ginlindzey

I'm working on my Latin 1 exam, which is needing much revision from last year as did my other two exams because of the stage quizzes I implemented this year. The passages from the stage quizzes now make up the 2nd half of the exam--the "midterm" portion of it. 

Each year I become more obsessed about making sure I utilize exactly what's in the book for examples.  I will comb the stages for examples of usage, examine them with students, work them, review them, etc.  And each year I find that somehow I've overlooked something good.  A lot of times it has to do with Latin 1, because I've taught that level for so long and have quia material for that level already developed.  But for instance, I'm looking right now at the genitive material I have for review for stages 17 and 18, and realize that I did not pull examples from EVERY story.  This year I was able to read stories that often I have to skip because of time. 

So right now I'm looking at stage 17, ad templum, which I usually skip. I didn't skip it this year, but we only read it, I believe.  I'm looking now at it again, thinking/reminding myself that one thing I discovered that was nice about this stage was that it really worked particular prepositions (de, for instance).  I did skip in stage 18, Clemens tabernarius.  Not enough time.  A pity, because I'm noticing, among other things, that it is the first story in which we have UT meaning AS.  "haec tabernam, ut dixi, prope templum deae Isidis erat." 

I like looking at when we have the first instance of something that becomes important in reading Latin.  For instance, I believe stage 13 has the first use of ille = he... wait, I can't find it.  I do find the first use of illi = they in stage 15 in caerimonia: illi, postquam atrium intraverunt, magnam turbam viderunt.  AH, first use of ille = he is in tumultus in stage 17: ille tabernam prope portum Alexandriae possidebat.  And it is from this point that we begin discussing how ille is used to indicate a change of subject.  This is a very important reading cue, especially when reading Vergil.  I noticed when I was reading some Eutropius with a student after school this year that he used forms of is, ea, id instead to indicate a change in subject--but it was something I was now trained to EXPECT.

And building up reading expectations is so critical in being able to read Latin well.

Anyway, I wish I had pulled ALL THE GENITIVES in stages 17 and 18 for my review material so I'd have more sentences to choose from for the test.  And I'm becoming distracted by teaching issues instead of just writing the damned test.  So, back to work for me.

p.s. I also just noticed, though I may be wrong, that the first use of the genitive NOT piggy-backing on a prepositional phrase is in the last sentence of the last story of stage 18 (pro taberna Clementis): nunc Clemens est princeps tabernariorum.  This is something I want to watch at the beginning of Latin 2--how to recognize the genitive, where we can expect to see it, etc.

I just sent the following to our new superintendent. Not sure what inspired me really to take the time, but I guess watching "The Emperor's Club" has put me in a more thoughtful mood with regard to my profession.

***

I was just reading the district newsletter and your article.  I do agree that we should aim high and defy those who think we should limit ourselves.  I think we should celebrate and showcase our triumphs, both among our students and our teachers.  I think this is especially important at a time when education is facing cutbacks and challenges--we must recognize those that go above and beyond.  But could I make a suggestion?

First let me say that this is not a case of sour grapes but just an objective observation.  As a teacher of an elective, and a dead language at that, I know that there are more teachers that impact a larger proportion of the student body than I do.  I never expect to get teacher of the year (and have, in fact, already had some of the highest awards in the classics profession and have more important aims now, if you know what I mean).  But our teacher of the year selection seemed, as so often they are, like a popularity contest.  There was a final list of names and voting.  I admittedly didn't vote.  What was I to vote on?  I don't know what goes on in those teachers' classrooms.  There were no portfolios to look at, letters of support from students and colleagues who work closely with them, or even descriptions of creative projects.  A colleague down the hall who teaches biology has wonderful projects (I am very fond of the biospheres that they make), works with students to repeat college level experiments to validate experiments, to work with UT faculty, etc.  He wasn't on the list.  He is also one of the only teachers I know who has been to other teachers' classrooms to actually see their teaching style and interaction with students.  He, for instance, can tell me what my student engagement looks like compared to another teacher.  

I have no issue with the teacher who won.  I know she inspires her students (esp those in track).  And we *each* have a role to play in the school and in our students' lives.  No one of us could round out a whole student.  It is together that we (hopefully) shape and mold our students to strive for the best and to want more out of life and of themselves.  But if we are going to spotlight teachers, let's be serious about it.  Let's see what their pedagogical philosophy is, what their classes are like, how their students respond to them, what they do with their summers to prepare for the next year.  Let's really spotlight what makes a teacher great.  

Otherwise, it's just a popularity contest.  And the reaction to the popularity contest is "big deal, what's next?"

Why do we offer a dead language in Dripping?  Why not? --especially if it means higher scores on verbal portions of all of these mandatory tests, especially if it means that students are exposed to some of the greatest works of western literature in the actual words of those who spoke and wrote them, especially it it means that students who thought they were too stupid to learn a language can find a little success with a teacher willing to try to discover a better way to get the material across in a meaningful way.

