Is Latin A Waste Of Time?

Why would it be a waste of time if you intend to learn it. It would be a waste of if you just study it for the sake of something

As Richard remarked, the impact of Latin on English is pretty strong. So, he's quite correct you would get a deeper understanding of how words were derived.
Other than that, Latin won't be valued as a priority field of knowledge today. Of course, if you followed the interest in a university, it could lead to an academic career.

I wonder if current Latin websites are battlegrounds? I got that impression already. One woman posted she found such sites dominated by males who monopolised the subject in a certain direction. What I always found was a tendency on such sites to show off and assume any advice offered should be blindly followed to the letter. As ever, in my case, I don't use systems or follow methods. I just take each sentence that comes my way and then work it out. This may take time but if you keep chipping away, you get better. Let's be frank: No child ever learns a language by following a system. There is no method or obligation to be systematic. All that matters is to learn.
I would imagine Latin forums have a fair amount of people who are a far cry from humble. Some have been at it for years too.

One thing I learned just is to check the text you have against other versions. I found some tiny mistakes. I re-typed part of the text into Google and other versions showed up. These were better.
What happens is the actual source parchment may be tricky to reproduce due to age, or even copy errors by the copiers.There may be more than one version. Words might have to have been guessed if missing on a parchment.
With dead languages you have far less resources. I came across this, for example:
"Dei Luni" It seems to be an alternative word for the moon but there is so far no information online, apart from one very dusty pdf file, written by some unknown scholar. It probably means "of the god of the moon". Moon is typically "luna".

davidbanner99@ wrote:I figured out why I always found Latin hard. Writers tended to be vague. This had me bogged down all yesterday:

"Laetum ad mortem coegit misso a se veneno: ipse enim inter suasores Getae mortis primus fuerat, qui et primus interemptus est. Ipse mortem eius saepissime flevit."

"He forced death upon Laetus, sending him poison. He himself was first among the supporters of Geta's death, and the first to be killed. He himself frequently cried over his death."

The context is that Caracalla (emperor) had had Geta his own brother murdered so as to take power. Caracalla then set about killing all Geta's supporters and sympathisers. So, what baffled me was why did Caracalla want Laetus to take poison, when Laetus had been the first to plot Geta's murder?? The confusion arises due to the masses of "he", "his" "himself" where you have three individuals involved.

Here is how it should have been written:

Geta forced death upon Laetus, sending him poison. It was Laetus who had been the first to support Geta's death yet he himself was the first to be killed. The reason for that was his excessive grief over the murder.

It took me ages to work out the whole puzzle. Maybe the fact they wrote on scrolls led to vague accounts. Only ages later it struck me it was Laetus who had been crying so tears = regrets. However, being HFA causes me to require precise detail. I'm not that intuitive.

Allow me to explain it in normie terms. Caracalla needs to destroy the evidence that he (C) ordered the murder of G. This is reason enough, by itself. We talking about ancient Rome. A ruthless and bloodthirsty culture.

Laetus had been something of a ringleader. So he would be near the top of the hit list, i.e., 'Destroy evidence of C's crime' To-Do List.

However, to make matters worse, L is frequently crying. L has a guilty conscience, which tends to (a) make it obvious that L was involved in the murder and (b) generally tends to make the person want to squeal (confession & absolution). L also seems emotionally fragile, which makes a man untrustworthy.

It is L's time to die.

Watch a few gangster films and all will become clear. Laetus seemed on the cusp of violating omerta. Violating omerta is punishable by death.

Don't blame the scrolls! Many people are just lazy writers. Today and back then.

A further factor is that all the neurotypicals come with this normie software pre-installed, so they don't find it necessary to specify, for example in this case, which "he". They think it's obvious. They assume everyone shares this supposedly "obvious" knowledge about human nature.

You and I are scrambling to catch up davidbanner99! We must study it piece by piece; we don't have that overall knack for deciphering human behaviour.

Exhausting, I know.

davidbanner99@ wrote:As Richard remarked, the impact of Latin on English is pretty strong. So, he's quite correct you would get a deeper understanding of how words were derived.
Other than that, Latin won't be valued as a priority field of knowledge today. Of course, if you followed the interest in a university, it could lead to an academic career.

