Hard to learn enough Latin to be able to read scientific works?

[Jame]

Recently I've gained interest in reading the classical works of mathematicians and physicists and came to the realization that knowing Latin would be of great use. Is it worth the effort to learn the basics necessary to comprehend for example Gauss' works, or might I just as well get the translations instead? (I'm not particularly interested in learning Latin for the sake of knowing the language.)

My question is basically: is it very hard to learn enough Latin to be able to read scientific works?

 

[Manchot]

I took Latin in high school; it's a pretty easy language to learn.

 

[JasonRox]

The gain in learning Latin is almost nil. No one speaks it. No one writes it basically.

The most recent great works have been written in German, French, and English. Why not stick to those languages?

 

[Manchot]

^ Yeah, while it's nice to know etymology, Latin is pretty useless.

 

[GeorginaS]

Isn't Latin helpful in medicine and biology in general?

 

[moe darklight]

The gain in learning Latin is almost nil. No one speaks it. No one writes it basically.

The most recent great works have been written in German, French, and English. Why not stick to those languages?

^ Yeah, while it's nice to know etymology, Latin is pretty useless.

I'm shocked at what I'm hearing! ... reading, rather ... Since when is learning the language of one of the most culturally influential cultures in history useless? Especially coming from your Aristotle Quote up there
If anything, I think it's an amazing experience to read something written centuries ago, in a language that no longer exists, and realize just how relevant it still is.
I plan to eventually learn Greek and German, and I'd like to think my efforts toward the former won't be a waste of my time.

 

[fourier jr]

^ Yeah, while it's nice to know etymology, Latin is pretty useless.

if someone knew latin, greek & german they could probably understand any western language. i think that would be pretty useful.

 

[mgb_phys]

Isn't Latin helpful in medicine and biology in general?

Certainly is - "allergic rhinitus" is a lot more profitable than a runny nose

 

[Proton Soup]

i disagree that latin is "easy". i took it for about 9 months in college, yet can't speak it now. however, i don't think it's useless at all. so much of english has latin roots that it can be helpful, especially for scientific/technical english.

i'd just get the translation if it were me. all those conjugations and tenses and such get tiresome.

 

[gravenewworld]

Latin is much easier to read and write than speak it.

 

[JasonRox]

I'm shocked at what I'm hearing! ... reading, rather ... Since when is learning the language of one of the most culturally influential cultures in history useless? Especially coming from Aristotle Quote up there
If anything, I think it's an amazing experience to read something written centuries ago, in a language that no longer exists, and realize just how relevant it still is.
I plan to eventually learn Greek and German, and I'd like to think my efforts toward the former won't be a waste of my time.

The investment in time can be better made is all I'm saying. Not very hard to understand.

 

[Manchot]

I'm shocked at what I'm hearing! ... reading, rather ... Since when is learning the language of one of the most culturally influential cultures in history useless? Especially coming from Aristotle Quote up there
If anything, I think it's an amazing experience to read something written centuries ago, in a language that no longer exists, and realize just how relevant it still is.
I plan to eventually learn Greek and German, and I'd like to think my efforts toward the former won't be a waste of my time.

I've read the Aeneid, so I know what you mean, but I'm just being realistic. Latin was a fun class in high school, but I recognize that my time would have been better spent learning another language. (My high school offered four years of Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese, and Latin, as well as a year of Greek).

i'd just get the translation if it were me. all those conjugations and tenses and such get tiresome.

It's really not worse than any other language, and Latin is extremely forgiving in terms of word order. Plus, if you don't know what a word means, you can often guess (though this is likely true of all Romance languages).

 

[Gokul43201]

Recently I've gained interest in reading the classical works of mathematicians and physicists and came to the realization that knowing Latin would be of great use. Is it worth the effort to learn the basics necessary to comprehend for example Gauss' works, or might I just as well get the translations instead? (I'm not particularly interested in learning Latin for the sake of knowing the language.)

I've read a fair part of the English translation of Disquisitiones Arithmeticae (by Clark) and found it really good. I didn't go so far as learning Latin. But I often wish I could read French and German, because many good papers are not translated.

 

[moe darklight]

i'd just get the translation if it were me. all those conjugations and tenses and such get tiresome.

You wouldn't think it if you are a native English speaker, but English is one of the hardest languages to get right grammatically. the vocabulary is relatively easy because it borrows a lot from other languages and because it's such a universal language, but English grammar is a mess. This is why you meet immigrants who have lived in English speaking countries for years and still speak tarzan-english.

The investment in time can be better made is all I'm saying. Not very hard to understand.

