. Therefore, I don't really use textbooks, I never liked them anyway, and once I understand my learners, I tailor the grammar information to them. Prose and even verse writing, though, is mandatory for all my students. Not only because it's effective for them, but also because it provides me the most accurate feedback on their needs and progress.

@beatoriche7301

Ай бұрын

@@user-xp2po5tt6i Oh wow - thank you for sharing your experience! Your words as someone very experienced in teaching both Latin and Greek mean a lot to me. Have a lovely day!

Two videos in three days!! Btw I really like these long 1-hour rants about a topic.

Another reason the grammar-translation method doesn't work is idiom. Knowing all the vocabulary and grammar will only tell you how something *may* be said or if it's correct, but not how a native speaker *would* say something. I'll use Albanian (specifically the Geg dialect), my parents' (but unfortunately not my own) native language. If you want to know where your shoes are, you can translate the sentence "where are my shoes?" from English into Albanian as "Ku janë kpucët e mij?" and that is a sensical, grammatically correct sentence, but it's not how a native Albanian speaker *would* ask that question. An Albanian would say "Ku i kam kpucët?" which literally means "Where do I have the shoes?". Idioms like this are used frequently enough to be easily learned, but Albanian has so many idioms that they get more in the way of understanding the language than grammar and vocab do. I can't tell you how many times I've come across a sentence and knew every single word in the sentence, and understood the grammar perfectly, but could not for the life of me understand what the sentence meant until I consulted a native speaker. And sometimes the native speaker couldn't explain it; it just means what it means. If you sat at a table of Albanian speakers and recorded their conversation, and then translated literally everything they were saying into English, half of it would seem complete nonsense, and I'm sure this is true of most languages. Just for fun, here's the beginning of one of my favorite Albanian fables translated literally into English: There had had been a king. This didn't have but a boy. When the boy was made to him for marriage, he called him and said to him: "Look sonny, and find the wife yourself! Take the canon and empty it, and there where it kills, there you will take also the wife." The boy takes the canon and he empties it bim-bau! and it goes and it kills to him on shore of sea to the root of a dry oak. He shoots of the second, and it kills to him in that place because in that place. He shoots of the third and again in that place because in that place. "I swear" he says, "May I not go to see what will be there." He goes to the dry oak and finds a big turtle. "And this turtle" he says, "what can it be of value to me?" And he takes it with himself and leaves it on window of his room. When he turns in evening, he finds the room sweeped and dusted and every single thing in its place. "And thus" he says, "how? Who did these works to me? The room I have had locked!" And he is not knowing to whom to leave it. You can kind of make sense of it, but imagine trying to go the other way, trying to express yourself in Albanian as an English speaker, knowing only grammar and vocabulary: it would sound so awkward and blocky, never using any native idioms, and twice as long as it has to be. The only way to learn idiom is to soak up enough comprehensible input in the language to just get used to it. Ehh, I had more to write, but I have an assignment due at midnight.

One of the criticisms you mentioned that people have against graded readers is that you spend a lot of time reading about fictional characters created specifically for those readers like Iulius and Dikaiopolis rather than actual works of ancient literature. That made me wonder if it might be possible to make, or if there might be a market for, graded readers that are direct adaptations of ancient literature. I'm currently reading through the "Aeneis solutis versibus" section of Roma Aeterna, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I don't feel confident enough to jump into the unedited text of Vergil's original poem with enough fluency yet, but I still feel as though I'm engaging with the story in Latin in a way that I wasn't when I was just methodically translating passages of Vergil into English in my college Latin class. What if there were graded readers that allowed students to have that sort of authentic-feeling engagement with a text from the very beginning? A Familia Romana-style adaptation of the Aeneid could begin with a chapter establishing the geographical settings relevant to the story: "Latium in Italia est. Troia in Asia est. Karthago in Africa est..." In Chapter 2 we start introducing the characters: "Aeneas vir Troianus est. Creusa femina Troiana est. Ascanius puer Troianus est..." Obviously the early chapters with their limited grammar and vocabulary wouldn't do any sort of justice to the story, but that's all the more motivation for students to read the original when they're ready. Would this sort of text feel like less of a "waste of time" to those with this criticism? I don't know. Just a thought.

@tranquillissimus

Ай бұрын

If you know French, this is exactly what "Les petits latins" is doing, De pueritia Cleopatrae, De Aenea in inferis, Hannibal, Romae horror, etc.

Before "Grammar-Translation" became the norm there were approaches to teach Latin and Greek with interlinear or parallel translations, so you could read authentic texts from day one (people like John Locke, Comenius and James Hamilton promoted that approach).

@DerFischStinktVomKopfe

Ай бұрын

The thing is... It's easy to teach good students, it's hard to teach bad students. For bad students only massive input gets the job done, the good learners can do whatever and it'll work out given time.

My Mandarin teacher told me the traditional method of memorizing the 300 Tang dynasty poems, and today I memorize Psalms in Hebrew. Amazing how quickly patterns emerge and understanding develops!

I’ve been doing the input method with Lingua Latina (inspired by your video recommending it) and it’s great. It’s not just a great way to learn, it’s also really fun to start out already reading the language even before you’ve gone through any formal training/grammar learning. Super rewarding

I really dislike the analogy you use, of building a bike. I feel this wildly misrepresents the applicability of grammar to language learning. I think a better analogy would be that learning grammar is like being told how to ride a bike. Being told how to ride a bike does not really help you learn how to ride a bike, you actually need to start riding to learn. However, after you've started learning, being told how to ride a bike can help you make corrections to your technique and such. Similarly, learning grammar alone will not help you to learn a language, but if you take in comprehensive input, learning grammar can help you acquire the language quicker, as long as you keep on reading/listening. The comparison to building a bike is really bad; I feel that analogy relates more to the mechanics of speech or of language acquisition, which of course will not help you learn at all, because it is only tangentially related to the actual skill you want to learn.

About comment #3: part of the 'input method' is tolerance to ambiguity. So it wouldn't really matter whether you think it is a wolf or a fox that particular text is talking about, because you have confidence that with enough input, you will disambiguate the words fox and wolf. And in cases where that still does not happen (for example liberty vs freedom), you can still approximate what the writer is trying to convey.