My morning classes have had very few students this week while the freshmen were testing.  I have been showing the movie "The Emperor's Club" with Kevin Kline. It came out in 2002 or 2003.  It's about a boys school and their teacher, and is filled with a lot of ancient philosophy, actually.  At the end the teacher is presented with a plaque which reads:

"A great teacher has little external history to record. His life goes over into other lives. These men are pillars in the intimate structure of our schools. They are more essential than its stones or beams, and they will continue to be a kindling force and a revealing power in our lives."

This is what keeps me here.  This is why I will teach 4 preps and split level classes and independent study.  This is why instead of just using a worksheet from last year I will spend time creating something new that perhaps gets the concept across in a clearer, more accessible way.  This is why I will listen to 2 hours worth of oral recitations, grade endless quizzes, and enthusiastically dance around my room reading Latin with my students. This is why at least four weeks of my summer are already devoted almost entirely to Latin in one form or fashion. In my mind's eye it's not enough to be considered good now.  I must continue to strive for better ways to teach not only for the benefit of the students but for my own education as well.  A professor friend of mine at UT is kindly allowing me to audit his Caesar class this summer as I prepare for a change in the AP syllabus for Latin next year.  He knows that after a divorce that I cannot begin to afford tuition.  And in turn I will share that knowledge with those in my charge.

For me, it's a great game of Pay It Forward.  Why not?

Ok.  I have a confession.  I really only make my students learn 1st, 2nd, and 3rd declension cold.  I've been a real wimp about 4th and 5th in the past.  I was going to step up my game, but first wanted to look at all the sentences with all the words in 4th or 5th declension in recent (and the upcoming) stages.  I'm going to try copying in what I found:

4^th Declension

portus, portūs (m) – harbor

• Alexandrīa magnum portum habet. (17: Quīntus dē Alexandrīā/MS)
• prope portum est īnsula.(17: Quīntus dē Alexandrīā/MS)
• facile est nāvibus ad portum pervenīre, quod in hācīnsulā est pharus ingēns.(17: Quīntus dē Alexandrīā/MS)
• multae nāvēs in portū Alexandrīae sunt.(17: Quīntus dē Alexandrīā/MS)
• ille tabernam prope portum Alexandrīae possidēbat. (17: tumultus I)
• tandem ad portum Alexandrīae pervēnimus. (17: tumultus I)

tumultus,tumultūs (m) – riot

• (just as titles)

manus, manūs (f) – hand

• [Salvius] manūs ad servum extendit et veniam petīvit. (13: coniūrātiō)
• [Eutychus] valdē sūdābat, et manūs in capillīs servī tergēbat. (18: in officīnā Eutychī II)
• [fēlēs sacra] in manūs Clēmentis īnsiluit. (18: prō tabernā Clēmentis)

impetus, impetūs (m) – attack

• subitō latrōnēs, quī īnsidiās parāverant, impetum fēcērunt. (17: mercātor Arabs)
• taurus, animal ferōx, impetum in hoc aedificium fēcit. (13: Salvius fundum īnspicit)
• ille impetūs nostrōs diūtius vītāvit. (18: Clēmēns tabernārius)

gemitus, gemitūs (m) – groan

• Barbillus, simulatque eum cōnspexit, magnum gemitum dedit. (17: ad templum)

situs, sitūs (m) – position, site

• taberna, quam Barbillus mihi offerēbat, optimum situm habēbat, optimum lucrum. (18: taberna)

domus, domūs (m) – home

• quondam, ubi ā templō, in quō cēnāverat, domum redībat, amīcum cōnspexit accurrentem. (18: prō tabernā Clēmentis)

5^th Declension

rēs, reī (f) – thing, matter, story

• tum Vārica, postquam hanc rem nārrāvit, clāmāvit, “Loquāx! Anti-Loquāx! dominus advenit.” (13: Bregāns)
• marītus eī rēs pretiōsās semper dat. (14: Rūfilla)
• in tablīnō, ubi dominus labōrat, sunt multae rēs pretiōsae. (14: Domitilla cubiculum parat II)
• multī Rōmānī Cogidubnō rēs pretiōsās dabant. (15: m.s.)
• Salvius, quī rem spectābat, per viam prōcessit. (15: ad aulam)
• Belimicus, prīnceps Canticus, postquam Dumnorix in certāmine nāvālī vīcit, rem graviter ferēbat. (16: Belimicus ultor)
• “nunc rem intellegere possum,” mercātor sibi dīxit. “hoc mōnstrum, sīcut pīca, rēs fulgentēs colligere solet.” (17: mercātor Arabs)

diēs, diēī (m) – day

• “lacrimō quod miserrima sum,” ancilla coquō respondit. “tōtum diem labōrāvī.” (14: Domitilla cubiculum parat)

