Studying latin is useless or not?

>>2213479
Unless you want to read classical literature in its original language, no.

It depends entirely on what career you plan on going into.

In academia or in pharmacology, Latin is fairly useful. Outside of that, not so much.

>>2213479
Knowledge is an end in itself. There is no 'reason' to know anything, except the pleasure of it.

Greek and Latin are fairly useful in history (obviously), literature, science, and linguistics.

I'm currently working on my Sanskrit; there's a dead language for you.

Its entirely useless unless you're going for academic career.

>>2213479
It is probably useless but im taking it this semester. I could be wrong but I took it because I really enjoy learning word roots and grammar rules. I probably should've taken german but oh well

>>2213479
I had it a lot easier in medicine with 5 years of Latin in school.

>>2213479
My math teacher in high school was made to learn Latin and regretted it since no one speaks it and would've preferred to have learned Spanish.
Latin and Greek are widely studied in western developed countries and many European languages have Graeco-Roman vocabulary.
Indic and Chinese languages are a more obscure field in the West.

File: deus vult.jpg (207KB, 600x320px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 600x320px

>>2213479
Absolutely.
>Roman sources (duh)
>medieval sources
>catholic sources
>academic sources until 1800
>academic terminology
>helpful in understanding linguistics in general
Persons underappreciating Latin on a history board make a complete fool out of themselves.

>>2213479
I learned it for 4 years on highschool and the only uses were:
>easier to learn Italian
would be better to start right with Italian tho
>understood some phrases on uni
>can act smug

>>2214244
> the only uses were:
> the only uses *for you* were:

Outside of studying history, Latin has a fair amount of uses.
Think of the fact that a lot of Latin words and roots form the names of substances in chemistry and biology for instance.
Furthermore, as has been stated it makes it easier to learn some certain languages like Italian.
Also just that its useful to know in every day speech.

>>2213479
It's only for tryhards that want to go into classics. The average person gains nothing from it.

>>2214402
How does knowing the latin names of things in science improve your ability to do it? Most of the times the names are completely arbitrary.

>>2214764
>Most of the times the names are completely arbitrary
Completely wrong.

>>2214764
No, in biology it's used to describe species that either have 50 common names or no common names at all.
Serves as an universal languge in many cases.

You can understand some of the terms that are being used in current acedemics without actually learning about them. I know little latin and i think it is useful.

Isn't learning Latin basically just verbal LARPing?

I've been told repeatedly that "modern" Latin is just what we believe the language sounded like as opposed to what it actually sounded like due to there being no native speakers alive.

>>2217005
Learning any language besides English is LARP'ing at the point anon.

>>2217005
>I've been told repeatedly that "modern" Latin is just what we believe the language sounded like as opposed to what it actually sounded like due to there being no native speakers alive.
No, we have a very good idea of what it sounded like.

>>2217046

Got any sources to back that up?

I had in for 4 years in highschool and hated it, but i like it now.
Its easier to learn languages and you can understand maby technical terms
You also look smart when you can translate stuff written on old buildings :^]

>>2217070
Look it up yourself. There is overwhelming evidence for our understanding of Latin pronunciation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation

>>2217005
Considering the most important utility of learning Latin is being able to read ancient sources knowing how it sounded is largely irrelevant.

File: 1481697652942.jpg (122KB, 540x668px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 540x668px

>>2213479
Being able to read primary sources instead of being limited to other people's biased digests or (often awful) translations is very useful.

Of course these days people are familiar with a topic if they've heard of it, moderately knowledgeable if they've skimmed the Wikipedia article about it, and experts if they've read a few sections of said article, so it's understandable that reading primary sources seems unnecessary to such titans of intellectual achievement.

>>2217070
Nigger we even have an accurate approximation of what Proto-Indo-European sounded like. They had reconstructed that dead language even though nobody spoke it for millennia, but linguists still managed to do it.

>>2217822
>accurate
How do you know?

>>2217965
Evidence.

You have no evidence of its inaccuracy.

>>2217965
Linguists have made predictions that were later shown to be correct by archaeological findings.

>>2218133
That's interesting, can you share any examples?

>>2218572
I believe he's referring to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngeal_theory#History

>>2218572
A golden horn in Denmark was found with not-before-seen words that turned out to be as linguists assumed. Specifically the word "gastiz" on the horn for "guest" contains an "i" by which it is different from all recorded Germanic languages that do not contain this vowel. It was, however, predicted by linguists that proto-germanic would indeed have it, because it derives from the (reconstructed) PIE of "ghosti".

Source: "The horse, wheel, and language" by D.W. Anthony

>>2218090
>>2218133
PIE is useful, but it's pronunciation (or rather, it's relation to the pronunciation of any real language in a real point in time) is essentially speculative.

Latin is an extremely logical language. It's not like english where it lends itself to different pronounciations, ways of saying things, slang etc.

The nature of the language is rigid and logical. It's very likely the way latin is heard today is the way it has always been.

>>2213479
whether it is useless or not is the wrong question imo. not everything you do in your life has to be "useful" (whatever that means). personally, i would ask myself whether or not i am interested in it. If i find that i am not, then i won't study it, if i find that i am, then i will.

i learned latin in high school and i enjoyed it a lot. knowing latin has definitely made my life richer and has given me a deeper understanding of the world around me.
i think there is a lot to gain from studying latin
especially if you're into history and therefore appreciate the fact that everything in our world is the way it is because of historical developments, which is true for language as much as any other aspect of life. Studying an ancient language, especially if it is one as influential as latin, not only gives you a glimpse into ancient roman society which in many ways is one of the foundations of our civilization but also into the history of the words that unconsciously flow out of your mouth every day (at least if you speak english or a romance language). language is like a museum and if you care to look you can find traces in it that people from all ages and places left in it.


all this being said, you will still have to learn declination paradigms if you want to become proficient in latin and it won't always be easy and fun but it will definitely be rewarding.
just imagine that you will be able to read THE EXACT words that caesar or cicero or augustine put together thousands of years ago and understand them! to follow the line of thought of these people who are so distant from you and who you can never meet in exactly the ways they constructed it.

>>2219609
True. But we know exactly how classical Latin was pronounced. That was the question.