OK, granted it's not very useful in the stricter sense of the word. But I still think useless and pointless are not the same thing. Playing a musical instrument is a pretty useless skill that takes a lot of time to hone, but I don't think it's a waste of time either.

 

[LowlyPion]

My question is basically: is it very hard to learn enough Latin to be able to read scientific works?

If you're asking because you want to read say Newton's Principia, they've had plenty of time to get that translated by now.

I'm not aware of too many current articles being published in Latin however.

On the whole though, I'd say it's a useful enterprise. I trundled my way through Caesar and Cicero and the Aeneid, putting Gauls under the yoke and exhorting the citizens of Rome and Dido's tragic end, and in the final analysis it's certainly more useful than say mastering the Gears of War or Call of Duty.

 

[moe darklight]

Gears of War or Call of Duty.

I've always wondered if, 400 years from now, students will be made to analyze classic works such as "South Park: Bigger, Longer, And Uncut".

I get this mental image of one of those annoying literature professors talking about the "delicious irony of the Christlike death and rebirth of Kenny," or some other overwrought analysis.

I love literature (good reason to major in it, I would think), but sometimes I have to try really hard to not burst into laughter in the middle of class. Especially when a student-teacher presents some insane analytic theory on a text, which usually revolves around the penis.

What is it about modern literary critics that everything must revolve around phallic imagery? they've all got erection-mania, methinks.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's really not worse than any other language, and Latin is extremely forgiving in terms of word order. Plus, if you don't know what a word means, you can often guess (though this is likely true of all Romance languages).

For what very little it's worth, Latin isn't a Romance language (though it is an Italic language). Romance languages are those descended from Vulgar Latin; Latin is 'two generations too old' for that.

 

[LowlyPion]

I've always wondered if, 400 years from now, students will be made to analyze classic works such as "South Park: Bigger, Longer, And Uncut".

I get this mental image of one of those annoying literature professors talking about the "delicious irony of the Christlike death and rebirth of Kenny," or some other overwrought analysis.

I love literature (good reason to major in it, I would think), but sometimes I have to try really hard to not burst into laughter in the middle of class. Especially when a student-teacher presents some insane analytic theory on a text, which usually revolves around the penis.

What is it about modern literary critics that everything must revolve around phallic imagery? they've all got erection-mania, methinks.

With much of South Park foraging in bathroom and underwear territory for material already I suspect there will be little analytical discussion in that direct, though maybe there is some as yet undiscovered synchronicity that can be imagined with Pink Floyd or Rugrats in Paris.

 

[moe darklight]

With much of South Park foraging in bathroom and underwear territory for material

even Pope throws the occasional pun about pubic hair... it's something of a recent trend that literary critics started to over-over-read everything, sometimes to the point that I'm left wondering if I got the right edition of the book. I often get the impression they write papers on the work they wish the writer had written, rather than what was actually written. They've killed not only the author, but his book also!

And I do love South Park, btw

 

[OrbitalPower]

Why would future generations analyze "South Park" when we currently have our own generation of intellectuals and fiction writers, much like the ones of Poe's time. There were some great American writers and intellectuals of the late twentieth century and some are still writing on into the twenty first. I would hope they are the ones remembered.

South Park has about the writing quality of a TV advertisement, with worse humor.

 

[moe darklight]

even Poe throws the occasional pun about pubic hair

oops. that should read "Pope". ... fixed it.

Why would future generations analyze "South Park" when we currently have our own generation of intellectuals and fiction writers, much like the ones of Poe's time. There were some great American writers and intellectuals of the late twentieth century and some are still writing on into the twenty first. I would hope they are the ones remembered.

South Park has about the writing quality of a TV advertisement, with worse humor.

What?? Watch the South Park movie and explain to me exactly how it's not absolutely brilliant. Sure, some episodes are not exactly quality stuff... but who could come up with 14 great stories a year for 12 years in a row? (in fact, there is a SP episode on how hard it is to come up with episode ideas, which turned out to be a great episode).

And of course they would. Because South Park, whether you like it or not, is a vital example of pop culture and has been incredibly influential-- for better or for worse, a clear "before and after South Park" line can be drawn in recent media history. I don't see how a future course on 21st century would not mention it.

Also I think that oftentimes what becomes a classic is not necessarily a piece deserving of becoming one. When was the last time a best seller was particularly well written, let alone brilliantly so? "The DaVinci Code" is one of our generation's biggest successes
Everyone knows "Tom Sawyer", which is quite a terrible book, but nobody remembers "The Ring And The Book."

err... I'm not sure what my point is, but I'm sure it's something.

