What knowledge is of most worth, part CCCXXVII
One of the common reasons given for studying Latin is that it helps you learn other languages. Now, it certainly did for me, but I still think this is a myth. Learning any language will help you learn other languages.
The historical reason that Latin has been used as a gateway to learning other languages is because the teaching of Latin has always emphasized grammar. Since you can't just go play with the boys and girls who are speaking Latin, or travel to somewhere everybody speaks Latin in the shops and on the street -- so you can "pick it up" conversationally -- you have to learn Latin the way one dissects a dead animal in a laboratory. The easy parts of the specimen to learn are obvious -- they're the words, the vocabulary. But the sinews and nerves and all the other things that made the animal move and live (when it was alive) -- the operative parts -- are grammatical. Latin, as a highly inflected language, has a lot of grammar to learn, and it's all got to be memorized.
Now, all languages have grammar, but for many students of my age, we first encountered grammar in a formal way when we took Latin in high school. And this helped us even to understand our own first language, because one of the historical peculiarities of English instruction in both Britain and America is that the teachers of English like to think that English doesn't really have grammar. We like to say that we have an uninflected language, an analytical language, blah blah, yackety schmackety. But English has grammar -- loads of it. It's just not taught, except in nonsensical rules like not ending sentences with prepositions and the like. And this situation -- that we don't teach our own language like we teach all other languages -- has been going on for a very long time.
We spend a few weeks in junior high diagramming sentences, which is a ham-fisted way of trying to sneak grammar in by the back door, and of little practical use. Occasionally, we correct students who demonstrate poor usage, like saying "Her and I went to town," but not so much any more. My acquaintance with teachers -- including teachers of English --and with students in the School of Education, has shown me that when they are not "on the clock," they speak like everybody else. In fact, many educated persons, even those with Masters degrees, will say, "her and I." I once knew a fellow who won a State-wide award as one of the best public school teachers in Indiana, who said things like, "I seen the cat clumb the tree."
Of course, local dialects have always been a thing in English. The English language has always existed as a dialect continuum, even from its origins in the Fifth Century. The various Germanic tribes who relocated to Britain in those days spoke mutually intelligible dialects, and there were always significant differences between them. No dialect is intrinsically better than any other, and every dialect has its own grammar as well as vocabulary. In the regions where people say, "I seen," they also frequently say, "I've saw" -- and they never make a mistake in this usage. On their own terms, they are strict followers of their local grammar.
We teach a standard English not because everybody speaks that way at home, but because it is the received standard for all speakers, regardless of where they come from or where their interlocutors come from. Standard English is useful to know. And the standard varies over time. Late West Saxon Old English was once the standard, but it was dispossessed by the Normal Conquest. When English re-emerged as the language of the writers and political elite, the East Midlands dialect of Middle English which is the basis of our language today was actually descended from Mercian Old English, not West Saxon. Today, American Standard English is different from British Standard English, and people in foreign countries have to decide which standard to teach and to learn.
All that said, English is, as a rule, very poorly taught in our schools. Many English teachers would rather teach literature than the mechanics of the language. And many English teachers themselves don't really understand English grammar all that well. Meanwhile, given the woke follies of our day, many teachers -- including teachers of English -- think that language can be used to reshape reality, rather than merely describe it. They teach not to liberate students by enlarging their capacity to express themselves, but to chain them to the political orthodoxy of the teachers by limiting their ability to express thoughts the teachers don't like. I note that teachers of foreign languages are less prone to this nonsense. They know they have to teach the target language as it actually is, and not as they would like it to be, for their students to get anything out of their classes at all. In other words, they have to teach grammar as if it were something worth learning.
The Boy Scouts these days have a lot of badges related to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics). STEM subjects are all the rage in schools these days, and the Scouts have picked up on the trend. I note that the USA still leads the world in STEM fields, and while these things are fun (who doesn't like Robotics?), there are things that are in worse shape than STEM instruction. What the Scouts really need is a Grammar Merit Badge.
The historical reason that Latin has been used as a gateway to learning other languages is because the teaching of Latin has always emphasized grammar. Since you can't just go play with the boys and girls who are speaking Latin, or travel to somewhere everybody speaks Latin in the shops and on the street -- so you can "pick it up" conversationally -- you have to learn Latin the way one dissects a dead animal in a laboratory. The easy parts of the specimen to learn are obvious -- they're the words, the vocabulary. But the sinews and nerves and all the other things that made the animal move and live (when it was alive) -- the operative parts -- are grammatical. Latin, as a highly inflected language, has a lot of grammar to learn, and it's all got to be memorized.
Now, all languages have grammar, but for many students of my age, we first encountered grammar in a formal way when we took Latin in high school. And this helped us even to understand our own first language, because one of the historical peculiarities of English instruction in both Britain and America is that the teachers of English like to think that English doesn't really have grammar. We like to say that we have an uninflected language, an analytical language, blah blah, yackety schmackety. But English has grammar -- loads of it. It's just not taught, except in nonsensical rules like not ending sentences with prepositions and the like. And this situation -- that we don't teach our own language like we teach all other languages -- has been going on for a very long time.
We spend a few weeks in junior high diagramming sentences, which is a ham-fisted way of trying to sneak grammar in by the back door, and of little practical use. Occasionally, we correct students who demonstrate poor usage, like saying "Her and I went to town," but not so much any more. My acquaintance with teachers -- including teachers of English --and with students in the School of Education, has shown me that when they are not "on the clock," they speak like everybody else. In fact, many educated persons, even those with Masters degrees, will say, "her and I." I once knew a fellow who won a State-wide award as one of the best public school teachers in Indiana, who said things like, "I seen the cat clumb the tree."
Of course, local dialects have always been a thing in English. The English language has always existed as a dialect continuum, even from its origins in the Fifth Century. The various Germanic tribes who relocated to Britain in those days spoke mutually intelligible dialects, and there were always significant differences between them. No dialect is intrinsically better than any other, and every dialect has its own grammar as well as vocabulary. In the regions where people say, "I seen," they also frequently say, "I've saw" -- and they never make a mistake in this usage. On their own terms, they are strict followers of their local grammar.
We teach a standard English not because everybody speaks that way at home, but because it is the received standard for all speakers, regardless of where they come from or where their interlocutors come from. Standard English is useful to know. And the standard varies over time. Late West Saxon Old English was once the standard, but it was dispossessed by the Normal Conquest. When English re-emerged as the language of the writers and political elite, the East Midlands dialect of Middle English which is the basis of our language today was actually descended from Mercian Old English, not West Saxon. Today, American Standard English is different from British Standard English, and people in foreign countries have to decide which standard to teach and to learn.
All that said, English is, as a rule, very poorly taught in our schools. Many English teachers would rather teach literature than the mechanics of the language. And many English teachers themselves don't really understand English grammar all that well. Meanwhile, given the woke follies of our day, many teachers -- including teachers of English -- think that language can be used to reshape reality, rather than merely describe it. They teach not to liberate students by enlarging their capacity to express themselves, but to chain them to the political orthodoxy of the teachers by limiting their ability to express thoughts the teachers don't like. I note that teachers of foreign languages are less prone to this nonsense. They know they have to teach the target language as it actually is, and not as they would like it to be, for their students to get anything out of their classes at all. In other words, they have to teach grammar as if it were something worth learning.
The Boy Scouts these days have a lot of badges related to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics). STEM subjects are all the rage in schools these days, and the Scouts have picked up on the trend. I note that the USA still leads the world in STEM fields, and while these things are fun (who doesn't like Robotics?), there are things that are in worse shape than STEM instruction. What the Scouts really need is a Grammar Merit Badge.