NationStates Jolt Archive

After having an argument with somebody that the plural of Stadium is not Stadiums but rather Stadia. (I hope I am right, I am sure I will be corrected by those who are better than me on this forum) A discussion started that part of the reason why the teaching of English has gone down over recent years is because Latin has been dropped from the school curriculum, some argued that it was necessary that it be taught for students to better understand the English language, others argued that it was a waste of time to teach kids a dead language.

But what does NSG think?

I am leaning towards the 'for' camp, but I wouldn't defend it greatly.

I would like to learn Latin one day, basically just because I would like to learn the language.

And for those of you who can speak Latin rather well do you mind interpreting a few phrases and words for me? Thanks, they are in the following.

Loyal et Honour, I thought I knew that it was Loyal and honour but I was told that et was the plural of to and that this phrase said Loyal 'to' everyone, can people explain the rule to me.

I would also like to know how to say Loyal to the Emperor, and In the Emperor we Trust. Thanks

I would say an ultra basic course would not be a bad thing ... so much is based off of it specially if you are going into the sciences that it could be useful but increasingly less so

I think it's impotant. The perfect past tense in Latin is almost exactly the same as in Spanish. Latin is very handy if you want to learn Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese and Romanian, and if you want to know what a certain English word is.

Latin is useful and knowledge of it, like any learned language, shows a degree of intelligence and dedication.

I think a year or so of Latin is a great foundation for a lot of other subjects.

If you want kids to be better at English then it would make sense to teach more English (or become better at teaching). Teaching Latin seems a very roundabout way of doing things.

It can be both stadiums and stadia. Say stadiums if you don't want to sound pretentious.

I had to waste 6 hours a week for 5 years during secondary school learning Latin.
It was the biggest waste of my time, ever.

The only thing Latin is useful for is showing off cause you can sort of decipher a Latin text on some old wall or something. Unless you want to study history, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for learning Latin.

And that old argument about how Latin is useful because it's so closely related to all the Roman languages... guess what? So is every single one of those languages. So, rather than learning Latin cause that makes it oh so much easier to eventually learn Spanish, learn Spanish straight away.

That said, anybody who wants to learn it, sure, go ahead. But do not make such a waste of valuable time and brain energy compulsory, you're not doing anybody a favour.

I studied Latin for fun for thee years while doing an Arts Degree as a mature-aged student.

The main benefits were: exposure to wonderful writing in its original language, learning about a western society that wasn't Christian, and gaining a deeper understanding of English vocabulary.

It wasn't much use for understanding English grammar as the two systems are somewhat different. Latin uses inflections almost entirely while English is predominantly a word-order grammar.

Lotsa fun nonetheless.

Inertia me siccat; quae est deserta.
Cogitata otiosa fruges miserae colit.
Scribere felix; Lectio etiam felicior;
Cognoscere aliquid novi est elatio.
Mens mea cum studio fecunda fiat.

(My own composition)

I scraped by in high school with two years of Latin, getting no more than a C in either year, but winning first place in every freaking translation competition I attended. While it's interesting, it's no substitute for an expansive vocabulary in your native tongue. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to choke the kid in the front of the room who could translate the entire freaking textbook for you, but still asked what "subsequent" and "pretentious" meant.

Anyway, back to the old line my class used when we got frustrated-- "facio, facere, feci, aw fuck it!"


EDIT: If memory serves me, the Oxford English Dictionary says either "stadiums" or "stadia" would be acceptable.

Also, it's stadiums if you're speaking English.

The only thing Latin is useful for is showing off cause you can sort of decipher a Latin text on some old wall or something. Unless you want to study history, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for learning Latin.

And that old argument about how Latin is useful because it's so closely related to all the Roman languages... guess what? So is every single one of those languages. So, rather than learning Latin cause that makes it oh so much easier to eventually learn Spanish, learn Spanish straight away.
But the etymology of the words in pretty much all of the European languages is to do with Latin (and ancient Greek). It's incredibly useful tool for a fuller understanding of the English language. I agree that it shouldn't be a compulsory course, but I rue the day I opted not to do Latin at school.

After having an argument with somebody that the plural of Stadium is not Stadiums but rather Stadia. (I hope I am right, I am sure I will be corrected by those who are better than me on this forum) A discussion started that part of the reason why the teaching of English has gone down over recent years is because Latin has been dropped from the school curriculum, some argued that it was necessary that it be taught for students to better understand the English language, others argued that it was a waste of time to teach kids a dead language.

