[HN Gopher] Lingua Graeca Per Se Illustrata
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Lingua Graeca Per Se Illustrata
        
       Author : gone35
       Score  : 148 points
       Date   : 2022-12-29 12:11 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (seumasjeltzz.github.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (seumasjeltzz.github.io)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | yawboakye wrote:
       | first perhaps insignificant problem: lingua latina per se
       | illustrata is indeed the latin for, paraphrasing here, teaching
       | latin in latin. to borrow from this reference at all, the book
       | should have a comparative title in greek. the first problem with
       | learning greek is getting familiar with the alphabets and their
       | phonetics, a problem almost non-existent with latin since the
       | latin script is very widespread. regardless, i'll take it for a
       | spin. i've had polis' speaking greek as a living language
       | (https://www.polisjerusalem.org/resource/speaking-ancient-gre...)
       | sitting on my shelf but haven't had time to study.
        
         | schoen wrote:
         | It does have a corresponding Greek title: E Ellenike glossa
         | kath' auten photizomene (right at the top). I assume the use of
         | the Latin title is to help people who are familiar with Orberg
         | recognize immediately what this is.
        
       | blep_ wrote:
       | This is pretty great. I've often wished for the concept of LLPSI
       | in other languages, I'm glad someone is doing it.
       | 
       | Also, I should try working through LLPSI again.
        
       | ryyr wrote:
       | i encourage those interested to seek out Athenaze (in italian)
       | instead. i commend the effort put into this though
        
         | troad wrote:
         | Why in Italian? Athenaze has an English version as well. Is the
         | Italian version substantively different or improved?
        
           | notdang wrote:
           | yes, the content is very different. The Italian version is
           | more like what the subject of this post is, Orberg style.
           | 
           | The Italian edition is an expanded version of the original
           | textbook, but they don't have permission to sell it in other
           | markets.
        
         | notdang wrote:
         | As an alternative, there is the Spanish translation of the
         | Athenaze Italian edition, which is very close to the Italian
         | one, and not like the English one.
         | 
         | Currently slowly trying to go through it.
        
       | olah_1 wrote:
       | It is worth noting that there is another libre "natural method"
       | book called Salute, Jonathan.
       | 
       | https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Salute,_Jonathan!
       | 
       | Anyone can translate this into the language they are trying to
       | teach as well. However, it may work best for western european
       | style grammars, I am not sure.
        
       | yorwba wrote:
       | I was concerned that the Latin title might be a bad sign, but it
       | turns out the main title is E Ellenike glossa kath' auten
       | photizomene and the Latin is only an explanation for people who
       | are familiar with _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_.
        
       | mickeyp wrote:
       | This is clearly riffing on Orberg's _Lingua Latina per se
       | illustrata_ , which is a great introductory book to teaching
       | yourself Latin. There are no explanations of anything; you have
       | to deduce the meaning of the Latin phrases using the contextual
       | clues given to you in the form of pictures and maps. And it works
       | well.
        
         | throw0101c wrote:
         | Duolingo also has a Latin course:
         | 
         | * https://www.duolingo.com/course/la/en/Learn-Latin
         | 
         | Haven't tried it myself.
        
           | Quillbert182 wrote:
           | It is woefully inadequate. It uses exclusively the present
           | tense and misses the vast majority of the language's grammar.
        
           | giomasce wrote:
           | I am told by people who know better than me that it's quite
           | terrible.
        
             | quercusa wrote:
             | I tried it and I agree. (I've learned Greek and Hebrew via
             | classroom instruction.)
        
       | Klaster_1 wrote:
       | I only did Greek Language Transfer and Duolingo for a couple of
       | months, but some words and even sentences sampled at random do
       | make sense to me. Would you recommend the book to modern Greek
       | learners as reading material?
        
         | afthonos wrote:
         | Modern Greek speaker here. No. The grammar and syntax are
         | noticeably different, and the words are related but not the
         | same.
        
       | Bayart wrote:
       | Being a big fan of Orberg's work (I like to gift _Lingua latina
       | per se illustrata_ to friends), I 'll definitely check it out.
       | Having it as an epub is much appreciated !
        
       | narag wrote:
       | I can understand the first paragraph just fine. It's been forty
       | years since my year of Classic Greek. I still have the dictionary
       | somewhere, so it seems I could make use of it.
        