Thank you for making this video and supporting my suspicions of my own struggle. My situation is that I’m a self learner and when I read LLPSI I’m encumbered with doubt that I’m not fully understanding so I stop. I also found memorizing grammar rules and translating sets a bad precedent given the rule of primary. When I read Cicero though my mind has a strong intuition as though my understanding it is just around the bend if only Cicero himself could speak to me.

Even with a background partly in linguistics I really like the process of just starting to give yourself input in a foreign language that is not too distant from your own and then gradually figuring it out from the context. Although I have only used the method for written input and for passive understanding, I can now read Faroese and two North Frisian dialects. If I were to learn to use the languages for speaking, I would of course supply with a deeper dive into grammar to speed up the process but it's so nice to find the balance where you have the right measure of both.

I absolutely agree and can attest based on experience that a communicative/immersive learning experience is far better for fluency and long-term memory of a language than simply learning grammatical forms and keeping a dictionary with you while exploring media or even a country in which that language is spoken. I have had both experiences, the immersive method with French and the grammatical method with German, and there's no question which language I'm still better at, even though it's been almost 20 years since I studied either one to any serious degree, and that's French. I took an accelerated course in first-year French in college (and by accelerated, I just mean that FR 101-103 were condensed into two terms, 150-151, with longer class-times), and while the first hour of the first day was spent in English, discussing the expectations of the course, etc., after that first hour, and from that day forward, it was all French, all the time. My teacher started off by talking to use like we were children, getting use to interact with items in the class by using French commands, which we would repeat of course, and then, little by little, expanding the depth of language use until we were literally studying the grammar of French in French itself. It was an amazing course, as were the 200-level courses I took the following year. To this day, while my French is rusty, I can still understand it pretty well, and while my production isn't as good as my comprehension, I can still remember a lot of the genders of nouns not as much by systemic rules but because I remember how I used to say them and hear them. There should be no doubt that immersion and communication are the best options, and when you can't talk to people, learning to read texts with as natural an approach to the language as possible is the next best option.

What you are saying at 6:00 is spot on. I grew up in France and the learning of English is much slower, and much less comprehensive, because of the over-present dubbing.

Very insightful video. It made me consider a different approach to my learning of Latin. gratias magnas tibi ago, Lucii!

I think language learning theory is a double bind, if not treated wisely psychologically as for many it could become the reason why you end up not studying your target language(s). Too much focus on finding the so-called best way for learning a language could just be a coping mechanism getting rid of the anxiety of the unknown. The path is made by walking, it is not found. Really the best way of learning a language is first of all studying it! I think people often fail because they are not accustomed to any form of self-learning, hence is prefered "immersion" rather than "intented comprehensible initial exposure," which is likely to be the most critical phase. Once you get through it and are finally partially able to consume content in your target language, that is exactly when the 5 principles of comprehensible input theory take place, that is when you are in the language. So I believe that the teachers/instructors/writers' role is to make that initial phase alike to the second phase I depicted above. How can we make the student live in the language, annihilate that distance between the learner and that-which-is-being-learned, until just above that threshold where the learner can sail by himself. The books like Familia Romana are good to the extent they manage to do it. The initial point I was trying to make is similar to that celebrated Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow. Upon being asked 14 unanswerable metaphysical questions, Gautama speaks: "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."

most people confuse understanding the grammar of a language with reading books or grammar explanations. In fact, the so-called "natural method" teaches grammar and vocabulary at the same time and in context, as Orberg demonstrates in LLPSI when he explains the fourth declension: "In Germāniā et in Britanniā sunt magnī exercitūs Rōmānī quī contrā exercitus hostium pugnant. Mīlitēs et ducēs exercituum Rōmānōrum ab hostibus metuuntur. In Hispāniā et in Galliā nōn multī sunt mīlitēs Rōmānī, nam Hispānī et Gallī, quī eās prōvinciās incolunt, iam exercitibus nostris pārent. In exercitibus Rō­ mānīs etiam Hispānī et Gallī multī mīlitant, quī et alia arma et arcūs sagittāsque ferunt." So I don't understand why many people think that grammar is a separate area from the language they want to learn. On the other hand, the translation method pretends to teach a language as if it were algebra or geometry when they are totally different things, besides they fragment the structure of the language in a ridiculous way, for example they teach imperatives at the end of the textbooks, when it is probably the most used in spoken communication.

I am in my 2nd semester of Latin using a web textbook/graphic novel called Suburani. The grammar lessons always come AFTER the specific grammar point has been used in 2 or 3 short stories. Its been highly effective and usually when the professor assigns grammar work we have to do... literally nothing because we already acquired most of it.

I wish there were channels that did this sort of thing for Old English.

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

That day is coming. It will be this channel, and likely ScorpioMartianus as well.

@vampyricon7026

Ай бұрын

​@@polyMATHY_Luke Oh boy, I can't wait!

@userequaltoNull

Ай бұрын

​@@vampyricon7026 But alas, we shall.

I've noticed that when I keep up with the Torah portion (or at least try to) my spoken Hebrew is a lot better than when I just go to class and do my homework. Its amazing how necessary actually using the language is.

LingQ is great for my Italian. I just started Latin with the book Latin by the Natural Method and its great resource.

Fantastic video! 👏🏼 I'd love to read some more about how languages were thought before this "traditional method" was developed...do you have some bibliography you could recommend??

One advantage of learning _about_ a language is that you can immediately dive into an interesting system, so it keeps you engaged. You analyse the details, structure of the language, some basic etymologies, compare it with more familiar languages etc. And in the meantime, you are inevitably learning the language as well. On the other hand, comprehensive material in a language has to start with something simplistic and fairly dull, as you lack the skills for more engaging topics.

@beatoriche7301

Ай бұрын

I don't disagree with that - but I also don't think comprehensible material has to be boring, and you can absolutely also devote some time to chatting _about_ the language or some cultural aspects during class if the students are interested. It doesn't directly help you acquire the language, but it can help with learner motivation. Plus, stuff like etymology or connections to familiar languages is actually really helpful in embedding vocabulary within your mental network if you are so inclined, so even the most die-hard defender of comprehensible input would not object to their place in the classroom.

@pooroldnostradamus

Ай бұрын

@@beatoriche7301 So, really, it's just a matter of the ideal strategy being a mixture of everything, as usual.

