It would take no toll. Many of us who learned the traditional way never spoke it, simply because it was unfashionable, but are learning to do so now and would have welcomed it earlier.
The ability to produce broad and creative scholarship is certainly not impeded by learning to speak the ancient languages, and could even be enhanced - as indeed is proved by the young cohort now coming through who have been taught actively.
If only we had had that advantage! Both this particular student, and their teachers of whom you are one, have received well-deserved praise on Twitter and Substack and probably elsewhere. It is nevertheless interesting for those of us looking in, enviously, from the outside through the wonderful window you have posted here to dig deeper.
In modern language teaching one thinks of the four skills: reading, listening, writing, speaking. Take two hypothetically equally able and dilligent Classics undergraduates and tell them they need to learn to read books in German for their work on Classics. Put A through a German reading course, with supplementary writing exercises to consolidate grammar, and put B through a standard contemporary four-skills course. After three years examine them on their command of a relevant reading list. Which will do better? Is the answer the same classical Greek? Do we have an answer which is informed by evidence more robust than the divergent opinions of experienced teachers?
If it were German, I regard the comprehensiveness and nuance won in the four-skills course as the gold standard. In the context of getting a handle on a range of literature in a limited time, I would also expect it to be far slower. But here I am guessing too. And whether it is a valid comparison with a "dead" language is also open to question. I wonder whether anyone is working on these questions.
We have compiled statistics on active Latin results that show a statistically significant rise in the success of our students in language exams at Mods vis-à-vis past years and University results. The question is indeed complex but initial showings support your intuition.
During the years since this change took place, have you noticed that students are better able to excel in all aspects of Latin and Greek scholarship? My understanding is that many of the previous generations of Latin scholars, while quite accomplished, can't speak or fluently read the language very well (at a high level) I have to imagine this would take a broader toll on their scholarship.
This is very interesting. Out of curiosity, when the students begin with Latin and Greek do they study from books also in the same spirit? Or, are they not necessary, as they have the tutors? There is a lot of talk about Familia Romana by Orberg and Italian Athenaze on the internet, so I was wondering what books your students use, if any.
It’s currently only being done at Jesus and Harris Manchester, but other Colleges are looking on with interest. Our aim is to make it the USP of Oxford classics in the next 5 years.
That's really remarkable, I am in awe. Please explain which pronunciation of Greek you use: is it traditional, Erasmian, or rather non-traditional, close to contemporary Greek? That is, is it "Glaucos" or rather "Glafkos"? Also, I'm very curious about the musical accent of the ancient Greek. How do you render it?
You will hear from the clip at the end that ‘au’ is pronounced ‘ow’ not ‘af’. There is also a slight rise in pitch on acute accents and a rise-and-fall on circumflexes. This follows the evidence presented in Allen’s Vox Graeca for Attic pronunciation c.450 BC, but no particular form of pronunciation is demanded; and if students wish to speak as if In Hadrian’s time (2nd cent BC) or any other, there’s nothing to prevent them doing so.
Εἴθε κἀγὼ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ ἔμαθον ἑλληνίζειν!
ἡμεῖς ἅπαντες νῦν γέροντες οὕτως μεμαθηκέναι ἐβουλοίμεθ’ ἀν.
ἀλλὰ μέντοι συναγορεύω.
Bravi to the students!
That's amazing! What an achievement!
It would take no toll. Many of us who learned the traditional way never spoke it, simply because it was unfashionable, but are learning to do so now and would have welcomed it earlier.
The ability to produce broad and creative scholarship is certainly not impeded by learning to speak the ancient languages, and could even be enhanced - as indeed is proved by the young cohort now coming through who have been taught actively.
If only we had had that advantage! Both this particular student, and their teachers of whom you are one, have received well-deserved praise on Twitter and Substack and probably elsewhere. It is nevertheless interesting for those of us looking in, enviously, from the outside through the wonderful window you have posted here to dig deeper.
In modern language teaching one thinks of the four skills: reading, listening, writing, speaking. Take two hypothetically equally able and dilligent Classics undergraduates and tell them they need to learn to read books in German for their work on Classics. Put A through a German reading course, with supplementary writing exercises to consolidate grammar, and put B through a standard contemporary four-skills course. After three years examine them on their command of a relevant reading list. Which will do better? Is the answer the same classical Greek? Do we have an answer which is informed by evidence more robust than the divergent opinions of experienced teachers?
If it were German, I regard the comprehensiveness and nuance won in the four-skills course as the gold standard. In the context of getting a handle on a range of literature in a limited time, I would also expect it to be far slower. But here I am guessing too. And whether it is a valid comparison with a "dead" language is also open to question. I wonder whether anyone is working on these questions.
We have compiled statistics on active Latin results that show a statistically significant rise in the success of our students in language exams at Mods vis-à-vis past years and University results. The question is indeed complex but initial showings support your intuition.
During the years since this change took place, have you noticed that students are better able to excel in all aspects of Latin and Greek scholarship? My understanding is that many of the previous generations of Latin scholars, while quite accomplished, can't speak or fluently read the language very well (at a high level) I have to imagine this would take a broader toll on their scholarship.
This is very interesting. Out of curiosity, when the students begin with Latin and Greek do they study from books also in the same spirit? Or, are they not necessary, as they have the tutors? There is a lot of talk about Familia Romana by Orberg and Italian Athenaze on the internet, so I was wondering what books your students use, if any.
How widespread is this across Oxford? Are all your colleagues in the Faculty at home with speaking Latin & Greek?
I would have loved to have had this opportunity either at school or as an undergraduate.
It’s currently only being done at Jesus and Harris Manchester, but other Colleges are looking on with interest. Our aim is to make it the USP of Oxford classics in the next 5 years.
That's really remarkable, I am in awe. Please explain which pronunciation of Greek you use: is it traditional, Erasmian, or rather non-traditional, close to contemporary Greek? That is, is it "Glaucos" or rather "Glafkos"? Also, I'm very curious about the musical accent of the ancient Greek. How do you render it?
Thank you.
You will hear from the clip at the end that ‘au’ is pronounced ‘ow’ not ‘af’. There is also a slight rise in pitch on acute accents and a rise-and-fall on circumflexes. This follows the evidence presented in Allen’s Vox Graeca for Attic pronunciation c.450 BC, but no particular form of pronunciation is demanded; and if students wish to speak as if In Hadrian’s time (2nd cent BC) or any other, there’s nothing to prevent them doing so.