       | toto444 wrote:
       | I am making one for Japanese here :
       | https://drdru.github.io/stories/intro.html . It makes use of
       | emoji and pixel art to illustrate simple stories. The only thing
       | required of the reader is knowledge of Hiragana and Katakana.
       | 
       | It reached the HN frontpage a few years ago and I've kept working
       | on it since then. It now contains close to 100 pages (~500 words)
       | and everything has been proofread by a native speaker.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | buggythebug wrote:
       | How are you able to learn Greek with this??
        
       | anvandare wrote:
       | For reference: this book is obviously a (praiseworthy) ambition
       | to have a Greek counterpart to the Lingua Latina Per Se
       | Illustrata[1] by Hans Orberg.
       | 
       | Orberg's way of teaching Latin is, in my view, excellent because
       | it is based on a natural view of learning a language: show
       | something, say what its name is, use its name in simple
       | sentences, work up from there. Each time introducing new words
       | surrounded by already-known ones and letting the pupil figure it
       | out. All in the target language itself, exactly how we acquired
       | our mother tongues. Vocabulary is acquired through repetition,
       | grammar is acquired through "getting a feel for what sounds
       | right". Using the brain's own mechanisms for deducing meaning and
       | deriving rules.
       | 
       | The book is definitely going to need illustrations, just like in
       | LLPSI[2]. Hard to understand what 'polis' means per se, but not
       | if I take you up a mountain and point at [3] while saying
       | "polis".
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98rberg
       | 
       | [2] https://blog.nina.coffee/img/lingua-latina.png
       | 
       | [3]
       | https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/c3/10/f5c31074eeb418bc51e7...
        
         | marginalia_nu wrote:
         | Also worth pointing out that LLPSI is essentially Hans Orberg's
         | life's work. It's been adjusted and fine-tuned for decades, and
         | it really shows.
         | 
         | While at a surface level it looks fairly simple, it is no small
         | task to repeat the process with another language.
        
           | 082349872349872 wrote:
           | Giuseppi Peano tried to get people to learn an "unconjugated
           | latin" by writing mathematics in it. eg https://archive.org/d
           | etails/formulairedemat04peangoog/page/n... (mini rationale ht
           | tps://archive.org/details/formulairedemat04peangoog/page/n...
           | )
           | 
           | Maybe set theory wasn't the best way of introducing a
           | conlang, but I have to take my hat off for the weird flex.
        
             | toto444 wrote:
             | I am writing one for Japanese (I was not aware of LLPSI
             | when I started) and I use things that are common knowledge
             | to a lot of people like set theory. I have used a few
             | unusual things on the way.
             | 
             | I have recreated the UI of a fashion Ecommerce site such
             | that the user is so familiar with the button labels ('buy',
             | 'add to cart', 'recommended items') that they can easily
             | guess their meanings.
             | 
             | I teach HTML using simple Japanese. I make use of the fact
             | that "<span style="background-color: yellow;"> </span> "
             | uses English words but is not English. That allows me to
             | say things such as 'to change the background colour to
             | yellow you can add this tag' without using English. It's
             | definitely cheating but I have found that cheating is
             | actually good practice when it comes to help people guess
             | the meaning of words in a foreign language .
        
             | senkora wrote:
             | Huh, surprisingly readable.
        
         | RheingoldRiver wrote:
         | > Hard to understand what 'polis' means per se, but not if I
         | take you up a mountain and point at [3] while saying "polis".
         | 
         | This works in theory, I guess, but in practice it's just
         | absolutely awful. the Rosetta Stone courses work like this and
         | I spent about 6 months maybe? working through the Korean class.
         | I was only able to form my own sentences because I also bought
         | some grammar books that taught me about particles and the
         | "topic" of a sentence that you put -ga or -i after (depending
         | if it ends in a vowel or consonant) and several other similar
         | concepts.
         | 
         | But also, even pointing at an object or showing pictures didn't
         | work. I remember at one point being shown two pictures and
         | thinking I was being taught "behind" and a word that English
         | doesn't have, for "far behind." Ah, how interesting I thought!
         | Nope, not at all. It was "near" and "far." The only reason I
         | learned this is because I started screenshotting every slide to
         | an actual Korean friend I had and asking for translations of
         | every word (I'm sure I drove him crazy). The reason I stopped
         | doing the class in fact was that he wasn't always awake when I
         | wanted to do the lessons (ironically since he was Korean-
         | American and I was awake in the middle of the night usually lol
         | - if he'd lived in Korea our schedules would've aligned
         | better).
         | 
         | Anyway, after that experience I don't agree with this method at
         | all. Maybe complete immersion does work, _because people can
         | correct your misconceptions_ , but learning from a book without
         | any feedback is a horrible experience.
        