/rant

 

[JasonRox]

OK, granted it's not very useful in the stricter sense of the word. But I still think useless and pointless are not the same thing. Playing a musical instrument is a pretty useless skill that takes a lot of time to hone, but I don't think it's a waste of time either.

That anology doesn't apply. You can learn french, and probably be capable of reading more originals than you would be able to from learning Latin. Many many great mathematicians were french.

Essentially french wins without even considering the usefulness.

 

[moe darklight]

My point exactly is that it doesn't matter whether it's useful or not. Hence the music analogy: learning to play music is about the most useless and time consuming task one can undertake, but I've never met someone who would claim it to be a waste of time. If we judge whether something is worth doing purely on how useful it is... what is the usefulness of growing a garden, or hiking, or watching a movie, or studying anything outside one's field, etc.?
Learning the language and reading the works is the end in and of itself, and there should be no reason to justify it in terms of how useful it may be for whatever other purposes other than what it is that it is.

(for the purposes of the OP, then yes, Latin is probably not the best choice... or he could just as well stick to English. But I meant generally. I got the impression that you were saying that learning those languages is a waste of time.)

 

[wolram]

I would like to learn Latin, years ago a local gent wrote a history of our village ,a task that would have been impossible without a knowledge of Latin, as many records are still in this ancient form, AFAIK never translated/published.

 

[JasonRox]

My point exactly is that it doesn't matter whether it's useful or not. Hence the music analogy: learning to play music is about the most useless and time consuming task one can undertake, but I've never met someone who would claim it to be a waste of time. If we judge whether something is worth doing purely on how useful it is... what is the usefulness of growing a garden, or hiking, or watching a movie, or studying anything outside one's field, etc.?
Learning the language and reading the works is the end in and of itself, and there should be no reason to justify it in terms of how useful it may be for whatever other purposes other than what it is that it is.

(for the purposes of the OP, then yes, Latin is probably not the best choice... or he could just as well stick to English. But I meant generally. I got the impression that you were saying that learning those languages is a waste of time.)

But the work is translated!

That's equivalent to not being satisfied with playing Mozart with a new violin. Having to get an old one of that particular time. But really? You need to realize that even if you have that old violin, it still won't be the same. Styles of playing violin has change in subtle ways, and different from person to person, that no can recognize especially something hundred's of years ago. The writing style has changed, the use of the Latin language will also most likely be different, you will never get what those have got from it before. To try and think that you will is just fooling yourself.

 

[moe darklight]

But the work is translated!

That's equivalent to not being satisfied with playing Mozart with a new violin. Having to get an old one of that particular time. But really? You need to realize that even if you have that old violin, it still won't be the same. Styles of playing violin has change in subtle ways, and different from person to person, that no can recognize especially something hundred's of years ago. The writing style has changed, the use of the Latin language will also most likely be different, you will never get what those have got from it before. To try and think that you will is just fooling yourself.

This is true for scientific works, but as far as pieces of literature go, reading a translation as opposed to reading the original makes an immense difference. Some works are so hard to translate, that their translations are essentially new works altogether, or adaptations. This is true even for languages that are somewhat similar, such as Spanish and Italian... comparing Dante's Inferno in the two languages, for example.

Of course it's impossible to read Homer the way a native Greek of the time would have understood it, but reading it in the original language with a background on the history is about as close as one can come, and I don't see how this is a waste of time.

True, we'll never know what Mozart really sounded like... but if you had the chance to find out, wouldn't you want to?

Some adaptations are done well enough that they stand out on their own, sometimes they even surpass the original... but reading the Original is often worth it. I want to learn Greek and German because I want to read Homer and Kafka, not a scholar's interpretation.

For example: various translations of the Metamorphosis refer to Gregor Samsa as having been transformed to an insect, a vermin, a monster, etc.
From what I've read, the most accurate translation should refer to him as a bug (because Kafka was in fact playing with the definition of the German word-- as in "bug" as in "bother" as well). For one reason or another, translators choose different words. In Spanish, the translation of this pun, which is vital to the story, is impossible.

His flash story "Give It Up" makes use of a pun that is even more vital for the story to make sense (the word police, or guardian). Without it, the story makes no sense... it was only once I found out about this pun that is impossible to translate that I understood the meaning of the story.

 

[amezcua]

My Latin teacher was aghast one day when one of my class asked him "Why do we learn Latin sir ?It`s a dead language,nobody speaks it,it`s no use. The classic answer came back -------- "That`s the BEAUTY of it boy!" A great answer.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.

