An interesting op-ed in today’s New York Times advocates for the (re)introduction of Latin courses in American high schools and universities, coming fairly close on the heels of Pope Benedict XVI’s easing of guidelines for the use of the Tridentine Mass, which further raises the point that a traditional Roman Catholic Church is one of the few places in the world where you can hear spoken Latin for a sustained period of time.
I don’t think it’s such a bad idea for kids to study Latin today, especially as it is the basis for many European languages, as well as a large proportion of English. Furthermore, I agree with the author of the op-ed that Latin offers an excellent foundation, inter alia, in rhetoric, a skill sorely lacking in today’s political realm (not to mention academia). Latin is concise, precise, and does not lend itself to verbosity (though students of Cicero may disagree). This post might have been three words in Latin.
Plus, what better way for kids to communicate on the sly and dupe the parents than with a dead language that no one knows?
It's been awhile!
9 years ago
1 comment:
I feel like my vocabulary would be better if I knew Latin. Or maybe I wouldn't have to look things up in the dictionary all the time.
But I would tell someone who thinks that Latin is going to be a quick fix to restoring our education system "Caveat Emptor." It's not going to be a fix-all. There will be plenty of "quid pro quos" you have to deal with, as you'd have to drop something else from the curriculum. And too few students would get a solid enough grounding to be able to say "Veni Vidi Vici" with any confidence.
Sure it would be good if students really cried "Carpe Diem" and jumped headlong into their Latin studies. But some others might rather just "carpe carpum" (sieze the fish.)
And now I think I've used up all my latin. Except for
Ad Majoriam Dei Gloriam
Peace out.
Post a Comment