           | _a_a_a_ wrote:
           | Same here; a long while ago I tried to teach myself German
           | via rosetta and it was not good. I remember the point where I
           | gave up which was where 2 different words were used for food.
           | Food for an animal, and for a person [1] I just wondered if
           | there was a mistake, or what. A simple note saying 'yes there
           | are different words for this unlike in English'[2] but no. I
           | guess that was the final straw, I felt I was fighting
           | something very poorly designed and basically not doing its
           | job.
           | 
           | [1] Maybe it was 'to eat', I can't remember.
           | 
           | [2] In english there are actually different terms for human
           | and animal edibles used in some contexts, these being 'food'
           | and 'feed'
        
             | schoen wrote:
             | Probably "essen" (to eat, for a human) and "fressen" (to
             | eat, for other animals).
        
               | _a_a_a_ wrote:
               | That's was it, thanks!
        
           | tgv wrote:
           | Complete immersion has good results, but this is pseudo-
           | immersion at best. There are schools that teach following
           | similar methods as Lingua ... per se illustrata, and while
           | people do get the basics, I haven't heard from anybody that
           | reached fluency through it. Language is pretty complex, and
           | if you start out with the wrong idea about certain aspects,
           | without feedback, you're likely to repeat the error for the
           | rest of your life. Vocabulary is easily corrected, since
           | native speakers know how to, but they rarely correct
           | grammatical errors, and seldomly know the rules. Some
           | languages have it easier than others in this respect, of
           | course. E.g., English has small grammar and almost no
           | morphology.
           | 
           | Good feedback is important, and if there's no teacher, you
           | can correct yourself (to a certain extent) if the text book
           | also explains the rules.
        
             | AntoniusBlock wrote:
             | I learnt Latin with LLPSI 1. Though I must admit, LLPSI
             | wasn't the only resource I used. I had to use
             | latintutorial's* youtube videos (his videos are great btw)
             | to explain certain bits of grammar that I couldn't
             | understand on my own, like gerunds, gerundives and the
             | subjunctive mood with `ut' and `cum' clauses is what I
             | needed help with specifically, so you're right about people
             | only getting the basics or at least the things they can
             | make sense of on their own. I suppose LLPSI would be easier
             | for someone who has already taught themselves an Indo-
             | European language and is used to Indo-European grammar.
             | Latin, for me, was the first language I learned, so I had
             | jumped into the deep end. "Allen and Greenough's New Latin
             | Grammar" is another book I used occasionally (it's the best
             | Latin grammar book IMO). As for your comment on feedback,
             | if I can understand what I'm reading then that's all I'm
             | interested in. I'm only learning Latin to read ancient
             | Latin literature. I don't want to compose or translate
             | Latin. An example of feedback for me, would be to read a
             | page of Caesar's The Gallic War in Latin then read the same
             | page in English afterwards to see how close I was to
             | understanding everything. So far I've been close on almost
             | everything, so the feedback I'm getting is that I'm reading
             | Latin the way it was written 2000 years ago.
             | 
             | Here's what I read in order:
             | 
             | LLPSI with Colloquia Personarum, Pugio Bruti (waste of time
             | btw) and Fabulae Syrae. After that I read Epitome Historiae
             | Sacrae, the Vulgate, Fabulae Faciles, Ad Alpes, Julius
             | Caesar's Invasion of Britain and half of LLPSI 2. Currently
             | I'm reading The Gallic War. I also started studying German
             | at the start of this year using the book "German for
             | Reading" by Karl Sandberg which is taking up 1 hour per day
             | of my time so I can't spend 2 hours on Latin per day which
             | is what I was doing from 2020 to early 2022. I wouldn't say
             | I'm fluent at all, but on a good day I can comfortably read
             | Caesar (with a dictionary).
             | 
             | My goal since the start (January 2020) has been to read
             | Ovid's Metamorphoses, which hasn't worked out yet, but it's
             | a work in progress.
             | 
             | * Big shoutout to LatinTutorial/Benjamin:
             | 
             | https://www.youtube.com/@latintutorial
        
               | tgv wrote:
               | One point for the discussion: learning to read is not the
               | same as learning to speak. The latter is considerably
               | more difficult.
        