effigiēs, effigiēī (f) – likeness, statue

• in lectō erat effigiēs cērāta. Quīntus effigiem agnōvit. (15: caerimōnia)
• “bona est effigiēs!” inquit. “imperātor Claudius est!” (15: caerimōnia)
• fabrī perītissimī, quī ex Ītaliā veniunt, effigiem quotannīs faciunt. (15: caerimōnia)
• rēx, postquam ad effigiem advēnit, vīnum lībāvit. (15: caerimōnia)
• tum sacerdōtēs, quī prope effigiem stābant, victimās ad rēgem dūxērunt. (15: caerimōnia)
• effigiem ex ātriō portāvērunt. prīncipēs, quī effigiem portābant, ad rogum magnā cum dignitāte prōcessērunt. (15: caerimōnia)
• effigiem in rogum posuērunt. (15: caerimōnia)
• flammae, quae effigiem iam tangēbant, cēram liquābant. omnēs effigiem intentē spectābant. (15: caerimōnia)
• subitō aquila ex effigiē ēvolāvit. (15: caerimōnia)

In all of these cases, you really don't need to know 4th or 5th declension endings to read/understand the sentences. Either the word is in the nominative (no big deal) or in an accusative singular form that looks like a 2nd or 3rd, or is preceded by a preposition so the unusual ablative singular ending (if it is ablative) doesn't matter because we are taking our cue from the preposition.  OR an adjective in agreement is helping out.  In the phrase effigiēs cērāta, I can tell that effigies is nominative singular feminine from the adjective.  Or that other old disambiguation technique of subject/verb agreement.  We can tell that manūs is accusative plural because the verb in the sentences in which the word appears is 3rd person singular.

Anyway. Just food for thought.  I just wish I had a good 4th or 5th declension mnemonic or song.  I'll search for one tomorrow via google.

I had one of those wing-it sort of mornings.  Not totally winging it, but we have mandatory/state testing this week and I knew trying to get written work out of students would be tough.  I knew I wanted to work on neuters.  We are wrapping up stage 17 and I have a bit more time this year to teach and explain things in this chapter.  It's felt good not to be as rushed.

Anyway, after a warm-up of singing the Endless Noun Ending Song and practicing declining neuters, I shifted over to students working in groups on white boards.  I had a PowerPoint that I was building as I was teaching (NOT the way to do it, but one does what one has to when one's weekend does NOT go as planned).  On each screen was a different sentence with the neuter in all caps.  They had to tell me whether it was nominative or accusative.  This is something they will be tested on later explicitly, so it was time to get their wee brains thinking.  I ended up with a decent progression of sentences and concepts.  See what you think:

1. ego et Clēmēns, postquam ad urbem pervēnimus, TEMPLUM vīdimus.
   • ACCUSATIVE  (nom + acc + verb)       
   • Clemens and I, after we arrived at the city, saw a temple.
2. LONGUM  ITER iam fēcimus.
   • ACCUSATIVE
   • We already made a long journey.
   • Did you forget to check your verb?
3. nunc festīnāre dēbēmus, quod iter LONGUM est.
   • NOM!  Est takes the twin noms!
   • Now we ought to hurry because the journey is long.
   • Did you forget to check your verb?
4. subitō MŌNSTUM TERRIBILE in caelō appāruit.
   • NOM!  Nom + prep phrase + verb.
   • Suddenly a terrible monster appeared in the sky.
   • What gender is terribile???
   • Yes, of course, NEUTER…. That means….
5. NECESSE est nōbīs casam intrāre (et perīculum vītāre).
   • STILL NEUTER and NOM! 
     Necesse est + dat + infinitive.
   • It is necessary for us to enter the house and avoid the danger.
   • So what is the neuter noun—or what is ACTING as a neuter noun????
   • THE INFINITIVE ACTS AS A NEUTER NOUN!!!
6. commodum est mihi ad templum Serāpidis īre.  (2 in one—give me the case of both AND WHY)
   • commodum STILL NEUTER and NOM! 
     commodum  est + dat + (prep phrase) + infinitive.
   • templum is ACCUSATIVE with AD.
   • It is convenient for me to go to the temple of Serapis.
   • How much help can prepositions give us?
7. What are other prepositions that take accusative objects?
   • ad templum
   • ad litus – to the shore
   • prope litus – near shore
   • prope agmen – near the procession
   • ad caput – to the head
   • Therefore, prepositions help us recognize neuters or 3rd declension. What other cues do we have?
8. What about  hic, haec, HOC? Look for the short O in hoc which makes it NEUTER.
   • mercātor, postquam HOC MŌNSTRUM vīdit, ad terram exanimātus prōcubuit.
   • tacēte vōs, quī hoc sacrificium vidēre vultis!
   • ubi hoc audīvī, magis timēbam.
9. hic, haec, HOC – more comparisons. What gender is templum, urbem, and puerum?
   • ad hoc templum, quod Augustus Caesar prope litus aedificāverat, festīnāvimus.
   • PROPE HANC URBEM habitābat Barbillus, vir dīves.
   • Barbillus, vir benignus, mihi hunc puerum dedit.

