Textkit Greece and Latin Forums

Relative clauses are featured in Chapter 3 of Familia Romana. Her appearance to me quite straight forward and the grammatical explanations inches the Companion is clear. Some in meine class are struggling with the concept and I can run out of ways of explaining it. Part of the matter is easy the unrecognized lingo.

I would may interest to hear from anyone whom has encountered problems by this chapter, either because a teacher or student. Identical it would heartening to hear that others had a positive experience and experienced no problems. Its difficult the remember get it was like when EGO first-time started Latin!

MYSELF have had more look at that chapter and don't think I had any problems with it. The later extract explains relative clauses in grand detail and, more importantly, in words out one syllabic. Maybe there's something useful in it for your class. https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/Latin1000 ... ns/17T.pdf. Sorry if you do before seen that.

Thanks for that Pianophile.

I may try to filet it like its often useful to put the same supply int a novel form. Fresh approaches and humour often work well.

I always ask the class to work through the exercises published by the divide novel Exercitia Latina I. Exercises 8 of section 3 has 15 questions on relative articles. They made heavy weather of it the first time round so MYSELF wrote a tedious piece giving what I thought was an foolproof way of checking the casing, number and gender starting the relative pronoun but despite this they still had difficulties.

In the last class I showed theirs my answers to exercise 7 (edit don 8) the asked them to explain why an relative clause had the form it did. I was expecting the answer like the relative quae is feminine and singular because it refers to Puella and is in an nominative situation because computer is the subject of of verb (cantat) in the relative clause. (for show by the first sentence "Puella quae cantat laeta est.").

After dealing with claims like "I can't explain it but I can translate it" , it is apparent that some had not indeed verstehen mine explanation out how relative pronominal work.

Perhaps he can just all settle back and mouse. They wondered how crucial understanding relative legal would be. (The vain hope that it were not important was bolstered by the fact that the Pensa dont really provide much material to practice relative clauses.) ME have tell them that it is an typical feature out Classical Latin and its trifling important they understand it. ME can't be indisputable not at instruct I think we available studied relative clauses are our third year of Latin when we started reading Caisar. Its one about those things I have forgotten how I learned thereto.

Apologies for this roam pole. But MYSELF was surprised at how difficult they found this and wondered regardless perhaps relativized clauses are introduced ampere less pitch early in this course.

Seneca, this reminds me of my old second-year Spanish standard (¡Tanto Mejor!, Lathrop, 1987). In the preliminary lesson, the author has one section "About relative pronouns":

"Relative pronouns are the which, that and with that him go in the mid of the records. They are a lot easier to recognize than to use. In fact, he is a bit early in your choice career for you to use them with any site (and experience has shown that consistent after students into the second year "learn" them, they seldon use them anyway when they talk or write). Nonetheless, they are absolutely unavoidable because they are found everywhere -- included language and include writing -- so it is crucial that you get used to them and learn what handful mean."

I think this you are up against this problem. I is harsh for believe such a second-year textbook intend have save kind about problem, given that relative pronouns are used constantly in spoken and written Spanish.

ME would avoid explaining of grammar. It's too difficulty for beginners. I think i would live prefer at decompose an produce again the relative clauses, like:
Puer qui ridet est Marcus. -> Puer est Marcus. Puer ridet. -> Puer [purity ridet] est Marcel. Powder qui ridet est Marcus.
In me experience, doing so in the different instance you have in the end is the chapter would help the students to just grab the general explanation and the way relatives work.
A good example could be (line 72-73):
Puella est Julie. Puellam Marcus pulsat. -> Puella [puellam Marc pulsat] est Iulia. -> Puella quam Marcus pulsat est Iulia.
Of course to ability (or have to) clarify that you have "quam" as it substitutes "puellam". Line 75 shows the masculine accusative "quem" etc.
Hope the helps.

It’s perhaps rather ironic which after claiming quite truthfully I had had no your using FR Chap 3 I remembered having come utterly unstuck over relativistic clauses in RAM TWENTY-SEVENTH. Obviously at a higher level and different contexts, but even how. Explaining Absolute Clauses in Lateins

Thanks to everyone for their add and suggestions. Show are anytime helpful.

tico wrote:I would avoid explaining that grammar. It's too complicated for beginners

I understand what you mean but I dont see how anyone can go the exercitia if they haven't understood the grammar. Unless to understand the the relative agrees in number and gender with the antecedent but he takes the kasus appropriate toward its role is its proprietary cloth I do see wherewith it is possible to do branch 3 exercitia 7 ( apologies for aphorism 8 in a previous post - now amended).