               | RheingoldRiver wrote:
               | oh yeah that was another thing with Rosetta Stone that
               | drove me crazy - their speech recognition software was
               | _not good_. I eventually started skipping the speech
               | lessons altogether because it simply would not accept my
               | input. Instead I practiced repeating after the example
               | speaker during the other lessons, and speaking my own
               | sentences out loud when I was  "composing" them when
               | working from grammar books. But, again, what I really
               | needed was a teacher and a class.
               | 
               | On a different note, for the one language that I did
               | learn and used to be relatively fluent in after 6 years
               | of taking classes in school (Spanish), I can still
               | somewhat converse in via writing, but I can't speak it at
               | all anymore really. They're totally different skills.
        
               | AntoniusBlock wrote:
               | 100% agree. If `pure input' people, like Stephen Krashen
               | and Steve Kaufmann, are to be believed then output (like
               | speaking and writing) would eventually come after lots
               | and lots and lots and lots of reading and listening, but
               | I'm a bit skeptical.
        
           | svat wrote:
           | You're describing a bad experience you had with a specific
           | course (Rosetta Stone's Korean), and this data point is a
           | useful warning, but generalizing from it to say that the
           | method itself is "in practice it's just absolutely awful" and
           | "a horrible experience" -- when replying to a post about
           | _Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata_ , which many people have
           | tried and absolutely enjoyed, and indeed successfully learned
           | Latin from.
           | 
           | All that this shows is that a course using this method can be
           | either well-designed or not (possibly depending on the
           | language and learner), and we don't know which one the
           | current Greek one is.
        
             | RheingoldRiver wrote:
             | That's fair, I'd appreciate hearing from someone who
             | actually did the Latin curriculum and learned Latin from it
             | if they managed to do it without additional resources to
             | learn e.g. case endings from a text written in English.
             | 
             | Part of my reason for commenting is also that language-
             | learning is something that a lot of people want to do but
             | is extremely difficult to do & stick with outside of a
             | structured environment/with a teacher. If you truly want to
             | pursue it, I think finding an online class is going to help
             | you considerably more than a self-guided curriculum like
             | this; I probably should've mentioned that before. I wish
             | I'd done that for Korean.
        
               | troad wrote:
               | You are entirely correct in your criticism of Rosetta
               | Stone, but LLPSI genuinely takes a very different
               | approach. (I've done both, though for different
               | languages.) LLPSI is carefully structured, precisely to
               | teach things like declension and conjugation. As an
               | example, this is very first line:
               | 
               |  _Roma in Italia est. Italia in Europa est. Graecia in
               | Europa est. Italia et Graecia in Europa sunt._
               | 
               | This is not what most people mean by immersion. It's not
               | a natural dialogue you're expected to understand by
               | osmosis, it's an extremely carefully designed series of
               | sentences aimed at manually bootstrapping your Latin. The
               | book contains grammar explanations - wholly in Latin -
               | from chapter 2 onwards. Every chapter has a grammatical
               | concept it's designed to illustrate, and it manages to
               | introduce fairly complex ideas - passive conjugations!
               | ablative declensions! - in a deeply intuitive way,
               | entirely in Latin. It's an incredibly satisfying course.
               | If you have any interest in Latin at all, or are just
               | looking for a New Year's Resolution, I would heartily
               | recommend it.
        
               | RheingoldRiver wrote:
               | That's interesting actually. It suggests that a major
               | reason this works is because of its cognates with English
               | that give you a starting point. So for example, a native
               | Korean speaker would really struggle to learn from this
               | curriculum, and the strategy wouldn't work very well to
               | learn Korean. I wonder if it's possible at all to convey
               | enough with pictures to design a curriculum like this
               | when you don't have the help of cognates.
        