I'd like to write more about this because I felt that even though class was somewhat on the fly, that it was a good class and we covered simple to complex things (infinitives as neuter verbal nouns, no less!), so something for everyone.  I keep saying this was on the fly, but I did comb through stage 17 last night looking for ALL sentences with neuter words to see what I could glean from them--what I could demonstrate and teach more clearly via comparisons and contrasts.  As always, CLC is just LOADED with good and useful examples. 

But now, I must go ponder stuff for my AP students, Latin 3, and Latin 2.  Lots to do.

So, in my quest to consider what I should do to differentiate my pre-APs from regular Latin next year, I've been thinking about what my weaknesses are in what I do.

I truly do focus on reading skills with CLC, but with express directions on how best to read from left to right in Latin as opposed to decoding. We read out loud and have phone in oral recitations.  We constantly review endings, compare and contrast, talk about different disambiguation strategies, and so many other things that no one taught me but I wish they truly had. 

I wish I had time for circling back.  Distler recommends this in his _Teach the Latin, I Pray You_.  That is, students should be rereading old stories at the same time they are learning new ones. 

I wish I had time for more written/composition work.  At one time, when my classes were small, I had students writing their own stories and it was great fun but IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with the grading. 

And I'm also thinking about aspects of prose we are liable to meet in Caesar that I'm not familiar enough with--like the discussion on cum clauses we had on the CLC list the other day.  So last night I pulled out an old composition text I got from who knows where (inherited, no doubt, from former teachers or something) and found myself reading through it.  Of course, part of me had a kneejerk reaction to its prescriptiveness--here are the rules, follow the rules.  I suppose what I've liked about how I've done research with CLC over the last few years is I will reread the stories looking for some particular structure, like qui correlatives or ille indicating a change in subject, and find as many examples as possible.  Then I would examine each and formulate what seemed to be the rules.  There are certainly structures that I understand NOW that I *never* understood in college.

Anyway, I'm now wondering if I could make some supplemental worksheets (except this would mean more grading) that would work forms, then patterns, and thus build up to the student being able to write their own stories, already aware of possible pitfalls in grammar and such.  These could be kept in a portfolio of sorts and revised from time to time.  An additional 9 weeks grade could be one of these polished up, and perhaps these stories could then be used as extra credit reading material for the other students in the class.

It's a thought.

So I've had my arm twisted and the administration is saying I must offer pre-AP Latin 1 & 2, but offer them mixed in to my regular classes.  You know, I can just give them extra work.  Right.  Like THAT'S what makes the difference between regular and pre-AP. 

But I'm a willow, I can bend. 

So, yeah, I know where I feel I have weaknesses: not enough writing in Latin, not much in the way of projects.  But I also don't want to create MORE work for myself.  Of course, any and all of this will be creating more work for myself. 

Some ideas have occurred to me:

1) really trying to incorporate the idea of reading logs (like I did years ago), but how do I enforce?
2) have a portfolio of writing activities (just read something about timed writings...), but I would really need structure.
3) AP style essays about stories in the text; for instance, arguing whether Caecilius staged the whole Decens is dead story.  I've noted several instances where one could write AP-style essays about the Latin.
4) structured English to Latin worksheets...

Hmmmm.  I guess I should find out exactly what Spanish does for pre-AP, ya know, besides segregating the students.

You know, 4 preps is a lot and making me crazy, but having a 4 year relationship with these students and planning out how to get from A to Z, understanding all the pitfalls in the middle, etc etc have been so important.  If we get a 2nd teacher...crap, how will this work? 

So, I'll take suggestions (that is, if anyone even reads this blog)....

This first part was sent by a Latin teacher to the Latinteach list.  Below is my reply.  Yeah, I should get some sleep instead.  Silly me....

> salvete omnes,
>
> I am nearing the end of my second year teaching Latin. It is great fun, and I have really been enjoying teaching from the Cambridge Latin course.
>
> However, I find that as I get to the end of Latin II and beginning of Latin III, the presentation in Cambridge starts to feel a bit cumbersome.
>
> For example, about halfway through Unit III (in the USA edition), when the subjunctive comes up, there are two or three stages right in a row of introducing small new uses of the subjunctive. I have not yet been able to bring myself to going through every passage in each of these stages. It has actually worked pretty well skipping whole sections to Stage 28 (where the ablative is introduced) and just giving a list of the two or three uses of the subjunctive.
>
> But even at this point, after skipping some stuff to keep the pace up, it still feels like too much to get through just to teach a few more topics. I want to start reading real Latin literature soon, and really we only need to cover 1) deponent verbs 2) indirect statement and 3) ablative absolute before we can do so.
>
> What is everyone's opinion on transitioning away from Cambridge around Stages 28/29/30 in order to cover those three topics more quickly and simply? Does anyone else transition from Cambridge there or at a different point?