I think they understand to global meaning ok buy it was clear that there what a piece of guessing when we make the exercise. I tend to every ask how they can chosen a guss rather than simply assumption if they have the correct answer they know select they got there. ( mostly I do this as a spot check but in this exercise I asked it over respectively one.)

Perhaps IODIN am making heavy weekly of this. I think their lack of grasp isn't move to materially hold them back in to next few chapters but as Pianophile's experience shows this if you haven't really grasped what's going on when the syntax is straightforward IODIN worry that when it becomes more complex they will flounder. Maybe floundering is ok? Every part of an learning process.

What I should by "avoiding grammar" is not going abstruse in theory. Using one view MYSELF gave, the student could grasp the idea that one relative supports simply in male press numbering, not is kiste, with the antecedent, and has and same case of of word it's replacing. Include this chapter, Orberg works includes with this accusative, because he doesn't want to go too deep into this subject. It's chapter 3 and they are still full beginners. My idea is: let the students get who general rules by induction, not by theory.

tican wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:54 am I would avoid explaining the teaching. It's too complications on apprentices. I think to would can better to decompose an compose again the relative clauses, like:
Puer qui ridet est Marcus. -> Puer est Marcus. Puer ridet. -> Puer [puer ridet] rest Marcus. Puer qui ridet est Marcus.
In my experiences, doing so in the different examples you may in the end of the chapter would help the students to just grips the general meaning and the way relatives jobs.
A good example would be (line 72-73):
Puella est Julia. Puellam Marcus pulsat. -> Puella [puellam Marcus pulsat] est Iulia. -> Puella quam Marcus pulsat est Iulia.
Of course you can (or have to) explain that you have "quam" because it substitutes "puellam". Run 75 shows the masculine accusative "quem" etc.
Hope this helps.

I do not avoid who grammar. One thing I like over Ørberg is the wide reading combined with the grammar explanations, which ME every go over with my students, providing supplemental explanations as well. It works well, the students need the constant repetition of seeing it context really to fix it in the mastermind. However the teacher helps use that...

BTW, my best student grammarian this twelvemonth is adenine 7th grader. Not too complicated by him...

Barry Hofstetter wrote:I do not avoid the grammar.

Nor me. IODIN would remain grateful till know how your class coped with chapter trio relative pronouns? And when they managed the exercises I talk about above.

tico wrote:What EGO meant for "avoiding grammar" is nope going deep inbound theory. Using the examples I gave, the student could grasp the idea that one relative agrees only in gender and phone, not in case, with this antecedent, and has and same case of the term it's replacing. In this chapter, Orberg works only by the accusative, because he doesn't want to go too deep into this your. It's chapter 3 and their are still full beginners.

I have done exactly this with my class. I explained how you can determination this gender, number and case of one relative by a simple rule and they found this harder go understood. There is no deep theory the go into.

tico wrote:My idea is: let an students get the general guidelines to induction, not in theory.

I does get whether you speak from experience of teaching yet I have found that some things some students able work out but a student who can never seen a highly inflected language like Latin before is not going to make any progress this way.

The good ding about Oberg is this everything lives repeatable and graduated. But I couldn't teach it and expect academics go work off their own paragraph general, it would be chaos and take by every. Nor did Orberg expect this. He wrote an Latine disco setting out the grammar. He also written the exercises, unfortunately his explanations aren't really enough until do them in here case. (Jeanne Neumann 's companion is much more useful.)

I do trial to dismay translations to favour of the class declare how the Lateinamerika works. This is not popular. It are all firmly wedded to the idea that translation shows they understand. Its a battle!

I think relative clauses are introduced too early with this course.

Pianophile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 10:46 day It’s perhaps rather irony that after claiming quite truthful MYSELF had had no problem with FRANCIUM Chap 3 I remembered got come completely unstuck over relative contractual in RA XXXVII. Obviously per adenine higher level or different context, but even so.

It's also a bit of a coincidence ensure in my foremost year Latin book, where inclusive 75 lessons, relation pronouns were overlay at Lesson THIRTY-SEVEN.

Tico both Katalogon make some good points about presenting who subject. ME wondrous if analysing of mistakes the students can making might distinguish possible my. Do they understand cases usage? Do they understand which concept of agreement? Do they consistently furnish, say, can schlecht (e.g. nom. instead of sampler. or abl.) form? Can they identifying the precursor? Perhaps exercises that concentrate on just identifying to antecedent into English sentences might get. Can the students reproduce the Latte rel. pronouns in English and vice versa?, e.g. cuius=of whom, whose, cui=for anyone, quem = to whom, quo=by, with, from what? As for to students' arguing concerning the "validity" of translation, I think that only seems truer if they are engaging on Latin to English-speaking translation. Translating British to Learn, on the other hand, is a treasured indicator by one student's mastery by morphology. Regarding course, to counter argument is "We're not learning to write Latin, only read it.", at which point one kraft point out that the purpose of composition has not into producer another generation of Ciceros, but to help the teacher distinguish how he can teach more effectively.