@Komatik_

26 күн бұрын

The trouble is, I've done that as a diversionary activity for years, and haven't learned much Japanese or Korean at all. Just learned *about* them.

I totally agree with that view. In France I studied English with comprehensive input and I also decided to watch all american or british TV series/movies in their original versions with english subtitles, and I became quite fluent. But I studied Latin for six years, by learning grammar and then how to translate texts: I feel I kind of wasted my time, Ok I can say that I translated Seneca or Lucretius' De Rerum Natura. And as French intellectuals love pedantry, we are made to learn tons of Latin quotations so we can thus imitate Montaigne, but I never managed to read anything fluently, without even considering speaking. The whole concept of dead languages is misleading because it tends to imply that they should be taught in a different manner.

Lol, the story of the lion and the gazelle! It reminds me of the sketch from Aldo Giovanni e Giacomo "il leone e la dazella" it's hilarieous, I strongly reccomend you Luke to watch it, if you haven't already. PS: I learned italian by simply watching TV, and I am fluent in it, I rarely make any mistake. The language came by itself, I didn't even touch a grammar book. However, english and french, I learned with books, and by forcing myself to memorize the words, and it was so much more difficult and long. Now I'm learning spanish, just by watching telenovelas. It's so awesome to let the language come to you instead of chasing it

after four years of ancient greek and latin i could get As on all my translation tests but barely read. what is taught is basically puzzle solving more than any kind of language. the only thing that worked for me was picking an author and reading a ton of them, throwing the grammar books away, and going to a dictionary only when absolutely necessary.

Really enjoyed this video. I learned Polish by immersion and didactic as an adult. I also learned Latin as an adult (in Polish). I relearned German by didactic in high school. My primary language is English. My experience is that if you learn to communicate verbally in a language with some degree of fluency you also are able to communicate written language equally effective.

In truth, there probably is no one-size-fits-all method for learning languages, since languages differ fundamentally in how they organize information (e.g. analysis vs synthesis). Our ability to process that information is contingent on our sensitivity to whatever cues a language may use (word order, inflection, etc). There is evidence that the brains of different language speakers are wired differently. In other words, the most effective method of language acquisition for you will depend heavily on the language in question and on which other languages you already know. Ultimately, however, the most reliable predictor of success is exposure. If you commit several hours a day to the study of a language, you are probably going to experience success regardless of the method. If, on the other hand, you limit yourself to reading one Latin paragraph per week or less, no wonder method will save you.

I'm down with most of that. I would note that drill is helpful. I still remember when my favorite poem was: Ich bin Du bist Er sie es ist. Wir sind Ihr seid Sie Sie Sie sind. I like the grammar stuff, but I'm a nerd for that. I didn't get as much out of modern techniques as I could have because I was comming along just as they were being introduced and I didn't really buy into it for too long. And I fully agree that the opportunity to use what it is you're learning to make stuff is a big help in getting into the mindset. I wrote other poems then just that.

At 8:00 I thought for sure I was about to hear Luke talk about the Ancient Language Institute as that is the common sponsor, but I was delightfully surprised by LingQ, which actually is maybe a bit more fitting of a sponsor than ALI for this video about general language learning (ancient or modern).

Hey Luke! I thought of something. Now when text to video Ai is getting better, do you think it’s possible to create a playlist on your channel of comprehensible input videos set in the Roman Empire, featuring the most common Latin words based upon a frequency word list? The first video is about "Et". The second "In" Third "Est" Etc, to many thousands of words?

@YnEoS10

Ай бұрын

why would you make a whole video for one word? Comprehensible Input videos usually cover a number of basics words.

Grammar-translation is very important and leads to comprehension. It cuts off a lot of time to learn new languages and minimise confusion. Without grammar-translation, you will memorise sentences that in turns slowing down the progress. Especially when you learn a new language which has different grammar to your native language. Not knowing the target language grammar, only makes you create incomprehensible sentences to the learnt language. It's more like, for example, using English grammar while speaking Japanese, which is never understood by the native Japanese people.

It's really hard to convince the grammar-translation [GT] people that their method doesn't produce proficient readers/speakers, especially if they persevered long enough to be able to read Latin. When I was in high school and university through grad school [1970s and '80s] I don't think anyone knew of any way other than GT to teach Latin. I can remember slogging through a translation for homework and struggling to understand it and asking myself, "how can I be in grad school and I still can't read Latin?" Now I know it was the GT method. When I returned to Latin in the 2000s, I vowed this time around I would figure out how to read Latin, which I do fairly well now, and I did so by reading extensively in Latin, especially ecclesiastical and medieval, while also reviewing grammar, before getting brave enough to go back to classical texts. My Latin improved considerably as well by adopting LL Familia Romana as the textbook I used to teach in university and high school. I did some training in Comprehensible Input, and applied what I learned to how I present LLPSI:FR [pictures, gestures, acting out, drawing, talking in Latin about the readings before reading them, e.g.]. I still struggle to speak Latin, however; it's really hard to acquire Latin output skills after decades of GT. And it still seems like it's necessary to zoom out for students and show them that the language has patterns and structures to notice as aids to understanding. As for those who criticize CI, I don't think they understand the distinction between learning about the language and logging enough time in the language itself to attain fluency. Plus there are not many who can say they've learned a language to fluency via CI, so most people have no idea what it's like to do so, myself included. And it's very scary for GT teachers who can't speak Latin to give CI a chance with little to no training. Changing the subject, could you put together a video about Latin learning resources for children in elementary school? Thank you.

I think that grammar can make one a good user of a language after some knowledge of the language was assimilated in a less analytic way. For example, if one is an author, grammar can be of great help in evaluating whether a complex idea is communicated well, and if not, why not. Suppose you have a conditional clause of the relative kind. If you're trained in grammar, you have the concept of an antecedent, and so you can use it to analyze what went wrong in the construction of your intricate compound sentence. Ayn Rand recommends asking what the subject and the predicate of your sentence are when you edit a piece of writing. This is yet another simpler example of the usefulness of grammar: it makes implicit knowledge explicit, or rather - explicable in those times when you need to be more careful in using the language. I studied the latin paradigms using a grammar translation mathod and then went into extensive reading - and it helped a lot. In Greek, I find it actually impossible to memorize to paradigms in advance. I try to pick them up from reading by occasionally asking what's that verb form or what's that particle etc. I suppose that the right kind of way of integrating grammar and comprehensible input is to think of it as a spiral: reading, studying grammar, going back to reading, going back to grammar a second time and so on ad infinitum (or, rather, mortem). I agree, therefore, with the comprehensible input approach and I think that the objections mentioned in the video are rationalistic, pedantic, and detached from evidence, as states in the video; and yet, I also think it is helpful to study and use grammar with comprehensible input. One needs to use the concepts and order of grammar not to learn the language deductively, but to make it easier to get it through induction by actually reading plenty of texts of increasing difficulty.