Are there really many universities today where you can study Classical Latin?

davidbanner99@ wrote:One thing I learned just is to check the text you have against other versions. I found some tiny mistakes. I re-typed part of the text into Google and other versions showed up. These were better.
What happens is the actual source parchment may be tricky to reproduce due to age, or even copy errors by the copiers.There may be more than one version. Words might have to have been guessed if missing on a parchment.
With dead languages you have far less resources. I came across this, for example:
"Dei Luni" It seems to be an alternative word for the moon but there is so far no information online, apart from one very dusty pdf file, written by some unknown scholar. It probably means "of the god of the moon". Moon is typically "luna".

For vocab related to statecraft, religion or mythology ( eg "Dei Luni" ), I would also check esoteric/occult sources (not just contemporaneous Ancient Roman, but also later, in any European language). The meanings of that vocab are generally not flashed about in public, but are available to those who dig.

davidbanner99@ wrote:I knew the guy who is currently professor in Latin at Manchester. I also recall an academic who threw a party at a lovely house on campus. His main field was ancient Greece and he spoke about 13 languages.

"Sir Christopher Frank Carandini Lee was far more than just a Hollywood superstar. The actor, who enjoyed a career spanning six decades, was an accomplished singer, an author and had enjoyed a distinguished career in the British Army. He was also a polyglot. Indeed, Lee spoke five languages fluently, plus he had an excellent understanding of three more. Such an ability undoubtedly came in useful during his time first as a special forces secret agent and then as a globe-trotting actor.

Born in London in 1922, Lee’s mother was an Italian countess. Naturally, then, he grew up bilingual. When young Christopher was still a young boy, his parents separated and he went with his mother to Switzerland. Here, he started his private schooling and picked up the French and German languages – as well as the acting bug after a starring role in a school production of Rumpelstiltskin. After a few years, he returned to England and studied the Classics, becoming adept in Greek and Latin. "

Extremely common for ex-army people from well-to-do families to enjoy stellar careers in acting, journalism, and academia "after leaving" the military.

immense wrote:

davidbanner99@ wrote:I knew the guy who is currently professor in Latin at Manchester. I also recall an academic who threw a party at a lovely house on campus. His main field was ancient Greece and he spoke about 13 languages.

"Sir Christopher Frank Carandini Lee was far more than just a Hollywood superstar. The actor, who enjoyed a career spanning six decades, was an accomplished singer, an author and had enjoyed a distinguished career in the British Army. He was also a polyglot. Indeed, Lee spoke five languages fluently, plus he had an excellent understanding of three more. Such an ability undoubtedly came in useful during his time first as a special forces secret agent and then as a globe-trotting actor.

Born in London in 1922, Lee’s mother was an Italian countess. Naturally, then, he grew up bilingual. When young Christopher was still a young boy, his parents separated and he went with his mother to Switzerland. Here, he started his private schooling and picked up the French and German languages – as well as the acting bug after a starring role in a school production of Rumpelstiltskin. After a few years, he returned to England and studied the Classics, becoming adept in Greek and Latin. "

Extremely common for ex-army people from well-to-do families to enjoy stellar careers in acting, journalism, and academia "after leaving" the military.

This interview (link below) may interest everyone here. Christoper Lee is being interviewed about the film, The Wicker Man. This film starred Edward Woodward and Brit Eckland, and made on so low a budget that Lee acted for free.
Lee makes a great point that ancient societies really were paganistic. He explains the film recaptures an era where societies worshipped gods and shows how some festive rituals and dances were based on older ceremonies.
As to the film, yes it was a classic. However, I disagree with Lee as to why most producers at the top dismissed the film as not that great. In my view there were scenes that seemed a bit amateurish or overdone. Also, I thought it very silly how a junior police officer had opened his chief's letter at the start of the film. In real life, he'd have been told off.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1gprrYIXnxA

Allow me to explain it in normie terms. Caracalla needs to destroy the evidence that he (C) ordered the murder of G. This is reason enough, by itself. We talking about ancient Rome. A ruthless and bloodthirsty culture.

Laetus had been something of a ringleader. So he would be near the top of the hit list, i.e., 'Destroy evidence of C's crime' To-Do List.

However, to make matters worse, L is frequently crying. L has a guilty conscience, which tends to (a) make it obvious that L was involved in the murder and (b) generally tends to make the person want to squeal (confession & absolution). L also seems emotionally fragile, which makes a man untrustworthy.