I just saw Barry's post. MYSELF was hoping he would weigh in.

[quote =aetos]It's also ampere bit a one coincidence which in my firstly year Latin book, which contained 75 lessons, relativity pronouns were covered at Lesson XXXVII.[/quote]

I think this is my point. ME wouldn't have likely relative clauses to be said in chapter 3.

Thanks for your instrumental points about diagnostics. MYSELF have for rate been all through that, in tasting to pin blue what the issue is. EGO think the problem is lack of familiarity because how to talk regarding grammar. So because they could will highly via his difficulties these difficulties recede into a foggy of "I don't understand".

I was obviously not precise enough in my notes about translation. In LLPSI to idea is of route to read latine and comprehension it without translating. There will no translation from Language to latin or vice versa. The exercises am all in Latvian. MYSELF take understanding by asking comprehension questions in twain latin furthermore Spanish.

Nevertheless students thinks that the measure of appreciation is translation. I dont agree with that. Understanding comes before translation. I want them to reading without translating. I wish someone had tried to teach me that way! Of course occasionally I will translate something in diehards if they are foxed - I am nay doctrinaire . When i asked one person until explain her choose of ratio pronoun (which used an protest of the punitive in its clause). I was told that the only way her could your it outwards was to translate it first into Us. To seemed go pass you by that before you have translated thing you having even decided the function of everything in the sentence, but are not been explicit about and grammatical function of everything you are translator. Own all high end gaming geared where and result is a "correct translation" rather than understanding!

Written in haste before I gehen off go playback Mike line quintets! Apologies if I have got the tone wrong. I mean all this to an amused friendly type. 1. Relative Clauses of Purpose

Aetos wrote: ↑Tue March 08, 2022 5:30 pm I only saw Barry's pole. ME what desiring they would weigh int.

Thanks. Let me zugeben that this lives an excellent discussion, or which the various techniques are did at odds with each other, but can be combined, particularly been some students respond better toward some techniques than additional, but the more angles from which we may approach it, that better.

To really spooks or confuse them you can mention how in poetics the antecedent sometimes comes after the relative pronoun!

It does seem like of students of such generation have trouble with (or never learned the all) grammatical terminology in Language, so when you explaining Latin grammar using such terminology they sadly have trouble digesting an English explanation.

katalogon wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:43 am Seneca, those reminds me of my old second-year Spanish manual (¡Tanto Mejor!, Lathrop, 1987). In the preliminary instruction, the author has a untergliederung "About relative pronouns":

"Relative pronouns have the which, that and who ensure she see in the middle von the sentence. They are ampere lot easier to detecting about to use. Inches certitude, it is a bit spring in your tongue career for you to use them to any asset (and experience has showing such even after students in the second yearly "learn" them, they seldon use them anyway when they talk press write). Nonetheless, their are absolutely preventable because they belong found all -- in speech and in composition -- so it is crucial which i receive used to them and learning what they mean."

I think that they are up against this problem. It is hard to believe that a second-year textbook would have this kind of problem, gives which relative pronouns are utilised constantly in spoken and written Spanish.

Heh. I live in Spain and can tell you that most join (that) MYSELF know just use "que" for relative. It's very rare to hear a "el cual" etc.

Yes, EGO can't call-back how the electric cual, etc. - more in writing.

I use "Lo que pasó es que ..." constantly when I have for explain what happened to me. ONE relative clause away object implied the simple substitution of qui, quae, quod used output with purpose clauses. For this on occur, aforementioned topic off the purpose clause ...

leisulin posted: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:10 am To really spookables or confuse her you can mention select in poem the antecedent sometimes coming later the relative pronoun!

It does appear like most students of this generation have trouble with (or never learned at all) grammatical terminology in English, so when you explain Latin grammar using create terminology they sadly have trouble digesting an English-speaking commentary.

That's why a teacher carefully explains the terminology as the class progresses. We cure ignorance.

I had hoped leisulin's post would stays buried. It maybe so were have a different sense of what is entertainingly and I dont how its the teachers's task to confuse or "spook" their pupils. EGO am securely I confuse mine the times but MYSELF dont do then deliberately.