Jeong's "A Greek Reader" needs to be on your list of readers, and at the front. It's far easier than Athenaze for a beginner, the learning curve is not as steep, and the stories have plenty of repetition.

I literaly have built myself up to communicating in simple 1st year latin, by watching these top latin channels for a year, and now i am starting to go back to my books and reread them. Now that i have a better feel for the language in a spoken and read way for the last year. Now i can go back and learn the offical rules.❤ i now walk through my house and speak to my cats and dog in latin lol

Full immersion is definitely the best way. I took one Spanish class at University of Texas at Austin. I couldn't get into the second one. After quitting school (that didn't go well, I ran out of money needing two more classes to graduate), I was rather furious and frustrated. I met a Tejano (a Hispanic-American from Texas) at a flea market, got invited to his house to drink and party. They were very surprised when I went back a day or two later. I started to pick up Spanish from there. After meeting many Mexicans, having Hondurans and Mexicans as roommates and then working in all Spanish, partying in all Spanish and watching many Mexican novellas, I ended up with a great fluency. (I also studied the Bible with a group, reading passages out loud in Spanish). So I can think clearly in Spanish or English. I can also mix them and think alternating in both. I cannot translate at all. Too hard to think the thing twice and still feel uncertain if I got it right or not. When meeting certain people who are very bilingual, we can mix both even in single sentences, picking the words that work best for certain thoughts. That's a lot of fun, but not many people can do that. I am very bookish, but grammar tables don't really stick in my head for more than a brief period, despite the fact that I have excellent memory. Thanks for the very helpful videos and advice.

It is easier to learn a language or get better at it by having conversations with that language. We also need more dubbed movies in Latin.

@stanislawandreszabiega6756

Ай бұрын

I learned polish and Spanish when I was a kid by having conversations, watching movies, reading books , etc.

I was lucky to have a teacher, Dr. Psuty, who taught us Latin conversationally 30+ years ago. We also used Ecce Romani, a strength of those books, like LLPSI, was the illustrations next to the writing. The pictures were VERY helpful to me, there would be an image of girl reading, sitting under a tree, and you could figure out what "puella sub arbore leget et sedet" meant without relying on translations. People complaining about "made-up texts" annoyed me, because I think you'd find that Homer and Plato were "making up" what they were saying as well. Just splitting hairs, I know they mean "ancient" vs. "modern." But more texts and more repetition in more ways = better. As for listening/reading at the same time, I found this essential when learning French because of the ellisions and the silent letters, it was much harder to understand without seeing how it was written. I still watch documentaries and read books in French, I can't write or speak anymore though! While starting to learn Arabic recently, I've find it essential to hear and read, because of the lack of short vowels in most writing (I feel like the written language is giving me much less information than most other languages do!). Nevertheless, I run into people online who think grammar/translation is the only way to go. I disagree, but I think it's because that's the way they learned and they can't comprehend doing things any other way. I need to have grammar tables accessible to me when I need them, but I don't find it useful to try to memorize them immediately anymore. I've been accumulating some ancient Greek stuff but I've paused my Greek in favor of Arabic, I will look more into your videos on this matter in the future though!

Maximas gratias tibi! Pellicula valde utilis et magni momenti!

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

Grātiās, Dāvīd!

Question: How did you become fluent in Latin? Do you have a video somewhere explaining your own Latin journey? I am a homeschooler learning Latin with my children, and since I have a lot of them who move through various ages and levels, I have been learning Latin for over a decade. I started with what I now know is less effective--the grammar-translation Forms Series by Memoria Press, which vehemently argues against what you say in this video. We switched to LLPSI Familia Romana a year ago and reading fluency exploded, as well as enjoyment. But I wonder--can one learn complex grammar just through comprehensible input? Especially when trying to compose in the language? I went into LLPSI already having memorized all the grammar paradigms and many, many rules, as Memoria Press has the students recite forms and rules in choro every day. So I understand a lot of Latin grammar. Because of this, it is hard for me to know whether learning Latin through comprehensible input, or the natural method a la Orberg, is enough to help people produce in speech and writing correct Latin in complex constructions. I already knew so much grammar going in, including verbals and subjunctive in independent and dependent clauses, etc. and could recognize on sight the characteristics of an inflected word by its form. Would a person with zero grammar exposure be able to learn all that from Orberg alone? I also wonder how to avoid translating in my head. In the early chapters of LLPSI FR, I don't need to translate explicitly, but the English meaning is there with the Latin--Roma in Italia est ... I know what it means, but the English is also there in my mind. Impossible to keep it out--it is so ingrained in me being my native language (the same goes for Spanish ... I used to be relatively fluent and could hold conversations about complex topics such as what Catholics believe ... but English was always in my mind with the Spanish. I learned Spanish in high school the "traditional" grammar first/memorize vocab lists way in the 1990s, but we also watched Destinos; my college Spanish courses were all conducted in Spanish, in which we read Spanish literature and wrote essays in Spanish. But I was translating mentally that whole time, thinking things like, How would I express this idea in Spanish?) When LLPSI FR becomes complex in the later chapters, I am not really understanding it in the first reading without translating mentally and working it out like a puzzle. After I do that, I can then understand it on a second and subsequent reading. I find the Companion by Neumann very, very helpful--because I do find an explanation of grammar necessary in understanding the text. Having said that, I picked up Richie's Fabulae Faciles and need very few of the grammar notes and know most of the core vocab. After looking up unknown words in the per-story glosses when context wasn't enough, I would then re-read the stories and understand them. But I feel like I am still translating mentally, or at least English is present with the Latin. So I would appreciate hearing from people who to read Latin without translating, and who learned complex grammar without learning it in your native language. How do you do that? Thanks.