I am a pretty passionate CLC teacher.  This is my, hmmm, 13th year teaching from CLC, my 7th using Units 3 & 4. The more I teach from Unit 3 and 4, the more I like them, and even Unit 2.  The sophistication in how the grammar is introduced still blows me away.  I see new fabulous things all the time.  For instance, ille, which is first introduced as "that", by stage 15 (or sooner?) is suddenly being used at the beginning of a sentence as a pronoun for "he."  I can say with certainty  that illi (pl nom) for "they" appears for the first time in Stage 15, Caerimonia.  Now, what is so significant about this?  Well, notice WHEN we use these pronouns:  when we are switching subjects.  So, at this point, whatever was just the accusative is now the subject, or as I told my students, it screams subject change.  (Oh yeah, and I screamed that with one of  my classes just to wake them up. ha.)

Why do I care about something so small?  Because I'm all about teaching students to truly READ Latin, not to decode it.  Even if you are a good decoder of Latin, you will hit a glass ceiling with regards to quality and quantity of your reading skills.  (I could go on about that, but I'll point you instead to Dexter Hoyos's _Latin: How to Read it Fluently_.)

As for Unit 3, I am one of the odd ducks that really likes how they introduced and work the participles in the beginning.  When I test/quiz on perfect passive vs perfect active participles, I make sure that I am using other examples from the book that have additional clues.  That is, perfect passives will have an ablative of agent with them (faber, ab architecto laudatus), perfect ACCtives will have ACCs (rex, balneum ingressus,).  We also work those phrases as a UNIT, metaphrasing them in warm-ups using the placeholding phrase "Someone verbed something."  For example,

faber, ab architecto laudatus, = The craftsman, praised by the architect, verbed something.
but
fabrum, ab architecto laudatum, = Someone verbed the craftsman, praised by the architect.

Seeing participial phrases as whole units is something I work continuously on, but it does help students to start seeing phrasing, which is so important.

As for how the subjunctives are introduced, I like that too.  They start with the forms that require no special wording or typical subjunctive weirdness: cum clauses and indirect questions.  Then they work through the UT clauses.

I start Latin 3 with Stage 31 and go thru 40 + either 44 or 45.  And I hate it when we have to skip a story.  Each story has some tidbit, some SOMETHING that becomes useful or important later on, whether it's the first time a particular vocab item or idiom is used, or the first time a subtle construction is introduced (like qui correlatives), etc.  The first time I taught Vergil I realized just how marvelously CLC worked the NOM-DAT pairing in conversations, making the transition to Vergil's style for such things a piece of cake.  Also the way CLC works up to just using "versus" before speaking (e.g., in stage 28, where in Cena Salvii, there's a line that's something like "Salvius ad hospitem versus, 'dic mihi, Belimice,' inquit, ..."  I can't wait to take the Caesar course at UTexas this summer (to prep for AP next year) so that I will start noticing the subtleties in CLC that work up to Caesar/prose. :-)  Yes, I could go on and on about such stuff.

You might find my Cambridge quia pages useful to reinforce grammatical concepts.  We go to the computer lab once a week in Latin 2 and 3 (day before quizzes/tests), and only before tests in Latin 1 (because we don't really need computer reinforcement of details yet). 

Latin 1, Unit 1: http://www.quia.com/pages/drippinglatin1a.html
Latin 1, Unit 2 (thru 18): http://www.quia.com/pages/drippinglatin1b.html
Latin 2, Stages 19-30 (mainly Unit 3): http://www.quia.com/pages/drippinglatin2.html
Latin 3, Stages 31-40, +44 (though I'll be adding 45 this year): http://www.quia.com/pages/drippinglatin3.html

If you end up with your own quia.com account and import any of my activities, please at least give me credit in the blank below the link for descriptions.  Many hours (many, many hours--heck, years) went into building these activities.

Attend a Cambridge workshop, join the Cambridge list, brainstorm with other Cambridge teachers about ways to teach from the text.  But don't toss it out of hand because you aren't used to its approach and think it is too slow in introducing grammar.  Remember, its goal is to build quality READERS of Latin, and in thoughtful hands it can do just that.

Thanks for listening.

Right.  As if I'm not insane enough already.

My Assistant Principal (whom I like--I *like* my administration and know that I'm lucky) wants me to allow pre-AP designations in Latin 1 and 2.  I already have 4 preps, with some split-level classes going on and I feel like a chicken with my head cut off.

But she's right.  I'm not getting the best and the brightest because they want the other points of pre-AP in their schedule.  "Just have their projects be slightly different."  Ahuh.  I don't do projects. But that's another story.  I could talk about that here--I don't do projects because I was so tired of the totally crappy projects kids would turn in, stuff that was printed off the web and slapped together with a glue stick and poster board.  Projects take too much time to grade.  (querere querere querere)  I guess I feel they also take away from real Latin.