               | troad wrote:
               | Cognates and illustrations definitely assist, and the
               | book uses both freely. Chapter 1 begins with a map, for
               | example. It's a very clever strategy, one especially well
               | suited for teaching Latin to people already speaking an
               | Indo-European language.
               | 
               | I imagine it would be less useful to people who speak a
               | language that doesn't share the features of Latin. A map
               | isn't going to be of much use if one's native language
               | doesn't have the concept of plurals, and one therefore
               | struggles to comprehend the est / sunt distinction
               | altogether. Then again, English doesn't conjugate verbs,
               | and English speakers tend to be big fans of LLPSI. To its
               | credit, it reinforces very well. The rest of chapter 1 is
               | basically spent on variations of the above grammar point,
               | introducing new nouns but reusing those two verb forms ad
               | nauseam.
               | 
               | I too wonder how well this could be achieved without
               | relying on language similarity. I suppose it would be
               | possible, but it may need to rely heavily on logic
               | (maths?) or extra-linguistic reasoning (e.g. map reading,
               | or timetable reading)? The trick seems to be to tap into
               | pre-existing adult skills, which is what I think sets
               | LLPSI apart from "immersion" approaches.
        
               | gnubison wrote:
               | The book also includes a map of the places mentioned, at
               | the time of Classical Latin that the narrative is set in.
               | I'm only about half way through, but there really aren't
               | _that_ many cognates. An aha! moment every so often, sure
               | -- like _silere_ - > _silens_ - > _silentem_ - > silent
               | -- but it's not like I read through and it only makes
               | sense because of cognates.
        
               | schoen wrote:
               | An interesting thing about LLPSI is that it does include
               | abstract discussion of grammatical rules and concepts -
               | in Latin, once readers have learned enough to permit
               | following the discussion.
               | 
               | So it's not just learning from example and trying to pick
               | up grammatical rules intuitively. Like when I took my
               | German class, it was taught by immersion but included
               | discussions, conducted in German, of how grammatical
               | rules work. LLPSI is also attempting to do that kind of
               | thing.
        
           | dwringer wrote:
           | I used a rosetta stone course as a supplement to several
           | semesters of studying Spanish in school, and while I can't
           | disagree with you about the necessity of other methods to
           | learn certain concepts, I think it helped me considerably
           | with getting enough fluency to do well in university courses.
           | Granted, I had already taken some courses in Spanish already;
           | I was not trying to pick up grammar rules from scratch.
        
             | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
             | Rosetta Stone only works well with romance languages.
             | Anything with alien grammar isn't going to be picked up
             | without some explanation.
        
         | JoeyBananas wrote:
         | I think Orberg is too extreme. His approach would work better
         | with just a little bit of english thrown in to explain things.
         | Reading his books, I often found myself looking things up
         | anyway.
        
           | thom wrote:
           | I used Jeanne Neumann's companion text as a jumping off point
           | into deeper stuff (and because at least a couple of times
           | with just the original text, I spent several pages with the
           | wrong idea for a word and felt embarrassed).
        
           | schoen wrote:
           | Hans Orberg was Danish, so it might have been Danish rather
           | than English if he had decided to include a modern language!
           | 
           | Even though it's often claimed to be appropriate for self-
           | study, I think Orberg thought that the commonest way it would
           | be used was with a teacher, who would either teach by
           | immersion (I've met people who used it that way) or by
           | speaking a modern language to the students. I'm sure one
           | thing he saw as a benefit to the Latin-only texts is that
           | they could potentially be used by people all over the world,
           | regardless of their native language, without having to be
           | translated or localized for different audiences.
        
       | bshimmin wrote:
       | Thank you for posting this! I gave myself a pat on the back for
       | being able to get through the first chapter unaided thanks to my
       | A-Level in Greek _mumble_ years ago...
        
       | Jun8 wrote:
       | What a surprise! I was always envious that Orberg's famous book
       | and approach had no counterpart for Ancient Greek. In fact in
       | every bookstore I've checked books on learning Latin far
       | outnumber those for Greek, if those exist at all. I learned Greek
       | from Grouton's _From Alpha to Omega_ , a totally unappetizing
       | book.
       | 
       | The reason, I think, for the difference is that, while there's a
       | robust tradition of using Latin in modern settings and a
       | modernized vocabulary (see the many references given here:
       | http://blogicarian.blogspot.com/2019/03/argumentum-ad-ignora...),
       | the same is not true for Greek, which is a pity.
       | 
       | If you still have some resolutions to make for 2023 let this post
       | be a sign to pick learning Greek! The book that's most
       | recommended to start with is Athenaze. Also, you can use the
       | great and friendly community at Textkit
       | (https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/) it also has texts of
       | many good resource books. And there's also the Perseus Digital
       | Library with the goal of making all Greek material available:
       | http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
        
       | agravier wrote:
       | The idea seems cool but I don't understand how this is meant to
       | be used in practice, for a beginner. As support for a structured
       | course?
        