There is no better comprehensible input than a word in the learners language. The JACT book and Geoffrey Steadman’s books are great examples of this.

Most teachers that say grammar can be harmful for language learning have no or little knowledge about the grammar and say it mostly because they don't understand it properly. But I know that you are an expert on the whole matter (speaking, grammar, reading) and I can understand now why there are solid reasons against extreme grammar learning. Thank you!

@AEARArg

Ай бұрын

No. There is scientific evidence on the merits of input based versus grammar based learning.

@jextra1313

Ай бұрын

"If teachers don't use my favourite method, they aren't educated enough" is such a hauty statement. Grammar never helped me learn my native language, all it did was name things I already understood. Input was always the catalyst for understanding. Grammar is good for the academic study of language, not learning. You don't have to name all the parts of a bicycle to be a world champion cyclist.

@Xardas131

Ай бұрын

@@jextra1313 I said nothing like this. I just said, many teachers don't want to hear about grammar because they don't understand it at all. Luke of course understands both and has therefore far better judgement on the matter.

@Edits_Panic0

Ай бұрын

​@@jextra1313 That's true. I can communicate in my native language but I don't know shit about it's grammar. 😂

As someone who has studied many languages and who has been teaching languages for many years, I think that the biggest factor in learning is motivation. I think the 'comprehensive input' method works especially well for people who are motivated to learn, and who make an effort to understand. The main advantage, as far as I see it, to a more traditional approach (maybe not translation approach, but a more mechanical approach at least) is that it is less dependent on motivation. Learners that are not motivated might listen to someone speaking or read a text, and just get nothing out of it. They are not willing to draw conclusions, suss out patterns, or explore. But they are just as able as someone who is motivated when it comes to being asked to memorize a table of grammatical endings. A lot easier to command your students "memorize this table" than "listen to these recordings and read these texts and drawing on them and your practice with your partners master the present tense". For all of us who watch your channel, I assume motivation is not a big issue. But for someone teaching in a secondary school or university, motivation is (at least in my experience) rare.

@Hraefngar

12 күн бұрын

I agree with your concerns about CI. It's definitely the best approach, provided students are willing to engage with the process which can often be a big ask.

As an autodidact using mostly input in my study of Persian and Japanese, one thing ive found is that massive input is indespensible in gaining an intuititive, native like comprehension of a language, but that accessing vocabulary when outputting, or using our L2s in an intelligent, idiomatic way is a somewhat separate skill that has to be cultivated on its own. For kyself I've been trying to pay cliser attention to HOW people speak or write in my L2 in order to speak better

Thanks for the answer. My english is not good but i can understand you. I'm from Brazil! Salve, Luke! Amo linguam latinam!

As a Classics grad who studied Ancient Greek and Latin in university using the traditional way and who has been learning Irish for the last two years using the comprehensible input method, I can attest that so far the CI approach is effective and SUSTAINABLE. When I read interesting original sources, I am engaged. It does feel like it may take longer but the word retrieval feels faster and more natural. Little phrases are also starting to stick as if I were a real 2 year old learning his first language. I also don’t particularly care that this “indirect” method nay take awhile because I am having fun and learning about the culture reading original literature with English translation. It feels like for fluency there are no “shortcuts” so if I am gonna put the work in I may as well have fun. Now I still read my grammar books daily on a cycle. As I do, the rules start to make more sense because I begin to recall actual examples from my readings. It is a similar situation to native English speakers going to English grammar class. I suppose I am also doing translation when I do not immediately understand but I am trying to keep it light and focusing on keeping the pace. So I begin to recognize “future” “past” etc by patterns and seeing the same word or words like it. I typically write the original and then try to write a very rough English equivalent but its more like jotting. Then I will read it out and use hand motions to replace my English thoughts and just say “yep” at the end. For easier sentences with time the “English step” has disappeared. I just understand the meaning in the Irish. I guess my approach isn’t “pure CI” but for someone coming out of translating ancient Greek, it feels liberating!

I taught myself Ancient Greek (no prior experience with Latin) by using the traditional method: school textbook, memorizing the paradigms, doing the exercises, reading the text snippets over and over. I wasn’t quite ready to read Plato, but I was lucky that I could sit in a University Plato course for a semester as a guest and after that it was happy reading. Plato. Xenophon. A little Herodotus later. Still struggling with Homer and Sophocles, but will get there eventually, I hope…. Am in a little hiatus now, got fascinated by Sanskrit, which is like Ancient Greek on steroids…. Will see where it takes me. - but yes, my advice is to start reading original literature as soon as possible and feasible. Good luck on this most fascinating journey!

When I learned Latin at school back in the early to mid 2000s, while our methods were focused on grammar, especially the early phases definitely had elements of comprehensible input. Our textbooks had very simple introductory texts that had been written as teaching materials - they weren't dissimilar to Familia Romana in that way. Now, we also started out with our first declinations and conjugations and we barely did any text production in Latin beyond greeting our teachers (which was certainly a shame), but nobody tried to make us read originals until we had more than a year of basic training in Latin with materials that had been designed to be comprehensible for our relative level of proficiency. My main point of criticism is that we only ever worked from Latin into our language and were almost never encouraged to work in Latin itself, i.e. speak, write or think in Latin.

This makes sense to me. When you learn english, you learn it and understand it, but occasionally have to ask what words mean in english. Other language acquisition is similar, intuit it until you inderstand the important concepts and the images asspciated with them, then use the language itself to expand the language. Like how you originially got the grammar from immersion in english, but the reason for that grammar was explained later on when you took english classes.

The problem with comprehensible input is that you have to magically be at upper intermediate level before you can start to use the method

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

That is true for most texts from antiquity, that is true. This is why the graded readers I mentioned are so important.

@muskyoxes

Ай бұрын

@@polyMATHY_Luke Graded readers start way too advanced, as i think you even indicated in this video. A third grade reading level for a native is a gigantic amount of work for a learner to get there

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

Very good point. This is why I made the recommendations I did in the Ranieri-Roberts Approach video.

