Wheelock's Latin or Reading Latin?

[Piter]

Hello out there!

I'm 32 years old and planning to learn Latin. I already am quite apt
at reading in English, Spanish and French, and once again I got this
"itch", this urge to learn a new language. Latin attracts me because
of its relation with Europe's culture and its "serious" grammar (a bit
of a "challenge" won't hurt). I know that I've got enough discipline
and perseverance to reach this goal. I don't want to make it more
difficult than necessary, however. Therefore I'm looking for a good
textbook, especially one made for adults (I really don't want to put
up with these textbooks geared towards children) who want to learn
outside of the strict framework of a course.

A bit of "reconnaissance" in the Internet has provided 2 main
textbooks:

1. "Wheelock's Latin"
2. "Reading Latin" (by Peter Jones)

My question is: which is better? According to one posting these two
books use two widely different approaches. "Wheelock's Latin" is said
to use a deductive approach while "Reading Latin" favours an
"inductive" one. So far so good. But what does that MEAN?

My aim: I want to be able to read (more or less fluently) the
classical texts and do also a bit of writing (perhaps for the Latin
version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia,
http://la.wikipedia.com/). I'm willing to take myself the time
(approximately five years for the writing; of course, I don't intend
to be a Cicero or Vergil). And I don't mind "work" ("Per aspera ad
astra"!).

So, can anyone of you point out which of those two text books is
better suited for me.

Thank you for your help,

Piter

[Johannes Patruus]

Post by Piter
Hello out there!
I'm 32 years old and planning to learn Latin. I already am quite apt
at reading in English, Spanish and French, and once again I got this
"itch", this urge to learn a new language. Latin attracts me because
of its relation with Europe's culture and its "serious" grammar (a bit
of a "challenge" won't hurt). I know that I've got enough discipline
and perseverance to reach this goal. I don't want to make it more
difficult than necessary, however. Therefore I'm looking for a good
textbook, especially one made for adults (I really don't want to put
up with these textbooks geared towards children) who want to learn
outside of the strict framework of a course.
A bit of "reconnaissance" in the Internet has provided 2 main
1. "Wheelock's Latin"
2. "Reading Latin" (by Peter Jones)
My question is: which is better? According to one posting these two
books use two widely different approaches. "Wheelock's Latin" is said
to use a deductive approach while "Reading Latin" favours an
"inductive" one. So far so good. But what does that MEAN?
My aim: I want to be able to read (more or less fluently) the
classical texts and do also a bit of writing (perhaps for the Latin
version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia,
http://la.wikipedia.com/). I'm willing to take myself the time
(approximately five years for the writing; of course, I don't intend
to be a Cicero or Vergil). And I don't mind "work" ("Per aspera ad
astra"!).
So, can anyone of you point out which of those two text books is
better suited for me.

The person best placed to judge which book is best for you, is you yourself.
Examine what's available in an academic bookstore and see what appeals.

Nor are you are under any obligation to disregard the textbooks of
yesteryear, some of which are downloadable from http://www.textkit.com.

Indeed, one school of thought considers the old books superior:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b93s8r$16i$1%40phys-news1.kolumbus.fi

Johannes

[Dewey Notlow]

Post by Johannes Patruus
The person best placed to judge which book is best for you, is you yourself.
Examine what's available in an academic bookstore and see what appeals.

I recently used Wheelock's for self-study, and it worked quite well for me.
But I'm in agreement with Johannes that this is largely a personal judgment.
Since you've studied other languages, you likely have a good idea of what
approaches work well for you.

- Dewey.

[Richard Sere]

Post by Piter
My question is: which is better? According to one posting these two
books use two widely different approaches. "Wheelock's Latin" is said
to use a deductive approach while "Reading Latin" favours an
"inductive" one. So far so good. But what does that MEAN?

One of the benefits of using Wheelock's is the enormous amount of material
based on the text available to anyone with access to the internet.
Professor Dale Grote has recorded his lectures as his class goes over the
Optional Self-Tutorial exercises at the end of the book.

http://www3.uncc.edu/classics/Wheelock/default.htm

[Robert FISHER]

Post by Piter
A bit of "reconnaissance" in the Internet has provided 2 main
1. "Wheelock's Latin"
2. "Reading Latin" (by Peter Jones)
My question is: which is better? According to one posting these two
books use two widely different approaches. "Wheelock's Latin" is said
to use a deductive approach while "Reading Latin" favours an
"inductive" one. So far so good. But what does that MEAN?

