Why Literature but not Latin?

Scroll to see replies

Yes but what I mean is, it has to be linked to the theme. If you pointed out the structure but it had nothing to do with a sense of place and you didn't link it to that, there is no 'valid interpretation' to reward. You're just pointing out the obvious. I don't know what the poems were but it's really not as simple as just pointing out obvious features of a poem, that's what a lot of people actually lose marks on. You would get some marks maybe, but not decent marks.

If that is indeed the case, and they're not excessively generous in allowing people to draw links between say, caesuras and a sense of place, then I have no problem with it. :smile:

Reply 21

username944192

Original post by ClickItBack

If that is indeed the case, and they're not excessively generous in allowing people to draw links between say, caesuras and a sense of place, then I have no problem with it. :smile:

I wouldn't have thought so. In some ways your sister is right in that you can have a good guess and get it fairly right, but to get the top marks you definitely can't do that. You have to build up the sense of place being conveyed, not just point out random features willy nilly, and if it's not relevant at all and you're just making up rubbish they don't give you marks for it. In my experience anyway, we were shown examples of C grade students who did literally do what you just described. It's probably easier to get a C in than science/maths but if you want the top marks, it isn't, basically.

Reply 22

Pectorac

Original post by Observatory

If that were the point it would make more sense to analyse financial reports or press releases, rather than literature.

Good luck with trying to force every student in the country to read and analyse financial reports and press releases. A good piece of literature can get even the most rebellious and less-gifted pupils interested and motivated, which will get their analytical skills going. Literature can really change people's mindsets and outlooks if they come across a character they study they can relate to or respect, even though they are fictional. Pupils are often intrigued by what comes next in a book; they see it as a way that lets them into a different world, away from the actual school. When you see children who are written off as failures really interested in whatever literature they are studying at school, it's obvious that they can be stimulated by something and this is good grounds to push them even further.

You are not going to get 180 pupils in a year group analysing a financial report from The Guardian, at any time of day. Only a handful of students will be interested, and the others won't care and will not do any work. Give them a piece of literature they can become involved with, and they can flourish.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 23

ClickItBack

Original post by infairverona

My sister got an A, but maybe that's why she missed out on the A* :wink:

Reply 24

username944192

Original post by ClickItBack

My sister got an A, but maybe that's why she missed out on the A* :wink:

The A* is ridiculous, even the teachers don't really know how you get one. Or at least they didn't at my school, and it was grammar. Think the marking is overall pretty hit and miss.

Reply 25

M'Ling

Why Literature? It is the 100th anniversary of World War 1 this year, and no doubt schools are taking advantage of the wealth of literature - poetry, plays, novels - that take this great tragedy as a muse. Through such art (and literature should be treated as art), students may come to realise new perceptions of the world around them in a language that actually makes immediate sense. Upon reading Wilfred Owen, a pupil may finally understand the human impact of what their history teacher was telling them, and in a voice which makes far more sense than a textbook or a graph of statistics. I've only taken WW1 because of the anniversary year, but this idea can be applied to almost any situation - from Queen Elizabeth being a virgin to Queen Victoria being a widow.

Latin, indeed, is a great educational tool, and it would be great if it were even possible to introduce the compulsory teaching of it into state schools. The teaching of Modern Foreign Languages GCSEs, for instance, could be divided so that Latin is taught one lesson a week - if only as a reinforcement. This said, let us not dismiss literature as unnecessary or useless. That is without practical use is precisely why it is needed.

Reply 26

simon_g

Original post by Hopelessly

Because I've studied Latin to AS Level, I'm easily able understand other languages - Arabic, French, Italian, Polish, Spanish...
Latin is FAR from useless - it is the root of all languages! Really I think it is a subject that HAS to be taught!
It makes my blood boil when people dismiss it as a "dead language," ugh.

why to bother with Latin when you have the Interlingua ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua )?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 27

Ronove

Original post by simon_g

why to bother with Latin when you have the Interlingua ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua )?

Latin isn't generally studied for the sake of communication. Besides, that says '[Interlingua] ranks among the top three most widely used IALs (after Esperanto and perhaps Ido)' - Esperanto is a joke. Constructed languages are a joke. Coming third to Esperanto is not praise.

Reply 28

Snufkin

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by Hopelessly

Latin is FAR from useless - it is the root of all languages!

What the hell, no it isn't. :facepalm:

It has certainly influenced many Europeans languages but that is hardly the same thing as being the 'root' of a language. The only languages which Latin is related to are the Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Romanian and a few smaller regional languages/dialects).

Reply 29

simon_g

Original post by Ronove

true- artificial, synthetic languages (like Esperanto or Ido) are a joke (I won't even mention Volapuk :wink:

).
but, the other part of the phrase you've quotted "(..)and is the most widely used naturalistic IAL:^[3] in other words, its vocabulary, grammar and other characteristics are derived from natural languages. Interlingua was developed to combine a simple, mostly regular grammar^[4]^[5] with a vocabulary common to the widest possible range of languages,^[6] making it unusually easy to learn, at least for those whose native languages were sources of Interlingua's vocabulary and grammar.^[7] Conversely, it is used as a rapid introduction to many natural languages.^[3] Interlingua literature maintains that (written) Interlingua is comprehensible to the hundreds of millions of people who speak a Romance language,^[8] though it is actively spoken by only a few hundred.^[1](..)"

and yeah, for an introduction to (romance) languages it's much easier (and makes much more sense) than Latin (not to mention: most latin-courses teaches dead, classical Latin not the proper vulgar one which was a base of romance languages /vide: CL "equus" vs VL "caballus" etc/).
I really like the way the suffixes works in IA, they are described in a really good way.

Reply 30

Ronove

Original post by simon_g

true- artificial, synthetic languages (like Esperanto or Ido) are a joke (I won't even mention Volapuk :wink:

If an individual wants to look into it for fun then I'm sure it'll help future Romance language learning to some degree if they have not really been exposed to any before - just like looking into any real Romance language would, which is why Interlingua is still exceptionally pointless. Learning a real language would help more, since it would appear that Interlingua contains no grammatical features that aren't common to all its control languages, essentially leaving its primary benefit in vocabulary recognition - again, it would make far more sense to just learn the vocabulary from a real language. It'll be virtually the same, except you'll actually be able to use it in the future.