Question On Language

[Avatar]

Salvete!

Next year, my studies will take me into the field of ancient history. As part of that, if I go a specific university here in Norway, I can take a, introductory course in either Latin or Ancient Greek. But I can't pick one... I know I have over a year to think about it, but both languages appeal. OK, so I'm a little uneasy over the preponderance of cases in Latin(I always struggled with that in German...), but for all I know, Ancient Greek offers the same. And so I turn to RAT. Which would you advice me to pick, considering ease of learning, how much there is to each language(like written works, vocabulary, etc), and which one is most accessible to a beginner.

Thanks.

[Jona Lendering]

I found that Latin started easy and became more difficult, and that Greek started difficult and became easier. Latin has the benefit that it will also help you study West-European medieaval history.

You have not asked for more, but I think I should add something. I hope you are sure that you want to continue in ancient history. At RAT, you are with the fanatics, but outside groups like these, it is not unusual to regret studying ancient history. The chance that you will find a job is larger when you pick up contemporary history. There used to be a time that I would have said "follow your heart", but I am not so sure about that any more. I was lucky to found a school of my own, so that I can make a living from ancient history; but I have had other jobs, and I felt miserably. I think I have paid too high a prize. Most of my fellow ancient history students had similar experiences, looking back on their study years as great fun, but the worst preparation for real life.

[Avatar]

Many thanks for the advice, Jona. Greatly appreciated.

I'd just like to add that this is but a stepping stone. I intend to major in history eventually and teach the subject in high school. Or "upper secondary high school", as the technical term is, IIRC. So I'll be moving on. But this is a wonderful opportunity that can also be incorporated into the rest of my studies towards the major in history.

In case anyone was wondering, I'll minor in English. Or so I intend, anyways.

[Matthew Amt]

Definitely Latin first. Greek is great IF you have a good teacher, but it is a challenge! It has more of everything that Latin has, e.g., verbs have Active, Passive, and MIDDLE voice. And until you get used to the alphabet, everything looks like "Kaopectate"! A good foundation in Latin will make man of the basic concepts of Greek seem familiar, allowing you to focus on the harder parts (like most verbs being irregular...).

Then you can try Egyptian Hieroglyphics! TOO much fun...

Khaire!

Matthew

[Avatar]

Latin then? Unless someone happens to have a strong counter argument?

[Praefectusclassis]

I substantially agree with Jona's arguments. High level Latin is HARD, because the greatest complexity is in the noun and lacks articles. The Greek alphabet is something you get used to quite quickly and once the verb is under control, it's quite readable (but stay away from poetry! hock: )
Also, Jona wrote:

The chance that you will find a job is larger when you pick up contemporary history.

I think that's poppy-cock. If you want to make it big in anything, history is something to explain to a potential employer who 99% of the time doesn't give a hoot whether you studied ancient, contemporary or Aztec history.

[sonic]

Latin then? Unless someone happens to have a strong counter argument?

What aspect of ancient history are you going to be studying? If early, then probably Greek is your best bet. If Imperial Roman history, decide which area you want to study. If your focus is going to be on the West, it is probably better to learn Latin; if on the East, Greek, as the sources tend to focus on one or the other - although of course there is a large overlap.

The other question would be how much you intend to use it after finishing the course. Greek is very much a 'minority' language, whereas Latin has influenced the languages of Western Europe to a large degree - including English, so this would help in your English studies.

As for accessibility etc. I'd follow Jona's advice.

[Avatar]

Latin then.

To answer the above question, I'll try as best as I can to get a little of each, but with a primary focus on western history, such as the Romans, the Celts, etc.

Come to think of it, I also want to expand into medieval history, so yes, Latin is the best choice, I suppose.

Again, thanks. To all of you.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Actually Greek has influenced the english language to a certain degree to Sonic. Of course, I would need to find the proof to back myself up here, but I know of quite a few points of influence, which escape me at the moment.... :roll: :?

[sonic]

Actually Greek has influenced the english language to a certain degree to Sonic. Of course, I would need to find the proof to back myself up here, but I know of quite a few points of influence, which escape me at the moment.... :roll: :?

I agree, but Latin has had far more influence.

If you're thinking of going into western medieval history, it has to be Latin!

[M. Demetrius]

Actually Greek has influenced the english language

Certainly in the medical field...many diseases/afflictions are nothing more than a couple of Greek words which describe the condition.

[Sean Manning]

Hi Avatar,

I'm in the last year of my undergraduate degree, so I can give my thoughts.

I learned Latin first, simply because its more useful outside of ancient history (unless you want to study the medieval Greek empire). I'll probably try to pick up French or German before Ancient Greek.

I guess that studying twentieth-century history is more useful to get work as a journalist or policy expert, but studying one area of history should give you the research skills to get a background in another area if you need it. In terms of practicality, I decided to get a Double Major in my passion (history) and a more practical subject (Computer Science). It turns out that there is a fair bit of work where both sets of skills are useful, but it also means I have something to fall back on if becoming an academic doesn't work out.

[Jona Lendering]

I guess that studying twentieth-century history is more useful to get work as a journalist or policy expert, but studying one area of history should give you the research skills to get a background in another area if you need it.

Yes, that is true, but I am not convinced (and here I disagree with Jasper) that a future employer is aware of this. And probably, the manager is right: a historian studying the twentieth century does not spend a quarter of his time to learning a dead language, which gives him more time to acquire skills, or a living language.

[Praefectusclassis]

I am not convinced (and here I disagree with Jasper) that a future employer is aware of this.

I'm not arguing that a employer is aware - you're right, he probably isn't - I'm saying that for most employers history=history=history. They don't even make or care to make the distinction in various subdisciplines.

[Avatar]

No worries. I intend to become a teacher, which around here means a rather good chance of getting a job as just that. Very high on the list of the top 10 jobs most likely to offer employment after finishing your education.