But with that said, I had a good idea one year of an open-ended list of projects that students would have to do once 6 weeks (even though we are on the 9 weeks system).  I should find the list.  It included things like: a memorized Latin performance (like one of the dialogues from the book), a brochure about some aspect of Pompeii (for Latin 1), a persuasive essay based on certain stories or sets of stories (*more on this in a moment), writing a story in Latin, and some other stuff.  Don't remember.  Maybe it's time to look at it again.  These things work ok if you have REALLY DETAILED rubrics worked out in advance with CLEAR penalties for the lack of what you consider important (MEMORIZATION in a performance, for instance, or the essay being typed).

The persuasive essays....  well, that could be the differential for pre-AP since that is a skill they need for AP specifically.  I mean, if the pre-AP classes could be totally separate, I would just do so much more of the class in Latin and actually do more writing in Latin.  But stage 7 (?) with Decens and the versipellis and post cenam--I think Caecilius orchestrated the whole thing.  I could write a persuasive essay proving it.  Or, in stage 28, Cogidubnus' supposed testamentum that was clearly written by Salvius.  You could easily assign an essay to prove he did using Latin for your argument.  AP style.

I've been thinking a lot about writing in Latin and how I do very little of it with the students, putting all of my eggs in the reading basket.  Not good.   <sigh>  There's lots of good teaching I could do with half the number of students and more time to grade.  But I have to work with the system I have.

right.

Well, it's all food to think on.

My Latin 3's are mystified that I can, at a glance, toss away possible translations of a word, in particular verbs that could possibly be present indicative, present subjunctive, or a 3rd or 4th future indicative--without, you know, having memorized the principal parts of every verb in existence (like we did).

So today I put aside the story in Stage 38 that they were supposed to be reading, and backtracked to look at the conditional clauses using future perfects (in the protasis) and futures (in the Apodosis). I was trying as well to explain how easy it is to tell future perfect indicatives from the newer perfect subjunctives. That is, if the verb is in this particular type of conditional, I know to expect future perf ind & future tense verbs, NOT subjunctives, etc. (Ok, in great measure because we haven't gotten to conditionals using subjunctives yet!!!)

Here are the sentences I pulled out from CLC for them:

Future More Vivid: future perfect, then future. (If he verbs [will have verbed], he will verb.)

• nōs Chrīstiānī, sī vītam pūram vīxerimus et eī crēdiderimus, ad caelum ascendēmus. (Tychicus, p 258, stage 31)
• nisi [tū] vitiīs tuīs dēstiteris, poenās dabis. (vitium = sin) (Tychicus, p 258, stage 31)
• sī tē apud mē ille invēnerit, poenās certē dabis. (in aulā Domitiānī I, p 260, stage 31)
• sī Paris effūgerit, vōs poenās dabitis. (in aulā Domitiānī II, p 262, stage 31)
• sī mē in hāc rē adiūveris, magnum paemium tibi dabitur. (ultiō Epaphrodītī, p 274 Stage 32)
• sī mē vel Domitiam hōc locō cēperint, certē nōs interficient. (exitium I p 279 Stage 34)
• sī prōditōrēs effūgerint, vōs omnēs pūniēminī. (exitium I p 279 Stage 34)
• sī tū eum audīveris, certē delectāberis. (ex urbe p 4 State 35)
• sū tē mox vīderō, valdē dēlectābor. (ex urbe p 4 Stage 35)
• nisi cāveris, mī Glabriō, tū quoque sīcut pater meus, damnāberis atque occīdēris. (vīta rūstica p 8 Stage 35)
• nōn crēdam nisi lēgerō, Catulle. (epigrammata Martiālis IV p 29 Stage 36)
• sī Hibernōs superāverimus, nōn modo pacem in Brianniā habēbimus, sed etiam magnās dīvitiās comparābimus…. (epistula p 42 Stage 37)
• sī tamen tū mē adiūveris, sēcūrus erō. (amīcī principis p 44 stage 37)
• sī cōpiae nostrae trans mare in Hiberniam ductae erunt, magnō perīculō obicientur. (cōnsilium Domitiānī I p 46 Stage 37)
• sī Hibernia quoque ab Agricolā victa erit, totam Britanniam in potestāte nostrā habēbimus. (cōnsilium Domitiānī p 47 Stage 37)
• haec est sententia mea, quam sī dissēnseris mūtābō. (Imperātōris sententia p 60 Stage 38)
• sī hīc captus eris, interficiēris. (prīdiē nūptiārum p 64 Stage 38)

I followed this set with these because of the similarities:

Priusquam – future perfect indicative = until (notice similarity to the Future More Vivid Conditional)

• ego numquam iterum tībiīs cantābō priusquam perierit Salvius. (honōrēs p 283 Stage 34)
• nihil dīcam priusquam Epaphrodītī sententiam audīverō. (amīcī principis p 44 Stage 37)

And then we got to these few perfect tense subjunctives.  I pointed out that so far these were only coming up in indirect questions; NONE were in conditional clauses, thus it was easy to distinguish.