But what does NSG think?

I am leaning towards the 'for' camp, but I wouldn't defend it greatly.

I would like to learn Latin one day, basically just because I would like to learn the language.

And for those of you who can speak Latin rather well do you mind interpreting a few phrases and words for me? Thanks, they are in the following.

Loyal et Honour, I thought I knew that it was Loyal and honour but I was told that et was the plural of to and that this phrase said Loyal 'to' everyone, can people explain the rule to me.

I would also like to know how to say Loyal to the Emperor, and In the Emperor we Trust. Thanks

Latin is important if you wish to understand the buliding blokes of the English (and others) language. As to it's inclusion on the curriculim, I don't klnow where you are, but it was never on the curriculum when I was at school back in the 80's, in fact I don't think any comprehesive school has ever had it(of course I could be wrong).

Latin is important if you wish to understand the buliding blokes of the English (and others) language. As to it's inclusion on the curriculim, I don't klnow where you are, but it was never on the curriculum when I was at school back in the 80's, in fact I don't think any comprehesive school has ever had it(of course I could be wrong).

Some offer it as an extra curricular activity, it was in the local newspaper a while back.

But the etymology of the words in pretty much all of the European languages is to do with Latin (and ancient Greek). It's incredibly useful tool for a fuller understanding of the English language. I agree that it shouldn't be a compulsory course, but I rue the day I opted not to do Latin at school.

Only if you're planning your life in linguistics and etymology.
In many if not most cases, the current meaning of the word is so far removed from its original meaning in Latin that knowing the original gives you little more than a faint idea of what the modern word refers to.

Part of our Latin tests were usually questions where we would be given a word of Latin origins, and asked to name the Latin word and then elaborate on the connection between the Latin and the now (in my case) German word.
It used to be one of the questions that most people had problems with.

I think it's something that should be offered where possible as an option but not necessarily part of the core curriculum. On the other hand I do think when teaching languages it could be helpful to emphasise the etymology of words to help generate a deeper understanding of language more generally.

Let us not forget that for a lot of modern languages it's not just latin which has a strong etymological influence

Some offer it as an extra curricular activity, it was in the local newspaper a while back.

Ahhhh proved wrong huh!:D

Only if you're planning your life in linguistics and etymology.
Or are merely interested in it.

Moreover, Latin is rather useful (for me) in philosophy, when examining certain phrases that are still written in Latin. Also, if I was fluent in Latin, I could read a load of cool philosophical texts in their original form; there's still some rather important philosophical texts that haven't been translated into English.

Though, admittedly, the same could be said of French and German. I'd love to be able to read Kant, Marx or Wittgenstein in the original German, or Badiou and Satre in the original French.

It can be useful...it does help decipher new words, as so many have Latin origins, as well as help if one goes into a science or medical field.

That said, I don't find it to be vital. English abilities have decreased for many reasons, ranging from a new approach being used that doesn't work particularly well to new technologies that encourage informality.

I don't think it should be compulsory, but, like many things, children should be given a little exposure if only to widen their view of the world. I did a compulsory year in secondary school, found it slightly dull, and moved on to Spanish the next year. However, now I wish I had a greater knowledge of Latin due to my interest in early sacred music and its history.

...And for those of you who can speak Latin rather well do you mind interpreting a few phrases and words for me? Thanks, they are in the following.

Loyal et Honour, I thought I knew that it was Loyal and honour but I was told that et was the plural of to and that this phrase said Loyal 'to' everyone, can people explain the rule to me.

I would also like to know how to say Loyal to the Emperor, and In the Emperor we Trust. Thanks

"loyal" isn't Latin. "y" isn't in the Latin alphabet. "Loyal et Honour" sounds like a French expression to me. Oh, and in Latin it's "honor".

"In the Emperor we trust" You could use Imperator, Rex or Princeps. Although Imperator has evolved into Emperor in English, it's Latin sense is more as generalissimo. By the time of the republic and the empire, Rex had accrued negative conotations. Although Prince in English has a reduced status, in Latin Princeps means top dog or numero uno or prime mover (as understood by Macchiavelli in The Prince). So, "In Principe speramus".

