Ørberg textbooks for an italian learner

[marcovlatinforum]

Hi everyone! As said in my presentation post, I'm an Italian guy. I have some knowledge of the Latin language obtained from standard grammar textbooks: I know declensions, something about periphrastic, ect... but, to provide a basis for comparison, I still find difficult to translate Caesar's work. I recently discovered Ørberg's LINGVA LATINA, and started reading the pars I. As I can see, there is a lot of good discussions about these texts on this forum, but none of these seemed to address my problem.

The point is that I find the text quite trivial, and I'm not sure if I'm applying the method correctly: even if I had known nothing about Latin, I could have read the first seven chapters with extreme simplicity, for the simple reason that, speaking Italian, I find the elementary Latin of Ørberg identical to my language. This makes me literally ignore some constructions that are grasped immediately. I was curious, and skimmed the first pages of a copy of Ἀθήνᾱζε: quite paradoxically, it was easier to memorize the grammatical constructions illustrated in a language which I totally ignore (having a previous knowledge of Greek alphabet did not help in this: the sound of the nouns, of the verbs and of the phrases is pretty different from Italian, making it easier to analyze the morphological structure of the sentence in my mind, without being distracted from the things which I already know).

So the question is: is it a correct application of the "Ørberg method" studying these textbooks in this situation? (I think that the answer is still "yes!", mostly because my lexicon will be a lot bigger after the first part of the series, and this is a good reason to continue). If my goal is to grasp the meaning of the Latin sentence, how much should I insist in mentally reconstructing the structure of the sentences that I read from Ørberg, when their meaning is clear to be because they "sounds similar" to my language?

[RandyGibbons]

Buon giorno, Marco. Posso leggere italiano, ma non parlare. That's about the extent of my Italian, so I can only imagine your "situation", a "situation" I find quite enviable, by the way!

Reading your note carefully, I find you have two interrelated problems. First, right out of the starting gate you find the text "trivial". Second, you say you "could have read" the first seven chapters "with extreme simplicity", i.e., quickly.

Regarding the first, I had the opposite reaction. I loved the family of Iulius and Aemilia from the outset. Oh that mischievous Marcus! So many interesting things happen to them along the way, culminating in the escape of ... no, I don't want to give anything away! So my first piece of advice is to try to have fun with it. But if you just can't "get into" the story, then there must be hundreds of outstanding Italian-language Latin textbooks you can use instead (I understand you prefer the "Ørberg method", if not the actual Ørberg text).

My second piece of advice would be: rallenta!

Rōma in Italiā est. I understand that for you that's not exactly new information. But have you carefully noted the long ō in Rōma? Vowel length is very important for Latin poetry, and one nice thing about Ørberg is that he gives you the vowel lengths. Make them part of your learning. Speaking of vowel length, did you notice the long ā in Italiā and the marginal note about short and long a? You know some Latin declensions from your schooling. Forget about them. Start fresh and give the method a chance.

Rōma in Italiā est. Rōma est in Italiā. In Italiā Rōma est. In Italiā est Rōma. Est Rōma in Italiā. Est in Italiā Rōma. Rōma in est Italiā. Are these all legitimate variations of word order in Latin? If grammatically legitimate, do they have subtle differences in what gets emphasized? (I'd ask you which variations are legitimate in "proper" Italian, but that would violate the spirit of Ørberg. Forget Italian, think exclusively in Latin.)

Nīlus fluvi- est. How did you complete that sentence? Did you do all the pensa? Don't assume anything. Do each one and make sure your answers are correct. (There are probably answer keys out there.)

Now I want to ask you a question, and I want you to answer in Latin. Estne Sparta in Italiā? (PENSUM C)

In learning Latin, arguably you have an advantage with your Italian heritage. But don't let it become a disadvantage by making you rush.

Well, as we say in English, that's my two cents worth. In bocca al lupo!

Randy Gibbons

[marcovlatinforum]

Hi Randy, thank you for answering!

But if you just can't "get into" the story [..]

When I said that I found the first six chapters of the text (the only I have read until now) "quite trivial", I was not referring to the story (It's not like I expected to read Cicero the first time ). What sounds so simple to me is the Latin the author uses: it's not a problem related to the content of the plot, but with the interference of the elementary sentences (which, however, still conceal a morphological structure which should be analyzed) with my native language (the Latin Rōma est in Italiā, as you probably know, is translated with "Roma è in Italia", but there are more meaningful examples out there that illustrates big similarities - at least in simple sentences like these).

You know some Latin declensions from your schooling. Forget about them. Start fresh and give the method a chance.

This was the kind of advice I was looking for: my previous knowledge of Latin, although small, makes it easier to remember what I read, but I feel that what makes the author's method working, is the "inductive" reconstruction of the structure of the sentence that the reader should do, which my previous knowledge of Latin and my native language tend to overshadow.

Rōma in Italiā est. Rōma est in Italiā. [...] Are these all legitimate variations of word order in Latin? If grammatically legitimate, do they have subtle differences in what gets emphasized?

I noticed it: again schooling helped there.

Did you do all the pensa?

Of course and... I think the answer to that question can be written as Sparta non est in Italiā, sed in Graeciā est.

Don't assume anything

That's what I meant when I wrote this post: should I use my previous knowledge of the language and turn page immediately after getting the meaning of all sentences, or should I analyze them, dealing with the reconstruction of structure of each phrase and analize it from the point of view of the morphology? I think the best answer is the second one.

Thank you so much, Randy!