 

[amezcua]

Consider this;I looked at a self teaching book on Swaheli and a common object in this African language can have sixteen tenses.Not a waste of time ,however ,as one tense could link it`s meaning to a dog.When you are referring to a Bihop the association can create a rich soup of comic possibilities. Anything that encourages comedy in any form will always get my vote.
Compare this to a set of text smillies and the poverty of texting is laid bare(like a dog`s bottom).
ps I got an answer on one of these Latin sites containing the word "legere" which defied the translation sites.It sounds like a 25/1 outsider in the 3.30 at Haydock.Any clues?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

.
ps I got an answer on one of these Latin sites containing the word "legere" which defied the translation sites.It sounds like a 25/1 outsider in the 3.30 at Haydock.Any clues?

The Latin word legere translates as "to read". The whole phrase translates to "If you know (how) to read this, you have too much education." Those autotranslation sites do a terrible job with Latin. They're not too bad for English/French/German/Spanish. I can't speak for anything else (I forgot most of my Flemish). However, as bad as they are for Latin, I can't imagine why you couldn't get a decent translation for the word legere. By the way, could you translate "It sounds like a 25/1 outsider in the 3.30 at the Haydock."?

EDIT: What longshot odds are talking about; the Latin sites or some other sites that "translate" Latin to English? If it's the latter, I agree with you, but a Latin site should at least be able to translate the infinitive legere correctly.

Here's another view:

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=955

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I have a question for any Latin students out there. The well used expression quid pro quo is usually understood as a 'favor for a favor' but it literally translates to "what for where". I know literal translations from Latin can be misleading, but someone told me it's just part of an old Roman saying meaning "What for where you want me to be." or "...I am to be." meaning where in terms of support for some political or business objective.

My attempt to translate that would be Quid pro quo sum esse.. Is this correct?

 

[nobahar]

The gain in learning Latin is almost nil. No one speaks it. No one writes it basically.

The most recent great works have been written in German, French, and English. Why not stick to those languages?

Latin is the basis for many languages (okay, you can go back further) including to some extent English, a lot of the 'finer' words are from latin, and you can sometimes guess their meaning in English if you know the latin (not always of course: prerogative comes to mind as one of those). It's also quite similar to Italian.

Isn't Latin helpful in medicine and biology in general?

I agree!

I would recommend learning it. I started a couple of years ago, but haven't done any recently as I have been busy with my studies (at least that's my excuse). I also wouldn;t say it's easy as some have suggested, the basics are always easy, it's when you go a bit further.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I would recommend learning it. I started a couple of years ago, but haven't done any recently as I have been busy with my studies (at least that's my excuse). I also wouldn;t say it's easy as some have suggested, the basics are always easy, it's when you go a bit further.

I would recommend studying Latin if you enjoy the language for it's own beauty and elegance (a subjective notion to be sure). It can also help you understand grammar because so many grammatical relations are expressed in the infections of the language, whereas these relations are largely "hidden" in English which has lost most of its inflections. However, it's certainly not necessary for learning grammar.

If you are interested in history, understanding Latin will allow you to read many historical documents and texts in the original language which is always better than relying on translations.

Btw, my Latin is pretty weak, so perhaps you (nobahar) could check my translation in post 31. Thanks

EDIT: Also, it's not true that no one speaks Latin. The internet has allowed for a bit of a revival of the language with a number of websites devoted to it. It will never replace English as an international lingua franca but there are people in many countries who have made the effort to learn it.

 

[nobahar]

I would recommend studying Latin if you enjoy the language for it's own beauty and elegance (a subjective notion to be sure). It can also help you understand grammar because so many grammatical relations are expressed in the infections of the language, whereas these relations are largely "hidden" in English which has lost most of its inflections. However, it's certainly not necessary for learning grammar.

If you are interested in history, understanding Latin will allow you to read many historical documents and texts in the original language which is always better than relying on translations.

Btw, my Latin is pretty weak, so perhaps you (nobahar) could check my translation in post 31. Thanks

EDIT: Also, it's not true that no one speaks Latin. The internet has allowed for a bit of a revival of the language with a number of websites devoted to it. It will never replace English as an international lingua franca but there are people in many countries who have made the effort to learn it.

I was thinking it was more useful in terms of vocabulary; any number of the words that we don't use in everyday speech are from latin, the type of words that convey what would otherwise would require a whole sentence to explain.
I do not have my latin books with me, as I am not at home. But I took "Quid pro quo" to be "What for what". Quid is the nominative of what, pro is a preposition that translates roughly as "for" in some contexts (and as we use it in certain contexts) and takes the ablative (i.e. pro +ablative of word). Quo is the ablative of what, and so we get Quid pro quo: What for what.
I learned classical pronunciation, if you're interested, this is a really good website:
http://www.rhapsodes.fll.vt.edu/

 

[Oudeis Eimi]

I have a question for any Latin students out there. The well used expression quid pro quo is usually understood as a 'favor for a favor' but it literally translates to "what for where".