I'll avoid trying to define those terms, as I am not comfortable that I
would give a wholly correct answer. I am familiar with those two works,
however.

I would say that 1 is more focused on teaching you the language in
detail while 2 is more focused on getting you reading the language as
quickly as possible though some details get glossed over.

Another difference is that 1 is formal while 2 is informal. (1 was
written to be a school textbook. 2 was originally--as I recall--a
newspaper column.)

Hope that helps...

[Paul McKenna]

Post by Robert FISHER

Post by Piter
A bit of "reconnaissance" in the Internet has provided 2 main
1. "Wheelock's Latin"
2. "Reading Latin" (by Peter Jones)
My question is: which is better? According to one posting these two
books use two widely different approaches. "Wheelock's Latin" is said
to use a deductive approach while "Reading Latin" favours an
"inductive" one. So far so good. But what does that MEAN?

I'll avoid trying to define those terms, as I am not comfortable that I
would give a wholly correct answer. I am familiar with those two works,
however.
I would say that 1 is more focused on teaching you the language in
detail while 2 is more focused on getting you reading the language as
quickly as possible though some details get glossed over.
Another difference is that 1 is formal while 2 is informal. (1 was
written to be a school textbook. 2 was originally--as I recall--a
newspaper column.)
Hope that helps...
--
Robert FISHER Robertus PISCATOR
valete et gratias vobis pro piscibus omnibus agimus
(Replies via email are presumed spam.)
(Responsa per cursus publicum electronicum praesumuntur sagnationes.)

I should point out that "Learn Latin" by Peter Jones [Duckworth ISBN
0-7156-2757-0] is based on his columns of the same name for the Daily
Telegraph and prepares the student for reading selected texts very quickly.
However "Reading Latin" is the text book series of choice of the Open
University in Britain. It was specifically designed for use by older
students and is probably no less useful as a serious text book than any
other.

yours,
Paul McK

[Sebastian Hew]

Post by Piter
1. "Wheelock's Latin"
2. "Reading Latin" (by Peter Jones)
My question is: which is better? According to one posting these two
books use two widely different approaches. "Wheelock's Latin" is said
to use a deductive approach while "Reading Latin" favours an
"inductive" one. So far so good. But what does that MEAN?

The 'deductive' approach is one which focusses on grammar. Textbooks
that use this approach generally present one aspect of Latin grammar at
a time, and then provide examples that illustrate that aspect, and
problems that require its use. This approach places much emphasis on
paradigms, rules and exceptions. Such textbooks typically begin by
presenting the paradigm for the first declension nouns or the first
conjugation verbs, i.e., it is the amo-amas-amat type textbook.

On the other hand, the 'inductive' approach focusses on texts and
understanding, rather than on grammatical rules. They generally begin by
presenting a Latin phrase, sentence or passage, and then highlights
pertinent aspects of grammar and vocabulary. Learning a language by
immersion is the epitome of the inductive approach--you see the language
in use and pick it up gradually (although, this process is generally
aided by explanations of relevant points).

The traditional method of pedagogy is the deductive one, but inductive
texts are increasingly becoming popular.

Sebastian.

[Christopher Culver]

Post by Sebastian Hew
The traditional method of pedagogy is the deductive one, but inductive
texts are increasingly becoming popular.

Which I think is unfortunate, because inductive textbooks tend to move at
a much slower pace and cater to the least common denominator of the
classroom. After four years of high school Latin, my fellow students still
didn't know the pronominal declension or the subjunctive, which made
reading any authentic text nearly impossible. We were limited to the
carefully abridged texts in our textbook. The deductive textbooks of
yesteryear (I've lately stumbled across TextKit.com and love it) may have
put much more pressure upon students who find rote memorisation difficult,
but they did move at a more quicker pace that resulted in better reading
comprehension after the same amount of time.

Christopher Culver