Luke, I love your videos and admire the quality of the content. While agreeing in the main with your thesis in this video, I fear you make a small mistake which many KZread Language Learners make: namely, saying that there is the ONE way to learn a language. I took a course in how to be a ski instructor and I was taught 12 ways to teach students how to change direction with the following advice: "Teach all 12 methods. The students will find the method which works for them." Comprehensible input is what language is all about because when you are fluent in a language, the language is comprehensible. I think there is a role for grammar, drills, memorisation, reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Can you function at a high level in L2 or L3 without knowing grammar? Absolutely. Would knowing grammar improve your ability? Probably. When I learn a new language, I find it helpful to do a minimal grammar introduction, learn by heart a few dozen essential phrases (Dov'è il bagno?), drill some vocab-all of which accelerate my learning. Bene.

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

Hi Jeremiah, thanks for the comment. Given how many different methods for language learning I have espoused on this channel, including a few in this video, it would be pretty silly of me to say that there could only be one way to learn language. Fortunately I didn’t say anything of the kind - I did however say there is only one way to *acquire* language, and that is via comprehensible input, because that is the definition of acquisition. But what Krashen calls “learning,” or what we might call various methods in pedagogy, may be of help to eventual acquisition and proficiency.

@jeremiahreilly9739

Ай бұрын

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. Bene. @@polyMATHY_Luke

We definitely need the Rainieri-Roberts approach for Latin next!

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

Soon!

Whatever you say but I personally experienced first hand the how 'comprehensible input' works. I studied Spanish since I was a teenager, through studying grammatical rules and some exposure here and there but to no avail. I came to the point where I have already known every rules by heart but couldn't even speak or understand the language proficiently. 4 years ago, someone taught me about comprehensible input and now I am between C1 to C2 in Spanish. I also tried it in German, albeit with 'little' dosage of grammar from time to time, and now I am approaching to B1 level. I am also trying it with Ancient Greek through Logos, and it does make miracles. Of course, I have to take a little dosage of glimpse to rules from time to time, but I focus more on exposing myself to a text and then analyzing the patterns and the context around an unknown vocabulary.

I learn latin in Orthodox Seminary in Russia now. At class i lean latin with traditional method, but outside the class i learn latin with language acquisition's method. Both methods work for me, because i like grammatical study. Language acquisition is also working for me to know latin context more deeply.

I would agree with much of this, but still think the issue with comprehensible input comes with making the leap to particular genres/subjects of material where there are few ways to make the material comprehensive without either (in my view) exhausting use of the dictionary or the use of translations. I've read Lingua Latina, most graded readers etc. and shifting to the likes of Augustine or medieval hagiography always proves a challenge. With my study of modern languages, combo of audiobooks and (self-created) interlinear translations (thousands of hours worth of material) has taught me reading fluency, but left a huge gap in terms of active production and speaking. At least so far, I do find that language is learning is one of those areas where skills are not transferable (i.e. to speak well, you just have to speak a huge amount; to read well, you just have to read a huge amount etc.).

@beatoriche7301

Ай бұрын

Let me just say that it's totally normal for there to be a gap between what you can _read_ and what you can _write,_ and between what you can _say_ versus what you can understand when _listening._ This is the case even in your first language - with some acclimation, you can comfortably understand texts that are a few centuries old, but that doesn't mean you can necessarily _replicate_ the style of these authors in your own writing. Doing so does require some level of effort dedicated to writing specifically, but these two skill sets are not as divorced from one another as you may think; of course, you can only write what you understand in reading, but on the flipside, you can also much more comfortably understand words or grammatical constructions if you yourself use them on a routine basis. With regards to your Latin studies, let me just say that it is normal for original texts to be a bit difficult to get into initially - this is actually a well-known phenomenon in Latin language teaching circles, and unfortunately, there aren't yet as many materials designed to address it as there should be. Ørberg himself actually created helpful editions of some original texts specifically designed to help intermediate students who have acquired the basics of the language, and people (including yours truly) continue to work on editions of original texts that are palatable for students getting into authentic texts, wherever their interests may lie. There aren't enough of those materials yet, though; no arguments there.

@mdittmar1315

Ай бұрын

I agree with this. The graded readers with their highly simplified selections do indeed provide some knowledge of the grammar and some vocabulary via direct exposure, pictures, etc ....but it is a huge leap from this to an actual ancient author....where one has to contend with specialized vocabulary, odd constructions and idioms, etc. Here it does seem useful to have access to a grammar and a dictionary. Ideally you would get it from context but that is often a stretch.

@polyMATHY_Luke, regarding the whole comment about bookishness, I think it's quite telling that Stephen Krashen's findings really troubled him personally many years ago, because he LOVES grammar. It just turns out that it is not the deliberate study of grammar that produces language acquisition. The literature is very clear that students can be tested on explicit grammatical knowledge and pass with perfect scores, but then still make mistakes either in speaking or in writing as if they didn't know the rule at all. The fact that this phenomenon occurs at all is the whole reason that there is a subset of second language acquisition research devoted to the relationship between explicit and implicit language knowledge and the degree to which the boundary of those two things is permeable and, if so, in what way(s).

@moacirbarbosacastro8923

8 сағат бұрын

When you learn through input, you ``mimick`` the authors that you`ve read while producing the language writtenly or spokenly. So a student can write right grammatically speaking without knowning grammar or knowing the ins and outs of the language. In the end, this input thing will get you so far. But to trully get a deeper and real understanding of the language, one must learn the nuances through grammar (for structure) and dictionaries (for words).

Really interesting, I'm nearly 60 and still can't speak French, but I can read it, in my 20's I went 3 years without reading a book or magazine in English, got through a lot of Asterix.

Just when I am getting back to trying to learn my 3rd language (Japanese), you come out with this vid lol. Now I'm gonna learn I been doing it all wrong.

6:20 the funny thing is, when us Greeks go to Italy and try to speak English they don't respond, but when we start speaking Greek they somehow learned English😂😅 Every person I know had the same experience🗿 (keep in mind in Greece almost all people know English and it's not uncommon to have a native English speaker for a teacher)

Hey there, Luke! I'm from Greece and a classics graduate. That method you speak of was never used when I was in highschool or the university. Note that in Greece Ancient Greek is a mandatory course throughout highschool. While I agree it's more effective with regards to learning a language, any language, and should be used in classics departments at universities, I don't think it's necessary when the goal is to simply give a taste of, and not actually teach, Ancient Greek to 12 and 16 year-olds. This question has been bugging me for years: should kids at school get a glimpse of the ancient languages or actually learn how to speak those languages?