No, it doesn't. It literally translates to 'what for what'. Quo means (among other things) 'where' when used as an adverb, but in that sentence it's used as a pronoun governed by the preposition pro, which makes it a form of quid ('what', 'which').

I know literal translations from Latin can be misleading, but someone told me it's just part of an old Roman saying meaning "What for where you want me to be." or "...I am to be." meaning where in terms of support for some political or business objective.

My attempt to translate that would be Quid pro quo sum esse.. Is this correct?

No. One way (among many) of saying 'where you want me to be' would be ubi me esse uis.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Thanks very much to both of you. Like I said, my Latin is weak and I was misinformed regarding that"..old Roman saying." You really can't use English as model. Sum does translate to "I am" and "esse" does translate to "to be", but that doesn't mean that sum esse,translates to "I am to be"; at least not in this usage.

EDIT: I'm really glad to hear that there are some good Latin speakers in this forum. Thanks again for the fast responses and for the link nobahar.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I'm actually going to embark learning Latin, and ancient Greek. I had originally enrolled for a course in ancient Greek but withdrew due to health reasons, but I've still got the textbook. I purchased Oxford Latin Course parts one and two so I could try out some Latin for myself.

I'd perfer to read Classical literature in translation. In High School I studied The Odyssey, Sophocles' Antigone and Oedipus Rex, and Virgil's The Aeneid.

 

[Studiot]

I'd be very grateful for a translation of the following

Populo enimius est,ut imperium cui velit deferat.

It is inscribed onto the pavement in Edinburgh.

 

[Oudeis Eimi]

I'd be very grateful for a translation of the following

Populo enimius est,ut imperium cui velit deferat.

It is inscribed onto the pavement in Edinburgh.

That'd be enim ius rather than enimius.

It is indeed the right of the people to deposit the power on whom they wish.

 

[Studiot]

Thank you indeed.

The quote is attributed to

George Buchanan

A well know Roman!

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I came across this quote from Seneca:

Loco non tui si non ubi es.

It was translated as "A place is not yours if you're not there."

This seems a little strange. If you leave your home for a while, it's not yours? Is it correctly translated? Perhaps he was referring to Rome's claim to parts of its vast empire and the need to maintain a presence rather than rely on the loyalty of local rulers. This would be a great line for squatters to write on the walls someone's vacation home.

 

[Oudeis Eimi]

I came across this quote from Seneca:

Loco non tui si non ubi es.

It was translated as "A place is not yours if you're not there."

This seems a little strange. If you leave your home for a while, it's not yours? Is it correctly translated? Perhaps he was referring to Rome's claim to parts of its vast empire and the need to maintain a presence rather than rely on the loyalty of local rulers. This would be a great line for squatters to write on the walls someone's vacation home.

This looked odd, so I googled it; the only two references I can find are your own post
and this blog:

http://truth-beauty-goodness.blogspot.com/2009/08/latin-et-english-quotes-from-seneca.html

The 'Latin' quotes there are all wrong though. Looks like the author has taken a number
of quotes from Seneca in English and is presenting his own, faulty translation into
Latin as though those were Seneca's own words.

In short, the person who did that webpage simply doesn't know enough Latin.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Thanks. Is the Latin a correct or incorrect translation of an incorrect English translation as written?

 

[Oudeis Eimi]

Thanks. Is the Latin a correct or incorrect translation of an incorrect English translation as written?

I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't think the English is a translation from
the Latin. What I meant is, that person took a sentence written in English (a Seneca
quote) and tried to translate it back into Latin, incorrectly.

I don't know the original Seneca quote.

EDIT:

The Latin as given isn't right because the subject ("a place") is written in the
wrong case ('loco' is either dative or ablative).

 

[brocks]

(I'm not particularly interested in learning Latin for the sake of knowing the language.)

I think a lot of the respondents must have missed that line in your post. I would never argue with a person who wants to learn a language for personal fulfillment, but it would be a huge waste of time to learn Latin just to read a few classics.

Simply put, unless you are a linguistic genius, if you don't enjoy learning the language for its own sake, then there is almost no chance that you are going to learn it well enough to get anything more than you can get from a translation --- and the kind of classics that you are talking about have almost certainly been translated, by true experts in the language.