"Honour the Emperor" - a few possibilities
Imperative: Honora Principem (one person being impelled) - honora is ambiguous
Imperative: Honorate Principem (plural persons being impelled)
Let us: Principem honoremus
Give honour or else: Da honorem Principi (one person being or elsed)
Give honour or else: Date honorem Principi (plural persons being or elsed)
Let us give honour: Principi honorem demus.

The most important sentence position is last, second most important is first. Usually the verb is the most important word but, in the context, princeps, might be more important. Your choice.

I'm sure I'm totally wrong in my suggestions and someone will point out my errors.

BTW, classical Latin would be pronounced "prinkeps", church Latin "princheps".
e = ay in -emus or -te or -pe
e = eh in -rem
a = ah
i is a short vowel within a word, a long vowel at the end, ie principee

It's pretty damn useful if you're going in to the sciences or studying a Romance language, so sure. A basic knowledge of Latin, even if you're not going to use it, can help in a lot of places down the line.

In my high school the English classes were pretty wishy-washy -- they covered basic grammar, sure, but the emphasis was on creative writing and personal expression and whatnot. My Latin classes were very analytical, and that's helped me much more in English than my actual English classes did.

Latin & English grammar are obviously different creatures, but if you want to understand, say, Cicero, you often have to look at very long multi-clause arguments and break them down into their logical foundations. My Latin teachers were very big on precision: "What's the function of this phrase? Why use it and not another? If the meaning is ambiguous, what are the options?" This more formal training made reading historical documents and older (19th-century and earlier) English writing a lot easier.

Latin also gave me a bunch of other useful stuff -- a ton of word roots, and references that pop up in older history and literature -- but the comfort with analysis was probably the most important one. Obviously I could have been taught such things -- or at least the intellectual rigor -- in English rather than in Latin, but that would have required a very different kind of English instruction that's very much out of favor these days.

In my high school the English classes were pretty wishy-washy -- they covered basic grammar, sure, but the emphasis was on creative writing and personal expression and whatnot. My Latin classes were very analytical, and that's helped me much more in English than my actual English classes did.

Latin & English grammar are obviously different creatures, but if you want to understand, say, Cicero, you often have to look at very long multi-clause arguments and break them down into their logical foundations. My Latin teachers were very big on precision: "What's the function of this phrase? Why use it and not another? If the meaning is ambiguous, what are the options?" This more formal training made reading historical documents and older (19th-century and earlier) English writing a lot easier.

Latin also gave me a bunch of other useful stuff -- a ton of word roots, and references that pop up in older history and literature -- but the comfort with analysis was probably the most important one. Obviously I could have been taught such things -- or at least the intellectual rigor -- in English rather than in Latin, but that would have required a very different kind of English instruction that's very much out of favor these days.

I take your point about the benefit of Latin grammar. It helped my understanding of grammatical functions.

I think for most people, unless they are interested or it is offered as one of the foreign languages you may take, Latin's not going to be something they can use everyday.


For linguistic experts, lawyers, and scientists, it's a bit more useful, but even then, it's used in rather specialized ways. Most people are not going to sit down and have a chat in it.

I think for most people, unless they are interested or it is offered as one of the foreign languages you may take, Latin's not going to be something they can use everyday.


For linguistic experts, lawyers, and scientists, it's a bit more useful, but even then, it's used in rather specialized ways. Most people are not going to sit down and have a chat in it.

It would be funny meeting someone with whom our only shared language is Latin. Mine is very rusty. But I reckon I could improvise.

Also useful if you do anything in any field requiring a knowledge of biology (taxonomy)

it is useful for the SATs you can put together the meaning of big words with out having to memorize all the big word's meanings.

I took three years of Latin in high school (they don't teach it any more, more's the pity).

While I am seldom, if ever, called upon to speak Latin in everyday life, I've found that it's useful in a lot of ways.

1. Most of the time I can define unfamiliar words without having to look them up.
2. I can understand enough words in Romance (Latin-based) languages to get a rough meaning (sometimes very rough) of what I'm reading (it's not so helpful with spoken language).
3. I can understand scientific and legal terms sufficiently that I'm not completely lost.
4. I have a basic understanding of how language works, making it easier to study most other languages.