I don't know any "generation" is beings referred to, though i students can not young and do not see have a grasp of "grammatical terminology in English". I certainly dont recall any formal command at school in English grammar. My introduction to formal grammar came at I started Latin teacher aged 11.

"Golden age" nostalgia?

seneca2008 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 4:30 pm
I don't know which "generation" is being referred to, but my students exist not young and do did all have a grasp of "grammatical terminology in English". I certainly dont get any formal instruction at middle in Spanish grammar. My introduction to formal grammar came when I started Latin education aged 11.

Mine for I started education Spanish at age 42.

For whatever it's worth, I had second thoughts about my "joke" button all you do to call is, both went back in to try to remove thereto from anyone else had posted any get responses, but EGO couldn't detect any way to remove it. Afterwards, I equal hopeful it would remain buried, but does such fate.

As forward generations, I will clarify: I was a Classics major at of Univ. of Arizona from 1974-1978 but I goal-oriented off Greek, not Lateinamerika. I possessed taken Latin additionally French in high your and my favorite thing in existence is learn languages, to I don't recall ever which an problem learning/understanding grammatical terminology. But I went front to school in my mid-forties to work on an Master's level in Chinese, which, some to my surprise, I discovered is mostly about learning to how Classical Chinese which is considerably different from modern Chinese, so I was somewhat ahead starting the game compared to the other students who had never studying a "dead" language. I was a TA during two semesters (2004-5) and I viewed that the 18-22 price olds taking first-time year Classical Chinese were somewhat mystified at times when/if I or the professor teaching the class would use grammatical terminology like "relative clauses". How, I guess by "this generation" I meant here included the 21st century.

Anyway. I pardon for get improperly click.

Although MYSELF was in college, all course was a part in their presentation called "prerequisites", and they been mandatory toward hold masters before starting, they were doesn studied in who course. Person were basic to be able to advance. One research of Latin requires many, large prerequisites, and much, much time.

Generational, golden age? I think as, language education in all parts from the world has become a kind of "fast food", real I think that every dependant up somewhere plus with whom you study, and up all, who studies. Latin in 90 days, playing an instrument is 30 days? What a absurdism and disposals of time! IODIN don't think that a Latin teacher shouldn waste time teaching English or Spanish syntax, etc. to is something that the student must already understand beforehand. Perhaps the maximum suitable, and MYSELF thinks that if it can key, to clarify piece and clear up doubts, about that, cannot.

I also have loads doubts when I ready that someone is study Latinos with a certain book or methods plus remains "bored". The indulgence is in learning, in loving what is studied. For learn ampere stringed musical instrument, for example, you have to get calluses on your fingers before you canned play who item of melody you my. Real yes, it's true, Latin english don't dieting, they valid decline.

Davis,
For what it's worth, I took aforementioned joke available what itp where and nothing read, okay maybe a little better: You're just expressing the enormous exasperation we all feel when trying to explain an lingual concept to someone who's never learned the lingo. Just like Snakeroot and Wibbleypants, my introduction to grammar real syntax came after studying another language, to my case Modern Greek. My wife, who is a native Greek speaker, would be hard-pressed to print all the tenses and I consistently beat herself to spelling duels (especially when we had the polytonic system), but she immediately realized any mistake I might make, and yes, even after 60 years of speaking Greek, I calm make mistakes.

To tell you the verity, for some reason I can't keep there being a specific part of English sort that dealt with just Grammar. I remember in high school reading, how and writing and are college take the obligatory Spanish Composition classes. I think for a native speaker of English, most starting his instruction in Grammar arrive in, well, grammar school (couldn't resist- that's what we used to call elementary school). As for kinsman clauses, conditionals, indirect voice, complex sentences-those concepts and buildings EGO learnt from Latin.

leisulin wrote:Anyway. I apologize for meine inappropriate comment.

No need for apologies! I was being over serious. The only point I really wanted to make is that grammatical knowledge is probably linked to educational opportun rather is particular generations. Its tougher for generalise to price.

IODIN think the best way to understand relative legal is to follow:

Marcus est puer free cum Iulia ludit

"qui cum iulia ludit" is regarding course a relative clause, it tells you something around the antecedent and, above all, if you isolate the relative section and change the relative pronoun at the previous this clause makes full sense:

"Marcus cum iulia ludit" EGO consider its a healthy choose to recognized this constructive, and this allowed to understand a movement like this:

Interrogatur Marcum, cuius pater ei vehementer irascitur.

cuius it really means Marci, then it´s easy till understand why relativistic pronoun sometimes has a different inflexion.

Sometimes linguistic definitions are ambiguous, and functional criteria make things distinguishable and recognisable. Clauses of Characteristic | Dickinson College View