It is L's time to die.

Watch a few gangster films and all will become clear. Laetus seemed on the cusp of violating omerta. Violating omerta is punishable by death.

Don't blame the scrolls! Many people are just lazy writers. Today and back then.

A further factor is that all the neurotypicals come with this normie software pre-installed, so they don't find it necessary to specify, for example in this case, which "he". They think it's obvious. They assume everyone shares this supposedly "obvious" knowledge about human nature.

You and I are scrambling to catch up davidbanner99! We must study it piece by piece; we don't have that overall knack for deciphering human behaviour.

Exhausting, I know.[/quote]

"Et in balneis factae caedes, occisique nonnulli etiam cenantes, inter quos etiam Sammonicus Serenus, cuis libri plurimi ad doctrinam extant."

"There was slaughter in the baths, several being killed at dinner...."

I suppose ancient Rome offers a lesson. Once the system of law was replaced by rulers and tyrants, the end drew gradually near. Struggles for power at the top and emperors killed by factions. The need to bribe the army. Caracalla died fairly young.
It's hard to find the kind of cultural excellence that existed in ancient Athens or Egypt. Life in ancient Rome was full of wars and famines and life pretty cheap perhaps.

davidbanner99@ wrote:
"Et in balneis factae caedes, occisique nonnulli etiam cenantes, inter quos etiam Sammonicus Serenus, cuis libri plurimi ad doctrinam extant."

"There was slaughter in the baths, several being killed at dinner...."

I suppose ancient Rome offers a lesson. Once the system of law was replaced by rulers and tyrants, the end drew gradually near. Struggles for power at the top and emperors killed by factions. The need to bribe the army. Caracalla died fairly young.
It's hard to find the kind of cultural excellence that existed in ancient Athens or Egypt. Life in ancient Rome was full of wars and famines and life pretty cheap perhaps.

Yes, agree, excellent summary.

Concluded a good direction to take would be Seneca. His writing would probably be educational as he was a Stoic. He wrote numerous essays on ethics and philosophy. I think Seneca was a vegetarian too.
What I'm currently reading is entertaining but not spiritual. Not going beyond power, conflict and sex.

I translated text on the "thermae" of Caracalla. By modern standards, this baths would be pretty awesome. Heating ducts were made underground that used coal. It had a capacity for 1,500 bathers. There was something called a cella solearis - some sort of sauna perhaps.
Caracalla was one of the bad emperors, killed in a revolt aged mid 40s. He was known to wear a Gallic, hooded cloak that later were called "caracallae".

Just read Putin's criticisms of the gender politics in western countries. Putin feels children should be taught traditional family values and not be encouraged to assume boys can become feminine. Whatever way it's read, sexuality seems to be an issue in the modern world. In Rome it just didn't matter. People didn't try to identify themselves in the area of sexuality. I know of no Latin words that have the meaning "gay" since nobody would understand what was meant. There were a few words to note:
Subactor = This refers to a passive male.
Cinaedus = A male prostitute.
Scortum = Similar term.
The point is there was no way of saying in Latin that you were somehow different on the basis of sexual inclination. People just had sex - end of story. The only time criticisms were made was in reference to the Greeks, who were viewed as not manly enough and too fond of dancing.
Much later in time, Rome became christianised and intolerant. Paganism wasn't tolerated either.

It's been said Google Translate can't cope with Latin. I decided to test it. This extract had me struggling for some time so I fed it into G.T. The result? Hopeless. Part of the reason is lack of ongoing feedback from linguists. G.T. does a lot better with Russian as there are millions more people updating dictionaries.
In all cases, however, I will maintain the brain always will be far ahead of software but, to develop memory and processing skills, it's necessary to "develop" that potential. As opposed to relying on software beyond the limited use it actually has.
Language exposes software as lacking because you need to be able to:
(1) Look at a problem through relativity, comparison, context and probability.
(2) Spot errors or irregularities.

"Questus est de fratris insidiis involute et incondite ad illius accusationem [et excusationem] sui. 11 Quod quidem nec senatus libenter accepit, cum ille dixisset fratri se omnia permisisse, fratrem ab insidias fecisse nec vicem amori reddidisse fraterno."

"Getting out of the brother plots, and the accusation [and excuse] self. 11 That even the senate received, when he had said to his brother, brother by plot did not turn to the love."