Perfect Subjunctives: used in indirect questions and other typical subjunctive clauses

• nōn satis cōnstat quot hostēs perierint; … (epistula p 42 Stage 37)
• nescio enim quārē Domitiānus nōs arcessīverit. (amīcī prīncipis p 43 Stage 37)
• intellegere nōn possum quārē illa in mātrimōnium nōndum collocāta sit. (Imperātōris sententia p 60 Stage 38)
• scio quō ille ierit, num occīsus sit. (prīdiē nūptiārum p 64 Stage 38)

Anyway, I dunno.  I was told the discussion did help.  However, it's the week before spring break and I'm not sure whether ANYTHING helps. hahahahaha.

The Latin 3's have hit a point of frustration so I'm taking this four day week (we had a holiday on Monday) to back up and review and get a bigger picture of what we are doing.

On their last test over stages 36-37 (Martial, present subjunctives, indirect discourse with present tense main verbs using present and perfect infinitives) there were many seriously low grades. However, what they missed were things they should know, like cases that were OBVIOUS if not because of actual endings then because of patterns and placement. Clearly they are missing these vital clues--those of context, those of word order--and combined with this class's weakness in endings has meant a disastrous result. And I refuse to accept that this is just the way things are this year. I don't believe you have some years where you have smart kids and some you don't; I think you have some years with students who learn in traditional ways and some years where traditional methods don't work. And you know what? I LIKE THAT. It forces ME to be more creative and to examine and reexamine what I do and how I teach and whether it's good enough. (haha--never is.)

I have been thinking a lot about sentence patterns. There are basic patterns that recur and recur both in the textbook and then again in Vergil. I know some teachers hate that CLC starts out with the same sentence pattern so that students can guess at meanings instead of needing to put meaning together based on whether they know their endings or not. I have always reinforced endings via metaphrasing (see previous entries for more on metaphrasing). But sometimes, when sentences get really long, students lose sight of sentence patterns.

And let's face it: there are certain patterns that create expectations, and it's these expectations that allow us to toss aside improbably cases and reach for the more logical ones that fulfill those expectations for completing a thought.

In the ACTFL guideline for language proficiencies which I was reading earlier today, they say this about the "Advanced" level of reading (this is on page 22).

"At the Advanced level, readers can understand the main idea and supporting details of authentic narrative and descriptive texts. Readers are able to compensate for limitations in their lexical and structural knowledge by using contextual clues. Comprehension is likewise supported by knowledge of the conventions of the language (e.g. noun/adjective agreement, verb placement, etc.). When familiar with the subject matter, Advanced-level readers are also able to derive some meaning from straightforward argumentative texts (e.g., recognizing the main argument)."

Consider what it says about an Intermediate level reader (from page 23),

"At the Intermediate level, readers can understand information conveyed in simple, predictable, loosely connected texts. Readers rely heavily on contextual clues. They can most easily understand information if the format of the text is familiar, such as in a weather report or social announcement. Intermediate-level readers are able to understand texts that convey basic information such as that found in announcements, notices and online bulletin boards and forums. These texts are not complex and have a predictable pattern of presentation. The discourse is minimally connected and primarily organized in individual sentences and strings of sentences containing predominantly high-frequency vocabulary."

Wow. See, our students never (rarely) get that unless we generate it. That is. from time to time I do converse in Latin with them on Facebook (or of course in class), but nothing extensive. But I think the more important thing to recognize here is that we basically aim to take our students straight up to the advanced level with little stop for appreciation or even proficiency at the intermediate level. Also consider that when we read a text, more often than not we are demanding our students to understand most everything on the page. To do less is to be a sloppy Latin teacher, or so it seems. Drill those forms! Know those endings! Write those charts! DECODE that sentence! (But is that treating Latin like a language??)

There is that added issue that the "smart" students want to know it all and understand it all; the ones that are guessing are rarely making educated guesses based on context. They are just guessing because they didn't study and are apathetic.

In that paragraph on Advanced level readers, we are to understand that students are "able to compensate for limitations in their lexical and structural knowledge by using contextual clues." How many of us expressly teach this? I know I try to. "Comprehension is likewise supported by knowledge of the conventions of the language (e.g. noun/adjective agreement, verb placement, etc.)." This is where sentence patterns come in.

When sentences become longer, filled with participial phrases and a myriad of subjunctive clauses, not to mention appositives and other things that fatten out a sentence, students start to crumble. Too many endings, too many possibilities. I expressly teach reading in word order and letting the sentence unfold, but that's not enough. Not this year. Perhaps not in the past as well.