Ciao! sono un linguista focalizzato in lingue moderne, questo è stato un ottimo video sul processo di apprendimento di una nuova lingua. Sin da quando ho visto il tuo video del 2020 sull’”extensive reading” sono diventato promotore del metodo che ho rinominato “esperienziale” perché ci forza ad usare la lingua ed interagire con essa attivamente anziché parlare di essa tramite regole grammaticali. Trovo lampante l’esempio che hai fatto sulla differenza tra leggere il manuale di volo di un aereo ed effettivamente pilotarlo. Limitandosi a leggere il manuale di volo non è possibile imparare a volare. Mi piacerebbe in futuro imparare il greco antico, evitando però il metodo grammaticale. Ho fatto un tentativo in passato ma non avendo avuto nessuno che mi dasse degli input non sono andato lontano. Ho trovato una marcata mancanza di contenuti, per esempio ogni libro non ti dice nemmeno come dire “ciao” in greco antico. Qualunque libro di testo su una lingua moderna avrebbe questo in prima pagina. Se potessi mandarmi un link ad una guida su come iniziare con la lingua sarebbe fantastico. Non sono stato in grado di vedere molti dei tuoi video per via di limitazioni di tempo quindi non sono riuscito a costruire un metodo strutturato su come iniziare. La mancanza di contenuti esperienziali non ha certo aiutato. Sono aperto a qualunque suggerimento che possa aiutarmi a definire un piano strutturato. È un piacere parlare con qualcuno che mette così tanta passione e dà ispirazione nell’apprendimento delle lingue!

So I had an interesting talk with a woman at work. She is from Rwanda. She is going to see Romeo and Juliet this weekend. She knows like 5 languages. She was talking about a song that has Romeo and Juliet in it. She had to recite the song to translate it. It was interesting. Sometimes we talk in french. She understands English great probably at a C1 level maybe C2. But Translating between the languages takes a lot of time. Its just really interesting.

For spreading the Greek language you are a civilized person and it must be proved that you are a great man.

Okay - I am unclear how a picture is better at providing comprensible input than a translation? Also what would you say to the effectiveness of an accurate translation of a word vs a limited, over-simplified definition in the target language? I learned much of my Latin from Familia Romana and it was indeed a lovely way to learn - but I have to say that I found the glosses frequently frustrating and in fact often simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. (And don't get me started on Roma Aeterna) I often looked them up - so easy these days. Of course, ideally one reads or listens or converses in the target language and thus builds up the nuance toward infinite latinitas. But I'm not convinced that one should at all costs avoid learning a word by mapping it to its native language equivalent. Is there research on that?

I learned Japanese, an extremely hard language, in 5 years by learning each grammar point first, followed by input. I learned Latin input first but I knew how slow not memorizing the conjugation tables would be so I did that. I vote for grammar+input being the most efficient way to learn a language.

I would say one of the main reasons you need "real, understandable input" is because acquiring a new languange is best done via (negative) feedback where you need to make actual mistakes and adjust yourself accordingly. In that light, translating from a native language to one studied will, in my opinion, contribute more to language proficiency than the other way around as there will be many more opportunities to make mistakes and get stumped. To me, if you can immediately write down a story of moderate complexity in a target language without too many external aids, you are very likely to be able to hold a normal conversation in the language (but NOT the other way around).

I agree that the grammar-translation method generally doesn’t work well, even for bookish types. However, people vary in their learning styles, and some people are extreme outliers. I have taught languages for many years and realised that a huge amount of input is necessary and even quite clever people get confused by rules. However, it is still the case that for me personally, it’s boring to be exposed to a lot of stuff when all I really want and need to do is memorise all the interesting rules of grammar and phonology first. I can look at a paradigm and know it for ever, hauling it up to my mind’s eye in the middle of speaking a sentence in order to put the right ending on. I spontaneously think in terms of a Chomsky-style transformational-generative grammar tree. I taught myself Italian from a textbook and a cassette tape for one year when I was 16, until I could recite the dialogues in it from memory. I then didn’t think about the language till I went to Milan at 23, where I was able to live my life speaking only Italian. After a few months of comprehensible input from daily life that boosted my fluency, vocab and confidence, I started working as a translator. Italians often take me for a native speaker. My brain isn’t normal.

How would you motivate students in a classroom to approach a Latin text such as LLPSI from a CI standpoint and not rush to grammatical explanations or get frustrated with the process? Even students who haven't been brought up on a traditional grammar/translation approach still rush to the grammar or give up rather than taking the time to work through the language.

currently I feel like I am for the first time in my life actually learning to read latin. In school we mostly learned all these declinations and conjugations, but not how to read fluently. At the moment I have to read alot of medieval stuff and because before roughly 1350 in my area everything was written down in latin. Everything. Meaning even the most basic stuff like "Hinricus Carnefix tenetur Johannes de Smalenvelde 4 M. den. persolv. Nativitate domini proxima ventura." The first few times I had to look up alot, but after some time it becomes easy to decifer these small notes and even to grasp a full page of latin, atleast what the topic is about. I definitely cant translate it, but I can understand it. Also yes it is not classical latin, but a really vulgar form.

I think that for anyone who aquired a 2nd language throughout their life without trying to learn it and also tried to deliberately learn a language by studying it must be clear that comprehensible input is the better way of acquiring a language. But I think learning grammar is still beneficial to do if you use it as a supplementary method and not overrely on it. This might be different for everyone on individual level, but I am not sure if I agree with the sentiment that it can actually be hindering you. I mean when you use the word "can", you can say almost anything and still it will be factually true, but if the question is whether it will actually hinder most people, I don't think it will. But there is another issue that you didn't tuch on. What do you think about the benefits of trying to speak the language right from the start. Traditionally people will tell you that you need to try to speak for yourself as early as possible, but lately there were also voices saying it is better to wait until you have enough comprehension to be able to express yourself a little bit (supposedly trying to speak early might cause bad habbits for language acquisition and especially for pronounciation). Personally I tend to favour the latter approach. My mom told me that even when I was little, I refused to speak to people for a long time and then I suddenly started to form complete sentences. This makes me think that this might be the more natural way for me.

