Forum menu
He did – Latin doesn’t have an oral element so the time used in modern languages for that, which is rightly considerable, can be devoted to wider study of the written word.
Fair enough, although I seem to remember a fair amount of time spent reciting "hic haec hoc" in class, so I'm not quite sure how much time you'd gain. And that's ignoring the fact that you lose the chance to learn how to pronounce a foreign language, with all those sounds we never use in English.
And that’s ignoring the fact that you lose the chance to learn how to pronounce a foreign language, with all those sounds we never use in English.
The problem still remains that, if you live in an English speaking country, whatever foreign language you learn in school is almost certainly going to be the wrong one.
I learned French in school. The only time I needed French was when I was working in France. The only reason I was working in France was because I wanted to improve my French.
I've also lived in other countries but I found when it came to learning the languages there I had to throw out the techniques I had been shown in school because they are not really fit for purpose.
In English speaking countries the idea of language teaching in schools needs to change. Learning an individual language is largely pointless, especially when you consider that the goal of learning the language is not to be able to communicate but to pass an exam.
The goal should be to equip pupils with the tools needed to learn a foreign language as quickly as possible. I honestly think that Latin could play a role in that although almost certainly not in the way that Latin has traditionally been taught.
Alea iacta est. It'll be like the old days when we had to have Latin to study medicine.
I think it is beneficial as providing a base knowledge for certain European languages. A background in the classics has its uses, but there are many other subjects that should take probably take priority for the creation of wage slaves.