So anyway. The Latin 3's did poorly on the last test, as I said, so I took a passage from Stage 36 (more poetry) and another from Stage 37 (more prose) and made a handout where I copied each sentence separately and placed them under subsections of the various cases. Sentences with expressed nominatives were under the section for Nominatives and the words that were in the nominative were in all caps. Sentences with expressed accusatives were under the section for Accusatives, etc etc. I did this for each case. And then we started looking at sentence patterns. Here were the patterns we focused on to start with:

Nom + est + Nom (what we call "Est takes the twin noms" and draw a stick figure, Est, with girls, Noms, on each arm)
(Nom) + PP + V (pp=prepositional phrase)
(Nom) + ACC + V
(Nom) + Dat + Acc + V
(Nom) + Dat + V* (special verbs)

The first sentence we looked at was "in auditorio exspectant MULTI CIVES." Immediately we are in a different pattern, or are we? (PP + V + Nom) This led to a discussion about emphasis and that sometimes the very end of a sentence added extra emphasis. We also looked at "eum sequebatur EPAPHRODITUS, epistulam manu TENENS." If we ignore the partiple and its dependents for a moment, we have ACC + V + Nom. This time I pointed out that Romans liked to write in the order in which things happened. (Dexter Hoyos makes a great argument for this in his book, _Latin: How to Read it Fluently_.) Domitian (eum) was followed into the room by Epaphroditus, who is holding the letter, which will be the next thing to focus on. In fact, not only the order in which things happened (or are happening), but also in importance in society. But I digress.

Once we got past these, and started racing through more, we started seeing our old patterns in their old forms, such as these:
* OMNES inter se colloquuntur. (Nom + PP + V)
* COMPLURES AUDITORES se convertunt ut Sabidium, QUI in ultimo sellarum ordine sedet, spectent. >>
- COMPLURES AUDITORES se convertunt (Nom + Acc + V)
- ut Sabidium, ..., spectent. (Acc + V)
-QUI in ultimo sellarum ordine sedet (Nom + PP + V)
* EGO POETA sum, TU tantum AUDITOR. (Nom + est + Nom) -- (es understood for the 2nd set of words)

I told them the most common NOMINATIVE word misidentified on tests was truly a NOM plus a form of est. And I must admit that I felt totally rewarded when at the end of class many responded VERY positively, that we should have more days like this, etc etc. That was yesterday.

Today we were looking at Accusatives. I reminded them of the patterns we've seen with Accusatives:

(Nom) + Acc + V
(Nom) + Dat + Acc + V
preposition + acc (sometimes the obvious escapes them!)
Noun + Acc + Participle (present ACtive or perfect ACtive)
Acc + V + Nom (the pattern we had noticed yesterday--see above)

Then we looked some sentences, including these:

*auditoribus plaudentibus, Martialis SCAENAM ascendit ut VERSUS SUOS recitet. [ignore the abl. abs.] (Nom + Acc + V) + (Acc + V)
* primum recitare volo VERSUS QUOSDAM nuper de Sabidio COMPOSITOS. (V + Acc)

We took a moment here to discuss Nouns and their Participles and the stuff nested in between. We spend a great deal of focus in Latin 2 and Latin 3 metaphrasing whole participial phrases, treating them as a whole, so my saying that this was just Verb plus Accusative and that I was considering even the nested adverb and prep phrase part of that accusative was not a problem for them. (Well, no one acted surprised so I assume that they tracked that without question.)

*HOC tantum possum dicere - non amo TE. (Acc + V) (V + Acc)
*EMPTOS haec habet, illa SUOS (Acc + Nom + V + Nom + Acc)

After these two we discussed how Latin poetry and even prose sentences like this mirror-image word order. A couple of students commented on how cool this was. From here we turned to stage 37 sentences. First we looked at this sentence again:

* EUM sequebatur Epaphroditus, EPISTULAM manu tenens. (Acc + V + Nom) (noun + ACC + participle)

I emphasized the accusative with present active and perfect active participles, pointing out that we should almost expect accusatives here--and that when I target a word in the accusative to be grammatically identified on a test, it is often one in this position--predictable because of the present active participle, plus, you know, it has an ACCUSATIVE ending! (ahem.)

* in hac epistula Agricola nuntiat EXERCITUM ROMANUM ad ULTIMAS PARTES Britanniae pervenisse.... (PP + Nom + Verb of the Head + ACC + INF)

We stopped here an added this new pattern, one we had indeed been discussing in recent weeks but had yet to add to the day's pattern list:

VoH + ACC (+ACC) + Inf.

(VoH = verb of the head = speaking, seeing, understanding, thinking, etc setting up the indirect statement)

We discussed that because of the use of 2 accusatives that the first will be the subject, the second the direct object. We talked about how despite what they might think, the Romans wrote in a way that could be understood to the reader or listener, and would not purposefully write something that when read IN WORD ORDER could be easily misconstrued. We followed that with this sentence which demonstrated the two accusatives:

* cognovimus, domine, CN. IULIUM AGRICOLAM CALEDONIOS tandem superavisse. (VoH + ACC + ACC + INF)

Tomorrow, we'll look at Datives, Ablatives, and Genitives. This has been good. Students who I thought love me and just tolerated Latin are suddenly expressing understanding and interest. THIS IS GOOD. THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT. And their feedback helps me consider what they need and how I can be a better teacher.