I wonder if an ancient Greek equivalent to LLPSI is even possible in principle. Germanic and Romance language speakers are able to immediately comprehend (much of) Chapter 1 of LLPSI. Even ignoring the script problem I can't imagine an ancient Greek paragraph that is immediately comprehensible to day 1 learners. It seems some CI videos (as Luke has made) or a vocabulary memorization routine is necessary before beginning to study ancient Greek through CI texts. What do y'all think?

@YnEoS10

Ай бұрын

People have already done it for Thai. Alpha with Angela already does this for Koine Greek, although the pronunciation isn't historical.

Can you suggest a graded reader specifically for Koine Greek? What do you think of learning a language by reading the same book in two languages? I learned NT Greek by reading an interlinear, and among the many books in French that my parents and relatives got for me, I had the same Babar book in French and English and Astérix Légionnaire in both languages. I suspect that at least one of the authors knew English, because "Ptenisnet" sounds more Egyptian than "Courdeténis".

@andreascarl9636

Ай бұрын

Honestly I think you should learn Attic Greek, there is more material and better books. The school grammar I am using has 250 pages, … there is an Appendix of about 3 pages that lists the differences one needs to know to read and understand Koine. There is another Appendix of about 8 pages for Homer and Ionic forms (Herodotus etc.) - so assuming you have an interest in the ancient world, Attic is a much better starting point.

@pierreabbat6157

Ай бұрын

@@andreascarl9636 I'm interested in Greek mainly to read the Bible; I also have Euclid's Elements (early Koine). I'm not interested in Greek paganism, and the Greek I read doesn't have duals (π.χ. Εαν δυο ευθειαι τεμνωσιν αλληλας, τας κατα κορυφην γωνιας ισας αλληλαις ποιουσιν.)

I’m curious on your take in response to what J. Richard Andrews writes in his Introduction to Classical Nahuatl, where he advocates for a mostly grammar-based approach, saying: “This grammar is also unusual in its insistence on an unabashedly grammatical presentation. I have deemed this necessary since Nahuatl is so foreign to English, Spanish, and other Indo-European languages. Grammatical analysis and explanation seem the only way to block, or at least temper, the urge to misconceive the foreign language from the entirely falsifying perspective of the student's own language.”

What’s your opinion of the “Assimil” books?

Dear Mr. Rainiery, After trying Ephemeras for a while, and haveing my friend read it. Struggled to understand it, saying it is like Google Translate. I quit the method out of fear of getting used to my wrong grammar. ~and getting stuck later~

Duolingo 100 days streak 😎😎💪

My question now is: why does the grammar translation method exist? When did it replace the ancient way of teaching languages that was mostly based on the natural one?

Precisely! COMPREHENSIBLE input. I hate having to guess at a passage and then have the uncertainty about what I have guessed. Will I have to "erase" my mistaken first guess? I'm viscerally repulsed at the prospect!

I think it is important to note in response to commenter 2 that the "comprehensible input" method is not an alternative to learning the grammatical rules. Learners of Russian (for example) using the comprehensible input method must also learn the case endings of Russian. It is just that they learn them by examples, and by practice in sentences, instead of by memorizing a chart. They learn the endings through encountering them and through using them, instead of by drilling them. Obviously it is possible for people using any method to be bad learners, or know grammar poorly, or make mistakes. If the commenter's experience is that users of the comprehensible input method that they have encountered are stupid and don't learn grammar well, it is likely that those people don't learn grammar well because they are stupid, rather than because of them using the comprehensible input method....

In my experience, the general method used to teach Latin or Greek is completely different from the method used to teach a foreign language. Because the goal is different. The goal of learning Latin and Greek is to be able to read a text and understand it by translating it. The goal is not to be able to communicate in Latin or Greek. While learning a foreign language has the primary goal of communicating. You learn a foreign language because you want to be able to communicate in this language. Honestly, I don't like the communicative method because it neglects grammar too much. The communicative method works well with isolate languages like Chinese or English that don't rely too much on morphology to convey meaning. In English you learn words you put them together and 90% of time you have a correct sentence. But in other languages grammar is so important that becomes a fundamental aspect of the learning process. I taught Italian in a language school for migrants for 2 years using the communicative method. The results: they eventually can communicate but they still make a lot of silly grammar mistakes.

As a Greek, there is a joke I'd like to share with you which definitely fits with modern, ancient, or whatever kind of Greek people want to learn. You see, I've heard people say that Greek is a hard language to learn. I disagree. You only need to focus on the alphabet. Once you done that, you know the Alpha and Omega of the language. I'll see myself out.

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

Χαχα. Μ’αρέσει!

Repetition is key to learning a language. I have 5 children, and over the years I've been paying attention to how they've acquired English. It's really just been as basic as repeating simple words and phrases to them endlessly until they get it, especially when they're really young. They learn language even faster when they have other children to play with because they receive constant input that's interactive, and it makes it easier for them to associate verbs with actions.

14:43 was Boeing also a sponsor for this video?

You have to adquire a language in order to study it's grammar.

@polyMATHY_Luke

Ай бұрын

This seems to be the best way to go about it, yes

I do believe firmly that grammar study is important, but grammar does not equal the language itself. I've started studying German recently, mostly through input, while browsing grammar rules here and there. If I were to memorize the declension tables and the word order paradigms from scratch, I would not have progressed at all.

@wasweiich9991

Ай бұрын

Grammar comes after getting a grasp of the language. No pupil ever learns grammar first. Grammar is a way to standardize a language and give pupils ab etter understanding - but it definitively is no way to teach a language.

I studied Latin with the traditional Italian method which began with the study of grammar. Years later, continuing to study Latin, I had the same approach to German. Today I still remember all the peculiarities, from the declension of oak to the German definite articles. I can't hold a conversation in Latin or even German. I calmly manage to translate, keeping the dictionary next to me. My mum did the same to me with English but luckily I met Deborah from London and lived with her (who didn't want to learn Italian) for two years. Even though many years have passed, I write in English straight away and don't use the dictionary. The only ones who learn Latin the right way are Catholic priests who are forced to consider it a living language and have conversations in Latin

What is the best approach for a native romance language speaker?

You should do a collaboration video with languagejones

18:31 This is one of the reasons I like traveling to foreign countries. It allows the part of my brain that automatically interprets every piece of text that catch my glance to rest for a few days.