I understand that many people have managed to live quite happily without ever having looked at a Latin book, but for me, it's proven useful.

i never took latin--the guidance councillor lied to me saying that the highschool wasnt going to offer it any more.

but i took classical greek in college and loved it.

id recommend it to anyone who is interested in taking it but not waste public money having it for "children" when there are far too many other things that are more important to teach.

The only thing Latin is useful for is showing off cause you can sort of decipher a Latin text on some old wall or something. Unless you want to study history, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for learning Latin.

And that old argument about how Latin is useful because it's so closely related to all the Roman languages... guess what? So is every single one of those languages. So, rather than learning Latin cause that makes it oh so much easier to eventually learn Spanish, learn Spanish straight away.


Nah. First off, you won't be able to decipher wall texts because they're one hell of abbrevations (really, after being taught that everything in lating works with word endings, it's fucking annoying to learn they're all left away...).

Secondly, Latin teaches you more than each individual of these languages. Of course, if you only want to know one of them, that makes sense, but as soon as you want to do more, you can save a lot of time. Other languages will help less because while they all take stuff from Latin, the subset used is not the same.
See tenses, for example: Even in Italy, people in the north and the south use different past tenses (South using Latin's perfect tense, I think). I was able to understand some text written in the south that other people could not; they had learnt Italian in school, while I haven't. I fully blame Latin for that.

I support that Latin should only be taught to those who want to learn it, though.


Part of our Latin tests were usually questions where we would be given a word of Latin origins, and asked to name the Latin word and then elaborate on the connection between the Latin and the now (in my case) German word.
It used to be one of the questions that most people had problems with.

Elaborate? Unless that had to be done in Latin, and you were awarded extra points for any run-on sentence longer than 5 lines, I fail to see how you test "Latin" skills that way

Depends on where your from really...

English Speaking countries should learn English...

Latin based countries should be taught their language...

Its pretty obvious really, lol...

Although id like to learn Gaelic...just got to find a way of doing it, they need to offer a college course for it, lol...

Gaelic is useless. Barely anyone in Scotland, Ireland or the Isle of Man use it. The only Celtic language anyone really speaks is Welsh.

Gaelic is useless. Barely anyone in Scotland, Ireland or the Isle of Man use it. The only Celtic language anyone really speaks is Welsh.

I didnt say it was useful...

I just said i wanted to know it, lol...I have no intention of using it short of messing with my friends, lol...

The original texts of most western European writings spanning a period of 1000+ years are in Latin. If you're planning to read any of those, I don't see how it could hurt. It is impractical for everyone to learn, but then, so are most things one learns in school (thank God).

I think for better understanding English, something like Anglo-Saxon or Old English might actually be beneficial. More words are from Latin, but the grammar and all of the everyday words are Germanic.

Latin should be taught for each year of public school. Ancient Greek should be offered as electives in secondary schooling and beyond.

While the ancient languages might not always be useful, they certainly are interesting to learn. I've memorized a few of the more famous latin phrases simply due to boredom and interest.

Dulce et Decorum pro patria mori.

Dies Ire

Deus ex Mechanicus

Attero Dominatus (fairly sure this one is misconjugated)

and a of course, I nomine Patri, et du filii, et spiritu sancti

Meh, boredom and scholarly pursuit go so well together.

Latin should be taught for each year of public school. Ancient Greek should be offered as electives in secondary schooling and beyond.

Just out of curiosity, why? I mean, I took Latin and enjoyed it, but why should it be required? I can see requiring a foreign language, especially one that's prevalent where you live (I lived in SoCal, for instance, so Spanish was almost as common as English), but why require Latin?

The entire body of Western Civilization was founded on the Latin and Greek fathers. Latin is the first language of civilisation, and the greatest works in literature and philosophy were written or distributed in Latin. Latin offers nuances that, due to the nature of languages to degrade over time, are no longer available in English. Latin is the epitomatic example of grammar and logical thought.

The entire body of Western Civilization was founded on the Latin and Greek fathers. Latin is the first language of civilisation, and the greatest works in literature and philosophy were written or distributed in Latin. Latin offers nuances that, due to the nature of languages to degrade over time, are no longer available in English. Latin is the epitomatic example of grammar and logical thought.

So to understand the world (because Western Thought isn't the only thought) we should be required to study Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Chinese and Japanese?