         | ikurei wrote:
         | > Can I use LGPSI to teach myself Greek? Honestly, not yet.
         | Would I like LGPSI to get to the point where you could entirely
         | use it, by itself, by yourself, to learn Greek (as you can do
         | with LLPSI)? Yes, certainly. It's not at that point, and I
         | don't expect it to reach that point especially quickly.
         | 
         | https://seumasjeltzz.github.io/LinguaeGraecaePerSeIllustrata...
        
           | giomasce wrote:
           | I wonder how they are going to make it easier to understand
           | the Greek alphabet. With LLPSI at least it can be given for
           | granted that the great part of readers will be able to decode
           | the Latin alphabet (and, say, understand what "Roma",
           | "Italia" and "Europa" are even if they don't know Latin yet),
           | given that English, Spanish and French made it (in different
           | ages) the "alphabetus francus" for basically the whole world.
           | That seems much less obvious with the Greek alphabet.
        
             | tgflynn wrote:
             | It's really not that hard to learn the Greek alphabet. It's
             | just 24 letters almost all of which represent sounds common
             | in English. I'm currently learning the devanagari script
             | for Sanskrit, which isn't exactly an alphabet, and it's a
             | much steeper climb, though I think I'm making progress.
        
             | yorwba wrote:
             | Someone could record an audiobook version so people can
             | read along and figure out the sound values on the fly.
        
             | schoen wrote:
             | I wonder if you could find people or objects whose Greek
             | names would be familiar to enough readers, and have a
             | section with pictures and the names written out. Like
             | 
             | Aa, Alexandros - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/com
             | mons/0/00/Alejandr...
             | 
             | or
             | 
             | Aa, Athenai - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acropolis_of_At
             | hens#/media/Fil... (although some readers might assume that
             | the word illustrated is Akropolis rather than Athenai)
             | 
             | I'm not sure there are famous-enough ancient Greek people,
             | places, or things to use for each letter, though.
             | Optimistically, you could _maybe_ have a few gods, a few
             | philosophers, a very few places (on a map?), and then you
             | might be stuck. Even using Homer brings in a challenge,
             | because beginners won 't yet know about the rough breathing
             | mark and most would expect his name to begin with an H
             | letter, as in Latin, rather than an O letter, as it does in
             | Greek.
             | 
             | You could try to use things where a loanword from ancient
             | Greek is still used with exactly the same meaning in most
             | modern European languages (like perimetros for the outside
             | of a circle), but this might turn out to depend a little
             | too much on people's native languages and prior education.
             | 
             | A slightly weird compromise might be to use Latin
             | transliterations alongside each word at first, like you
             | could have the picture of Alexander and say
             | Alexandros       Alexandros
             | 
             | or of Athens and say                 Athenai       Athenai
        
       | ogogmad wrote:
       | It would be amazing if there was something like this for Mishnaic
       | Hebrew and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Classical Arabic too. Super
       | helpful!
        
         | tgflynn wrote:
         | My vote would be for Sanskrit, though I'm very pleased a Greek
         | version exists.
        
           | klht wrote:
           | It exists, and it's very good.
           | 
           | https://en.amarahasa.com/
        
             | tgflynn wrote:
             | Thanks, I've actually looked at that a bit (though there
             | seem to be some recent additions I hadn't seen). It seems
             | like a somewhat different experience. With the Latin
             | version there seems to be enough vocabulary overlap that I,
             | knowing only English and French, could pretty much follow
             | along with very little help. I guess there's less
             | vocabulary overlap between English and Sanskrit so it's a
             | bit harder. It's very good to have the web interface where
             | you can click on a word to get the translation. One thing
             | that would be nice to have, since I'm also learning
             | devanagari, would be to have the popup include the
             | romanized text when the main script is set to devanagari.
        
         | giomasce wrote:
         | It's not precisely what you're asking for, but according to my
         | wife this introduction to Biblical Hebrew is great:
         | https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkKmeTinUEU27syZPKrzWQQ
        
       | fcatalan wrote:
       | I clicked, not really sure what it was about and started reading
       | the first paragraph, armed only with my STEM-derived knowledge of
       | the alphabet and I got it instantly. So it seems to work. Very
       | interesting concept.
        
         | drexlspivey wrote:
         | It's like bootstraping a compiler
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-29 23:00 UTC)