We are inextricably embedded in the West, and so we should focus on Latin and Greek foremost. After public education, yes we should seek education in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Chinese and Japanese, although I would argue in favor of focusing on Hebrew and Aramaic first, along with the languages of the Islamic countries, as these nations had legitimate contributions to philosophy, rather than the Eastern modes of thought, which are very much indoctrinated acceptance of unfounded statements rather than philosophy.

We are inextricably embedded in the West, and so we should focus on Latin and Greek foremost. After public education, yes we should seek education in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Chinese and Japanese, although I would argue in favor of focusing on Hebrew and Aramaic first, along with the languages of the Islamic countries, as these nations had legitimate contributions to philosophy, rather than the Eastern modes of thought, which are very much indoctrinated acceptance of unfounded statements rather than philosophy.

So speaks the Eurocentric view of the world. Have you studied Bhuddism, Confucianism or Taoism? If you have, you would realize that they are not "indoctrinated acceptance of unfounded statements" but as much philosophy and "intellectual" as Sartre, Nietzche or Kierkegaard. You don't need Latin or Greek to understand Sartre, Nietzche and Kierkegaard, but you do need Chinese if you want to fully understand Confucius and Lao Tze.

One problem we're having today has precisely to do with a Eurocentric world view. We don't just live in Europe or America, we live in a complete world. In order to succeed in it, we have to understand all of it, not just the tiny part we inhabit.

I just bought a book that teaches basic Latin. I did learn Latin for a couple of years at school (along with French and Spanish). However, for an otherwise reasonably intelligent person, I really struggle to learn other languages - it seems to be a blind spot for me. So I am about to give trying to learn Latin another go - if anyone has some tips that might help with my struggle to learn another language I would be grateful.

Secondly, Latin teaches you more than each individual of these languages. Of course, if you only want to know one of them, that makes sense, but as soon as you want to do more, you can save a lot of time. Other languages will help less because while they all take stuff from Latin, the subset used is not the same.
See tenses, for example: Even in Italy, people in the north and the south use different past tenses (South using Latin's perfect tense, I think). I was able to understand some text written in the south that other people could not; they had learnt Italian in school, while I haven't. I fully blame Latin for that.

So... you'd spend years learning a language that you don't really need, just to reduce the number of years you will spend learning other languages that you will need by maybe a year or two?
Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. It's a bit like claiming that learning Old Norse will be so much use if you want to learn German or English...
Yes, the occasional word might be easier, but overall you wouldn't waste your time with it and go straight for the language you want to learn, wouldn't you?

The years I spent learning Latin were no use at all when it came to learning French (although I have to say that knowing English did help there), but French was very useful indeed for understanding and speaking the bit of Italian I have needed so far.

Elaborate? Unless that had to be done in Latin, and you were awarded extra points for any run-on sentence longer than 5 lines, I fail to see how you test "Latin" skills that way

70% translation, 20% questions on words, grammar, etc. and 10% Roman history.
That's how our tests were structured.

The entire body of Western Civilization was founded on the Latin and Greek fathers. Latin is the first language of civilisation, and the greatest works in literature and philosophy were written or distributed in Latin. Latin offers nuances that, due to the nature of languages to degrade over time, are no longer available in English. Latin is the epitomatic example of grammar and logical thought.

Boy, what a lot of nonsense...
Yes, Western Civilisation was influenced by the Latin and Greek culture. But then, it was also influenced by Nordic culture, Middle Eastern culture, Slavic culture and Asian culture. Quite a bit more than by Roman and Greek, actually.

Languages do not degrade over time. They adapt to the requirements of the people who speak them. None offer more or less nuances than others, they just place different emphasis on different fields.
And Latin is no epitome of anything. Compared to German for example, it lacks depth, rationality, flexibility and it even manages to be more awkward.

so in order to improve English I presume its suggested we take children out of English classes and teach them Latin:confused:

Latin is a dead language,
As dead as dead can be.
First it killed the Romans,
And now it’s killing me!

Whatever happened to Dan Quayle?

so in order to improve English I presume its suggested we take children out of English classes and teach them Latin:confused:

Latin is a dead language,
As dead as dead can be.
First it killed the Romans,
And now it’s killing me!

No it was suggested that you teach them latin as part of learning the english language and how it works. I always liked that poem.